Within Protestantism there is no universal definition of theology or how to understand the Bible: Anglicans have one definition, Lutherans another, Calvinists another, (insert name here), etc.
So upon what basis can Protestants insist that some teaching contradicts the Bible objectively, and not only according to their own personal understanding of the Bible (which most would admit could be wrong)?
And if all you have is your personal interpretation, upon what basis does anyone call anything a heresy, and those who hold it "heretics"? One has to be surer than 'I interpret it this way' in order to start condemning contrary interpretations with any note of seriousness.
I've heard a lot responses things like 'His sheep hear His voice,' which in the first place is able to be claimed by two contradictory sides of a matter and not be falsifiable (it essentially is saying 'well, God knows who's right, and I think it's me!'), and secondly, circularly assumes that 'His sheep hear His voice' is to be interpreted specifically in a way which means that it pertains to the interpretation of the Bible.
Similar are claims of having the 'personal guidance of the Holy Spirit,' which is similar or identical to the argument above. But again, this, while helpful to someone personally, doesn't provide a basis for say, calling others heretics based on that interpretation. Something that the New Testament says is possible.
Worst of all, I've even heard things like 'I don't even interpret the Bible,' ('I skip the stage where I have to account for my interpretation objectively altogether') which is impressive ... in a bad way.
None of these are impressive to me, and they do not withstand the most basic scrutiny.
Can any Protestant provide a sola scriptura epistemology which doesn't rely on such dubious, unfalsifiable arguments?