Do Church Divisions Invalidate Sola Scriptura?

• Defining The Issues:

          -Sola Ecclesia is the Latin term that describes the Roman Catholic belief that the church, not Scripture, is the final authority in religious matters. The Church of Rome touts itself to be the true church established by Jesus Christ, who appointed the Apostle Peter as its first pope. Thus, Rome demands from its members complete and unquestioned submission to its authority. The bishops in harmony with the pope infallibly interpret the Scriptures in order to preserve unity and truth.
          -Consequently, the Church of Rome claims that Christians who rely on the Bible alone for teaching and correcting doctrinal error rather than the Magisterium will inevitably end up in a state of hopeless confusion. Irreconcilable doctrinal contradictions will exist for which there is no remedy but an infallible teaching authority. No one can know anything for sure because no one is infallible. Thus, the meaning of Scripture must be unpacked by an earthly organization.

          -The claim that we need an infallible interpreter of Scripture is essentially the same as saying that the Bible is too difficult for the average person to understand. Both ideas use the same logic in their premises in order to reach the same conclusion. If the basic message of Scripture is plain enough for us to grasp on our own, then why would we need an infallible interpreter in the first place? If Christ entrusted the preservation of His teaching to an infallible office, then why do we even have a Bible?

          -"...no one, relying on his own skill, shall, in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures, hath held and doth hold," (Trent, Session 4, "Decree Concerning the Edition, and the Use, of the Sacred Books")

          - "Q. Are the doctrines of the Catholic Church then entirely independent of Scripture? A. They are; because she taught her doctrines, and they were believed by the early Christians before the New Testament was written—centuries, indeed, before the Bible was collected into its present form; and she would have done so, in precisely the same manner, had they never been written." (Familiar Explanation of Christian Doctrine, Michael Müller)

          -“...the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the Holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.” (CCC # 82)

• Biblical Evidence For The Doctrine Of Perspicuity:

          -The doctrine of perspicuity, the belief that Scripture is sufficiently clear for believers to understand its essential truths, finds strong support throughout the biblical narrative. From kings to commoners, the Word of God has proven accessible to those who approach it with humility and faith. Consider King Josiah, who came to repentance upon hearing the rediscovered Book of the Law read aloud (2 Kings 22:8–13). There was no infallible interpreter guiding him, only the words of Scripture, which convicted his heart and led to national reform. Similarly, Psalm 119:97–105 celebrates the transformative power of meditating on God’s Word, declaring that it grants more wisdom than even teachers and elders. This is not a call to abandon instruction, but a testimony to the clarity and sufficiency of Scripture for guiding the faithful.
          -The Apostle Paul reinforces this principle in his epistles. In Ephesians 3:3–5, he affirms that the mystery of the gospel can be understood simply by reading what he wrote. In 2 Corinthians 1:13–14, he assures believers that his letters are not cryptic or inaccessible, but written plainly for their understanding. This presumes that the average Christian, not just clergy or scholars, can grasp the core message of salvation and godliness.
          -Moreover, the New Testament epistles were overwhelmingly addressed to entire congregations, not just church leaders. With the exception of 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus, letters like Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, and others were written to all believers (Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:2; etc.). This widespread audience implies that Scripture was meant to be read, understood, and obeyed by the whole church, not filtered through an exclusive interpretive office.
          -Throughout the New Testament, believers are urged to read and respond to Scripture directly. The Bereans were commended for examining the Scriptures daily to verify Paul’s teachings (Acts 17:11). Paul instructed churches to circulate his letters and ensure they were read publicly (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27). These commands presuppose that Scripture is not only readable but comprehensible to ordinary Christians.
          -Even during Jesus’ earthly ministry, His teachings were understood by the common people, many of whom were poor, uneducated, or marginalized. He praised the Father for revealing truth to “babes” rather than the wise and learned (Matthew 11:25), and His audience often responded with understanding and amazement (Matthew 13:51; Mark 12:37). Not once do we see an infallible interpreter standing beside Him to clarify His words. The implication is clear: God’s truth is accessible to all who seek it with a sincere heart.
          -In sum, Scripture consistently affirms its own clarity. While teachers and elders play a vital role in guiding and equipping the church, the essential message of the Bible is not locked behind ecclesiastical authority. It is a lamp to our feet and a light to our path, meant to be read, understood, and obeyed by all who belong to Christ.

• We Cannot Understand Scripture Unless Someone Explains It To Us (Acts 8:28-38)?:

          -There are people with authority to teach in the church. In fact, the doctrine of perspicuity does not mean that all portions of Scripture are equally clear or easy to understand. We may very well need things explained to us at times. However, this text says nothing about the concept of teaching infallibly or that only an infallible interpretation of Scripture would suffice for the confused Eunuch.
          -The Eunuch was from far away (i.e. Ethiopia), and he had apparently not been given a chance to hear about the teachings of the gospel. Philip, who was at the right place at the right time by the power of the Holy Spirit, was given the opportunity to explain Isaiah 53. The Eunuch was confused simply because he did not know who the prophet Isaiah was referring to (v. 34). The gospel was not spread out back in the day, as it is today. That is what this text is about.

• No Prophecy Of Scripture Is Of Any Private Interpretation (2 Peter 1:20)?:

          -How can a person develop a biblical argument against the principle of Sola Scriptura by making a personal interpretation of a verse that allegedly condemns private interpretation of Scripture?
          -How can a person rely on prophecy or compare Scripture to a "light" (v. 19), if they have been forbidden to use it (v. 20)?
          -The context of 2 Peter 1:20-21 is not speaking of one's reading of Scripture, but rather concerns the origin of Scripture. No true prophecy was given to the prophet by his own interpretation. Prophecy originated directly from God. It is not a product of our imaginations.

• People Twisting The Scriptures To Their Own Destruction (2 Peter 3:15-16)?:

          -First of all, this text merely states that SOME things in Paul's epistles are hard to understand. It does not even specify which parts those are. This simply means that we need to pray and study Scripture more diligently.

          -This text says that people "twist the Scriptures to THEIR OWN destruction" (v. 16, emphasis added), which indicates that we are responsible for how we handle the Word of God.
          -2 Peter 3:15-16 is only speaking of the unfaithful and the unbelieving, not the humble and prayerful Christian.
          -Although the context of 2 Peter 3 would have been a great place to introduce the concept of an infallible teaching authority, it is not mentioned at all.

• Do We Need Some Special Authority In Order To Make Interpretations Of Scripture?:

          -Interpreting biblical texts is not so much a matter of personal authority, but rather something God expects us to do. This does not mean that ministers in local congregations have no special authority to teach at all. The written text is clear enough for readers to obtain truths related to salvation and godliness. God does not require that we understand Him infallibly, since we are but finite creations. Further, we can have sufficient certainty behind the meaning of Scripture on our own. However, this is not to suggest that we can interpret biblical texts in any way that we desire. We should examine Scripture in its context, use our common sense, consult commentaries, etc. The claim that fallible humans require an infallible interpreter of biblical texts inadvertently assumes that truth cannot be known unless perfectly understood. But Scripture itself never demands infallibility from its readers, only faithfulness, humility, and diligence. God expects us to seek truth through study, prayer, and community, not to outsource understanding to an institution. Fallibility does not equal futility. It simply means we must approach Scripture with care, not surrender our judgment entirely.

• Reflections On Religious Division:

          -Jesus Christ desires unity in the church. His will is that we be one in the Spirit. Christ despises factions amongst His people, with the existence of such indicating carnality. Since truth is of utmost importance, it ought to be sought after and protected at all costs. However, we are imperfect beings, and things are not always clearly defined in Scripture.

          -There are scenarios in which division is necessary: “For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you” (1 Corinthians 11:19). Further, even if an infallible interpreter of Scripture would simplify matters for us, that does not mean God has given us one. That our interpretations can be wrong does not mean they are always wrong, they are prone to be so most of the time, or that fallible reasoning abilities cannot discover truth accurately on their own.

          -In places with millions of people where freedom of speech and freedom of religion exists, there will inevitably be diversity of beliefs. That is simply a logical consequence of being in a free society. In order to obtain the organizational conformity that Rome requires, there would have to be coercion, threats, and intimidation involved. Getting different people to agree completely on every issue is not a realistic goal to strive for in the first place.

          -Essential doctrines that are clearly or repeatedly defined in Scripture would include the virgin birth, sinlessness of Christ, deity of Christ, the veracity of His miracles, the sinfulness of man, the resurrection of Jesus, among other things. Doctrines that are of secondary importance would include women's head coverings, musical instruments in church, modes of baptism, etc. 

• Is Roman Catholicism A Theologically Divided Body?:

          -While the Church of Rome may appear to be fairly unified because it is organized under the headship of the pope, the unity to which Catholics appeal is largely exaggerated. There are significant theological differences among the Catholic laity, priests, scholars, theologians, and bishops. There are entire societies, movements, and orders within the chambers of Roman Catholicism. There are liberal and conservative Catholics. Although these divisions are hidden under the Roman Catholic hierarchy, theological differences still exist and merit our attention.
          -Many Roman Catholics are unlearned in regards to the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church. Many flatly contradict official teachings on issues such as abortion, artificial birth control, the death penalty, homosexuality, on whether priests should be married, letting females join the priesthood, stem-cell research, and more. Roman Catholics are divided over creation versus evolution, the material sufficiency of Scripture, charismatic occurrences, and whether practicing Jews and Muslims can be saved without conversion. Catholic theologians are even divided over the interpretation of Vatican II documents.
          -Roman Catholicism is a group that is lead by a single human leader and occupies the same title all throughout its domain (i.e. "Roman Catholic"), whereas Protestantism is made up of individual churches with different labels. Protestantism is not an ecclesiastical structure like Rome. Therefore, it is misleading to compare both systems in this regard. Further, the principle of Sola Scriptura was never intended to bring about complete agreement of thought on every issue.

• Refuting The 33,000 Protestant Denominations Myth:

          -Scott Eric Alt, at the National Catholic Register, said in regard to the claim that there are tens of thousands of Protestant denominations: “There are not—repeat with me—there are not 33,000 Protes­tant denom­i­na­tions. There are not any­where close to it. It is a myth that has taken hold by force of rep­e­ti­tion, and it gets cited and recited by reflex; but it is based on a source that, even Catholics will have to con­cede, relies on too loose a def­i­n­i­tion of the word “denom­i­na­tion.”…How­ever strong the temp­ta­tion some may have to char­ac­ter­ize any­thing not Catholic or Ortho­dox as “Protes­tant,” you can’t do that. All that tells Protes­tant apol­o­gists is that you don’t know what Protes­tantism is, or what its dis­tinc­tives are—and they would be right. And why would they take any­thing you say seriously after that? If you don’t know what Protes­tantism is, who are you to be talk­ing about its errors? Not only are Mor­mons, Jehovah’s Wit­nesses, One­ness Pen­te­costals, Uni­tar­i­ans, Pros­per­ity Gospel believ­ers (included among 23,600 Inde­pen­dents and Mar­gin­als) not Protes­tant, they are not even Chris­t­ian; they adhere to a false Chris­tol­ogy. Protes­tants and Catholics are in agree­ment about who Christ is; these other groups have other ideas.”

          -In reality, the vast majority of Protestant churches, whether Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican, or Reformed, share a common foundation of essential Christian convictions. These include the inspiration and authority of Scripture, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, the necessity of personal repentance and faith, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the reality of final judgment, and the priesthood of all believers. While differences exist in areas such as church governance, worship style, or views on spiritual gifts, these are typically secondary matters. Such distinctions do not amount to doctrinal chaos. The real concern is not the number of denominational labels, but whether each church faithfully upholds the gospel and teaches the Word of God. Structural unity does not guarantee doctrinal purity, and diversity in form does not preclude unity in truth. Therefore, the focus should remain on whether Scripture is being rightly interpreted, Christ is being faithfully proclaimed, and believers are being equipped to walk in obedience.

          -The inflated number often cited includes not only distinct theological traditions but also individual congregations, mission organizations, and even regional church networks that share identical beliefs and practices. For example, a Baptist church in Texas and another in Kenya may be counted as separate “denominations” simply because they are geographically distinct or administratively independent, even though they affirm the same doctrinal statements. This method of counting exaggerates fragmentation by conflating organizational autonomy with theological division. True denominational diversity should be measured by substantial doctrinal differences, not by the number of church buildings or administrative structures.