If you want to say that liberal Christians count as part of disunity, then I guess the Roman Catholics are not unified because you have people like John Dominic Crossan claim to be Catholic.
There’s a couple major differences between a “liberal Catholic” and a “liberal Protestant”.
First, a liberal Catholic still needs to stay within the framework of Catholic teaching. Otherwise, they risk excommunication for heresy. They can also, like Crossan, just stop identifying as Catholic and remove themselves from full communion.
Second, those liberal Catholics are still answerable to Rome and can still be disciplined, perhaps the point of excommunication, from the Catholic Church.
In contrast, a Protestant isn’t really answerable to anyone. Yes, he can be kicked out of his church, assuming that that church practices discipline, but he is still a Protestant. For instance, someone in a conservative Presbyterian denomination like the PCA marry their same-sex partner. The denomination may discipline them, but they can just jump to a more liberal Presbyterian denomination like the PCUSA. Not only are they still Protestant, but they’re still Presbyterian! All that’s really changed is who they can vote for.
That’s part of the issue with Protestant disunity. There is no real authority, and discipline as Jesus outlined in Matthew 18:15-20 is mostly rendered moot.
Show me in scripture where a “church” needs to be there to interpret in order for the Holy Spirit to do its work.
1 Timothy 3:15 does declare the Church as the “pillar and foundation of truth”. That would indicate that the Church is meant as the one to uphold and proclaim truth. From a more logical standpoint, there’s this wonderful quote from St. Vincent of Lerins:
Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation? For this reason — because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters…Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.
As another point, where in Scripture does it say that the Church isn’t the authority on Scriptural interpretation or that it lies solely in the individual? You can’t just make a “where in Scripture” argument unless your own position is Scripturally supported. Otherwise, we’re left with an
argument from ignorance.
With that said, where in Scripture does Scripture declare itself as the
sole source of Divine revelation, as
sola scriptura claims?
