>>> There is no mechanism within Protestantism to correct error. <<<<
That is not the case. Scripture is what is to be used to correct error. Compare a teaching to Scripture and see if Scripture supports it.
Will there be disagreements? Of course, for several reasons.
One of which is that the enemy is always going to be trying to introduce false teachings. He did from the very inception of the church.
Another is that not all believers are at the same level of spiritual maturity and teaching as each other. Some may have been brought up in a church that had really bad teaching and may have to unlearn it. That takes time and the enlightening work of the Holy Spirit. But if they err in something, that does not mean they are not saved either.
Another is the area already mentioned about disputable matters, such as drinking or dancing, or the day you worship on or eating meat sacrificed to idols.
God does not demand doctrinal unity for salvation. Churches do that.
God’s criteria for salvation is faith in Christ. If someone is wrong in an area, it’s God’s primary responsibility to correct that whether He uses simply reading Scripture and seeing it for yourself, or another person to do the correcting.
And again, someone could have all the creeds and catechisms memorized word perfect and what does it gain them? Are they more spiritual for it? More mature? Is it true faith or just intellectual assent?
There’s a world of difference between knowing about Christ and knowing Christ. For all the derision that the phrase *personal relationship with Christ* receives, it gets down to that. Men don’t need to be perfect for God to be able to deal with them as sons. They just need to be forgiven, and that forgiveness is granted strictly by grace on the part of God.
Here is a good definition of sola Scriptura, posted again for anyone who has not yet understood what Christians mean by it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3059418/posts?page=828#828
“First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas’ eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.
Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as “the pillar and foundation of the truth.” The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.
Thirdly, it is not a denial that God’s Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.
And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.
What then is sola scriptura?
The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience.
To be more specific, I provide the following definition:
The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council.
The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.
http://vintage.aomin.org/SANTRAN.html
But what if the dispute is over what Scripture itself means? If you look over the disputes between Catholics and Protestants you will find that it is the very meaning of Scripture that is in dispute.
One of which is that the enemy is always going to be trying to introduce false teachings. He did from the very inception of the church.
Precisely so. That is why our Lord established an authoritative hierarchy in his church to deal with this.
For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you, on condition that a man be blameless, married only once, with believing children who are not accused of licentiousness or rebellious. For a bishop as God’s steward must be blameless, not arrogant, not irritable, not a drunkard, not aggressive, not greedy for sordid gain, but hospitable, a lover of goodness, temperate, just, holy, and self-controlled, holding fast to the true message as taught so that he will be able both to exhort with sound doctrine and to refute opponents. For there are also many rebels, idle talkers and deceivers, especially the Jewish Christians. It is imperative to silence them, as they are upsetting whole families by teaching for sordid gain what they should not. (Titus 1:5-11)Notice that it is the bishop, not reference to Scripture, that is to correct error. Indeed, the establishment of the church with "presbyters in every town" preceded the completion of the New Testament.
God does not demand doctrinal unity for salvation. Churches do that.
Then why do Protestants divide the church over doctrine?
If someone is wrong in an area, it’s God’s primary responsibility to correct that whether He uses simply reading Scripture and seeing it for yourself, or another person to do the correcting.
Paul said that it was the bishop's responsibility.
There’s a world of difference between knowing about Christ and knowing Christ. For all the derision that the phrase *personal relationship with Christ* receives, it gets down to that. Men don’t need to be perfect for God to be able to deal with them as sons. They just need to be forgiven, and that forgiveness is granted strictly by grace on the part of God.
The Catholic Church agrees with every word here.
Secondly, [sola scriptura] is not a denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth.
But how do we recognize the Church that exercises this authority. If it is just those fellow Christians who agree with me then the Church has no real authority other than what I, not God, grants it.
Thirdly, it is not a denial that God’s Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture.
Not just the Apostles but also the presbyters who they associated with themselves.
Then the apostles and presbyters, in agreement with the whole church, decided to choose representatives and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. The ones chosen were Judas, who was called Barsabbas, and Silas, leaders among the brothers. This is the letter delivered by them: “The apostles and the presbyters, your brothers, to the brothers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia of Gentile origin: greetings. Since we have heard that some of our number [who went out] without any mandate from us have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind, we have with one accord decided to choose representatives and to send them to you along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, who have dedicated their lives to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. So we are sending Judas and Silas who will also convey this same message by word of mouth: ‘It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell.’” (Acts 15:22-29)Note that:
1) individual Christians nor even the local church at Antioch did not decide the disputed question by themselves but sent Paul, Barnabas and some others to the Apostles and presbyters in Jerusalem (Paul himself appealing to leadership in Jerusalem),
2) the Apostles had already associated presbyters with themselves in the governance of the church,
3) the peace of the church was disturbed by those preaching without a mandate from the Apostles and presbyters, and
3) they evoked the authority of the Holy Spirit directly and not by merely referring to Scripture. Scripture itself records that the Apostles and presbyters exercised the authority of the Holy Spirit.
Thus the model we have from Scripture for when a dispute arises is not for each person or each congregation to refer to Scripture alone but by submitting the dispute to the Church which speaks with the authority of the Holy Spirit itself. In this way the truth is guarded by the Holy Spirit and the unity that Jesus prayed for is maintained.
The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church.
Not true. Nowhere is this claim to be found in the Bible.