St. Paul writes,

"I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?� (1 Cor 1:10-13)

Unity of the sort Paul enjoins depends on a unified and thus hierarchically ordered ecclesial authority. Later in this epistle, when Paul tells the Corinthians: "Follow me, as I follow Christ" (1 Cor 11:1), he is not contradicting what he said in 1 Cor 1:10-13. In following Paul, the Corinthian Christians were following Christ. But if all Apostles had equal authority, then it would have been the case that if some "followed Paul" and others followed "Cephas", then as Paul says in 1 Cor 1:13, Christ would be divided.

Many Christians today, however, reject all ecclesial authority and simply say, "I follow Christ". But they are appallingly divided against each other in "mind and thought" regarding where Christ is leading, what Scripture says, and what the Spirit is saying. This has resulted in thousands upon thousands of sects and divisions. So who has ecclesial authority? Tertullian (200 AD) writes,

"For this reason we should not appeal merely to the Scriptures nor fight our battle on ground where victory is either impossible or uncertain or improbable. For a resort to the Scriptures would but result in placing both parties on equal footing, whereas the natural order of procedure requires one question to be asked first, which is the only one now that should be discussed. 'Who are the guardians of the real faith? To whom do the Scriptures belong? By whom and through whom and when and to whom was committed the doctrine that makes us Christians?' For wherever the truth of Christian doctrine and faith clearly abide, there will be also the true Scriptures and the true interpretations and all the true Christian traditions."

Tertullian then says,�

"Come now, if you would indulge a better curiosity in the business of your salvation, run through the apostolic Churches in which the very thrones [cathedrae] of the Apostles remain still in place; in which their own authentic writings are read, giving sound to the voice and recalling the faces of each. Achaia is near you, so you have Corinth. If you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi. If you can cross into Asia, you have Ephesus. But if you are near to Italy, you have Rome, whence also our authority derives." (On Prescription against the Heretics)

When he says "whence our authority derives", he means the authority of the Catholic Church, he does not mean merely the authority of the church in Rome. The Apostles all had authority insofar as they were in union with the chief Apostle, Peter, who had the keys of the kingdom. (Matt 16:19)

Tertullian is showing us that before we start debating Scripture interpretations, we first must determine the locus of ecclesial (and thus interpretive) authority. With respect to authority, Protestantism is individualism. The Protestant's rejection of ecclesial authority (on the grounds of his own interpretation of Scripture) presupposes individualism and "personal interpretation" as the final authority. That is precisely why there are now thousands of Protestant denominations and wholly autonomous Christian groups. Of course Protestants frequently claim that we should "listen to the Spirit" in our act of interpreting. But who is the final arbiter in determining who has the Spirit, and what the Spirit is saying? Each individual self! T.D. Jakes (and other oneness Pentecostals) deny the Trinity. Are they following the Spirit? Or what about the Health and Wealth Pentecostals � are they following the Spirit? What about the people barking, mooing, oinking and hissing at the Brownsville Assembly of God in Florida -- are they following the Spirit? No, you say. Well, I agree. But, who is to say? They claim to have the Spirit too. Their teaching doesn't line up with Scripture, you say. I agree, of course, but they could just say, "But that is my interpretation of Scripture." And who are you to say that their interpretation is false? Your sect has scholars? Practically every sect has scholars supporting their position. And who determines which scholars have the most authority? Each individual self! And anyone can always pull out the verse "My ways are not yours ways . . . " (Isaiah 55:8-9) to undermine any scholar.

If everyone were to have equal ecclesial authority, then no one would have ecclesial authority, and unity would be impossible. The situation is quite analogous to the relation of parts to a body. If every cell in your body had ultimate authority over what it would do and become, it would be impossible for you to exist as a multicellular organism; there would simply be a heap of cells, each cell doing its own thing. A cell becomes part of a unity greater than itself only when it 'submits' to a hierarchal unity greater than itself. Likewise, Paul says, "Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself?" (1 Cor 6:15) and goes on to show that in the body of Christ there is an hierarchical diversity of roles, as Paul explains in 1 Cor 12, but there is one ecclesial head, not twelve or seventy-two. When Paul tells the Corinthians that he laid the foundation (1 Cor 3:10), that is not incompatible with his claim that Christ is the foundation (1 Cor 3:11), nor is Christ's claim that Peter is the foundation stone of the Church (Matt 16:18) incompatible with Paul's claim that Christ is the chief cornerstone (Eph 2:20). Likewise, it is no accident that Paul shows seeing the risen Lord as the sign of an apostle (1 Cor 9:1), and then lists Peter as the first of the Apostles to see the risen Lord, and himself as last (1 Cor 15:5-8). For the Apostles are the highest authorities in the body of Church (1 Cor 12:28), and Peter (i.e. Cephas) is the head of the Apostles, even though Christ Himself is the supreme Head, as we see in Paul's letters to the Ephesians and Colossians (Eph 1:10, 22; 4:15; 5:23; Col 1:18; 2:10, 19).

The unity that Christ prays in John 17 for His followers (the body of Christ) to have is incompatible with ecclesial individualism. When Jesus says, "and there shall be one flock and one shepherd" (John 10:16), the two are causally connected; the flock cannot be one if there is not one supreme shepherd. If there were twelve supreme shepherds, there would be twelve flocks. But after asking Peter if he "truly loves [Jesus] more than the other Apostles love Jesus (John 21:15), Jesus tells Peter three times to "Feed My sheep". Many Christians would just assume feed themselves, as if they don't need a shepherd. But the Ethiopian eunuch speaks for those who understand that they need a shepherd: When asked by Philip whether he understands what he is reading, the eunuch replies, "How can I, except some man should guide me?" (Acts 8:31) So who is the authorized guide? Who is our true shepherd? Which shepherd comes in by the gate? Who is the watchman of this gate? (John 10:1 ff)

Ultimately there are only two possibilities: (1) each individual is his own ecclesial authority, or (2) there is one ecclesial authority to whom all Christians should be subject.