How do Protestants understand major differences in doctrine between denominations? As a Catholic I believe that the Catholic Church was established by Jesus and given the authority to teach infallibly on the topics of faith and morals.

My understanding is that many Protestants believe that individual Christians have the grace to interpret the Bible for themselves.

For those who believe this, how do you understand major differences in the beliefs between various Protestant denominations?  If any sincere believer who has "been saved" is able to read and properly interpret the Bible through the work of the Holy Spirit, why so many fundamental differences in belief?

For instance, there seems to be wide disagreement on the necessity of baptism for salvation.  Some believe it to be the method of conferring sanctifying grace on the recipient, some believe it is merely symbolic, etc.
At the First Vatican Council (1869), the Catholic Church defined the doctrine of papal infallibility.  The Church certainly believed in papal infallibility long before that, but there was some disagreement over the specifics.  At that council, the long-held belief was codified as, itself, an infallible teaching.

First Vatican Council - Section 4, Chapter 4, Part 9


  ...we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.


The doctrine of papal infallibility was one of the primary things against which Martin Luther fought.  At the Diet of Worms, when he was questioned on the infallibility of the Pope, he stated, "I deny that he is above scripture."  He argued that since Jesus rebuked Peter, Peter must have been fallible, and since Peter was fallible, it logically follows that all of his successors would be fallible too.

Martin Luther, and other reformers, did not believe that the Pope was the wrong person to be considered infallible.  Rather, they believed that no person, not even Peter, was infallible (save Jesus, of course).  Protestant churches do not believe that their church, leaders, or anyone else is infallible.  They typically believe that only the scriptures (sola scriptura), in the form of its original writing, is actually inspired and infallible.

It is not only admissible, but even expected, among Protestants, that different people will come to different conclusions about the meaning of the scriptures, because, as they believe, we are all fallible people.  It is expected that good-people will disagree for many reasons.  Depending on which ancient manuscripts you are using, which translation of those original languages you are reading, which hermeneutical approach you are using to interpret its meaning, and the theological framework to which you are pinning your understanding, there are many possible ways to "properly" interpret the same passage.  

Having so many theological differences does not contradict Protestant teaching.  On the contrary, it confirms their teaching of the fallibility of all people.  In Protestant circles, truthfulness of doctrine is not judged by who stated it, but rather by what methods they used in arriving at it.