In the Sola Scriptura debate, since the Bible is interpreted so many different ways, we might reason that leaving everyone to themselves inevitably leads to chaos — a thousand different denominations and sects spring up, all claiming to have the truth. (1Pe 2:1-2) Is this a good thing? One might argue a final authority is needful to settle doctrinal concerns and provide a common standard.
God provides teachers to try and help us understand Scripture (Ep 4:11) but He never indicates anyone has the right to claim divine authority in a theological dispute.
The church, the local, spiritual brotherhood, is the pillar and ground of the truth. (1Ti 3:15) In other words, a single person, or even a small group, is not what God has ordained to uphold the truth: it is the brothers, working together in community, who are to pursue a common understanding of Scripture together through prayer, study and challenging one another. (1Co 1:11) When we do this in humility, seeking truth together, God will admonish, teach, lead and guide us into all truth. (Jn 16:13)
When there are disagreements, as there should be in most any complex context, it’s tempting to wish for immediate closure to set everyone straight. Instead, the protocol is to take the time to pursue unity through humble consensus. (Ac 15:25) God is evidently pleased to sanctify believers through this collaborative process; imposing authority in the absence of consensus circumvents this healthy dynamic and cuts it short.
If it turns out that a body of believers must make a time-sensitive decision (i.e. a temporal one) and can’t come to consensus, such that they need to appoint someone to resolve the issue, the biblical protocol is that they identify the least esteemed (least qualified / respected, i.e. the most despised) men in the brotherhood and let them make the call. (1Co 6:4) If this is counter-intuitive it’s because we don’t see what God does: God doesn’t want anyone dominating the brotherhood; consensus is His ideal.