Why don't you try to remember where you read that? Then explain what you mean by "any arbiter".
Why is it you cannot address what I responded to you and feel you have to toss out another canard about Luther? You realize, I hope, that Luther is not the "Protestant" pope and that he was but one of many involved in the Reformation, don't you?
It is my understanding that Luther “submitted himself” to the gospels. Thereby the gospel is the “arbiter” if you will of truth. My point is simply this... Based on this idea... One can give 20 people the same bible, and all 20 can come up with a different meaning of similar texts. In this situation, when one simply referees back to the scripture, it becomes a circular problem. I may read the scripture, my interpretation of it may be wrong, but it’s my interpretation, and no one else can tell me that it is wrong, because the scripture is held as the standard. This of course coming from his personal issues with the church at the time... He rejected the church’s authority to claim “authority” over the interpretation of the scriptures... Does any of this make sense? Truly I am not trying to squabble, but in 50 years I have not found a sensible logical answer to the problem of solo scriptura ... Or for that matter, sola fides...
That would be "revolution" not reformation. Reformation takes place WITHIN and revolution denies the original and seeks a substitute. America did not have a reformation with England....we had a revolution.