I'm baffled by what you're arguing. If you are saying Luther taught that only HE (Luther) was the final arbitor I would have to agree with taxes. I don't believe Luther was saying that at all. If you are saying the conscience of every man is the final arbitor this, as I read taxes remarks, is what he is saying. Would you as a Protestant disagree?
While Luther may have been assertive in many of his views his famous statement before King Charles, ("Unless I am convinced by clear reasoning from the scriptures...") would seem to indicate Luther was opened to changing his mind based upon the word of God-not by what was dictated by Prince, Popes, and Councils. This is one of the sola of the Protestant Reformation. There is something to be said that clear reasoning from the scripture could not be provided to Luther so that he could recant.
I would also hasten to add for our Catholic and Eastern Orthodox friends that sola scriptura was nothing new and didn't just pop up with Luther. This what the early church father Iraeneous taught when he stated that if a new believer were to hear heresy being spoken from the pulpit the Holy Spirit would move him to plug his ears and go running from the church. IMHO, this is precisely what Luther did. It is the Holy Spirit that leads us to all truths.
Luther set up his own conscience as his standard for Christianity. Whether Luther intended to or not, the end result was that his own personal interpretation of Scripture became his standard. While Calvin and other subsequent reformers cited the ECF as pursuasive authority, Protestantism (largely because of Luther) evolved to the point of Alexander Campbell's argument that all he needed to do was read the Bible with fresh eyes, with absolutely no deference to creeds, councils, or traditions. Alexander Campbell is hardly extreme in Protestantism today - indeed, I would argue that he is mainstream (much to my own dismay). His argument is rooted in the alleged perspecuity of the Scriptures - that the Bible is supposedly completely clear. As a Presbyterian who adheres to the Westminster standards, I do not believe in complete perspecuity, but only that "all things pertaining to salvation" are clear.
Luther, to the extent that he set himself up as his own (perhaps not final, but his own) arbitrator as the meaning of the Scriptures (and, indeed, what the Scriptures were - throwing out James - and almost Revelation - was incomprehensible, and should disqualify him from ever being cited as any sort of authority. His stand against the abuses of indulgences was noble, as even Campion might concede, but his sheer hubris in thinking he had the right to exclude a book from the New Testament set himself up as his own Magisterium.
No. He leads the Apostles into all truth. A critical exegetical difference. Every Christian ever claimed that the Holy Spirit led them into all truth, even while holding simultaneously divergant viewpoints. Such is not the work of the Spirit. Jn. 14 does not speak directly to Christians per se, but specifically to the Apostles. It is relevant to us only because we believe the message handed down to us from the Apostles.
I don't know how you get sola scriptura from that.
But Irenaeus also taught that, if you wanted to be sure your doctrine was sound, you should compare it to the doctrine taught in the See of Rome.
LOL...and he's right, in so far as we Catholics have gotten used to doing that of late. :)
But speaking of Irenaeus, he also very strongly inveighed against "unauthorized" meetings that were not sanctioned by the local bishop...AND he also said it was a "matter of necessity" that churches everywhere agree with the church at Rome.
Have you read Adversus Haeresis? Fascinating read, that.
Well said.
You are misunderstanding Irenaeus. I am familiar with your quote, and he is basing the knowledge of the faithful on TRADITIONS (which, as you should know, means both oral and written teachings. It is only later when "traditions" were known as "oral teachings") that were taught, not the congregation's understanding of their reading of the Scriptures! Private reading of the Scriptures was not common, nor was it done in contradistinction to what was taught by Tradition.
Regards