Christ had his own conversation with Satan.
It is written that the Creator himself has had past conversation with Satan (concerning Job).
So yes, to take what you cynically wrote addressed to C.B. (as if he was a Lutheran?) can apply to myself also (though I not be precisely Lutheran or speak for all whom may be) the "man" first in the person of the Creator (going by historical order reversing my initial order of mention) then in the person of the only begotten Son of that same "man" who is God, had conversations with Satan.
Despite those things;
God by way of His Son, if having have invented Christian 'religion', to the degree He can stand to be in the same room with those things men call religion, which evidently He does upon occasion (despite His possible disappointment with what men do with religion in His name) condescends to men of low estate, visiting His own Spirit upon those in congregational church settings far and wide.
Faith in Him, in comparison, He Himself is the author and finisher of as it is written. Hebrews 12:2 there displayed elements of Sola Christus, Sola Fide, Soli Deo gloria ("glory to God alone") & Sola gratia ("by grace alone") can be seen all of them either in direct evidence, or as tangent to that one passage of scripture.
So just what was it you were hinting around about concerning Luther?
His chiefest "invention" being organizing and labeling the above principles as five distinct elements (Doctors of the Church have long propounded thesis in such manner -- including Jesus Himself engaging in flawless midrash in the Temple, in conjunction with reading from scrolls of scripture) leaves one wondering what it was which Luther invented which is so despised.
Being that Christ Himself in speaking with (and rebuking) Satan directly; when tempted by Satan, Christ spoke there not declaring His own authority as Son of God, but responded as it is written, there displaying usage of Scripture as ultimate authority of faith upon which trust may be effectively placed, truth derived then effectively utilized--- which is rather the core of Sola Scripture -- this principle itself being relied upon (in part -- and remember there are FIVE interconnected/interlocking sola's) in combating early arising heresies also -- was not an invention of Luther, but was instead merely descriptive of the principle, which principle had been greatly lost amid the habit of those of the RCC to rely upon judicial law, bundled fasci type of process in identification of tradition following custom, rather than a common law approach which includes a figurative breaking of the bundled laws open in order to read from the contents when presenting one's legal argument and reasoning while having inherent inalienable right also for calling into evidence material fact and witness.
Judicial/magesterial law curtails such processes to the extent which it empowers the judge or bench to declare what the facts and law both are, along with what the rules of process themselves are also, needing not provide justification to anyone for judgements reached and judicial decree pronounced, this having varied over long centuries of human existence only to degree of how tightly the fasci remained bundled, it's inwards content hidden from clear view...
Luther invented some amount of descriptive terminology towars principles once held but to significant degree long lost by those of the Church of Rome, some of whom still cling most bitterly to Sola Ecclesia as Supreme over all, appearing to prefer to figuratively carry that particular fasci (adopted from ancient Empire of Rome, contents adjusted to better fit inclusion of Christian concept as those of Church of Rome of whichever day, perceive them to be) in public procession and display.
Luther on the other hand did not attempt to parade personal authority, himself relying upon scripture and tradition both (but opposing some traditions which choked off truth as that can be clearly enough seen in scripture) espousing nothing much which comes to mind that was not previously accepted within the catholic, truly universal church in it's earliest times -- -- other than that which he brought with him from Roman Catholicism which was development and/or departure from the more original articles.
Yet Luther did work towards unbundling the fasci which made the Empire-mongers of the Church of Rome seek to burn him North & South, them able to later have those of their Church, under dual-jurisdiction of papal & secular authority law lay papist paws upon such as a Lutheran bookbinder burned at the stake in Spain, as recounted by Llorente, getting a little "Southern" action against Luther -- even after that man Luther himself had died...
Is that why Luther is hated? He dared to (and was successful in) defying papacy itself along with much of the rot which was produced in conjunction with that office over the centuries? So WHAT that German princes saw their big chance to escape yoke of secular bondage imposed upon themselves by ecclesiastics, along with everyone else.
The princes for the most part are no more, and the Papal States long gone, along with most (but not all?) of those money-making properties held by bishops whom had feet in two differing realms (spiritual authority & secular realm authority) yet would shift those interchangeably at will, blurring the realms by their very blending of the two.
It certainly wasn't Jesus who invented the two swords of Gelasius theory either.
Pope Gregory VII died in exile for having engaged in that clumsly effort of requiring prices to kiss his feet (after the Normans had sacked Rome after bailing him out of his feuding) all while trying to keep a grip upon two swords, withyet a third made up of copies of the two clumsily forged together lengthwise (there is no way to ever clean the secular blade well enough for the weld to hold -- having you ever forged welded? it takes high heat, clean steel with no scale, brought to butter colored glow then pounded with firm and square hammer blows, facilitated by sufficient flux also. there is not enough borax buried under the face of the earth to ever hold final 'clean' enough to put those two blades together as one -- not until Jesus comes back and makes things RIGHT).
If it be Jesus who invented Roman Catholicism as it could be identified in pattern & practice in the early 16th century, then He surely enough took His bloody good time in crafting it, and if the RCC of that era have been His, and fair representation of what He truly desired for men on earth also, as was claimed by it's popes to be the law of God --- namely for men to be ruled over in the ways the RCC, wedded in ecclesiastical & secular authority with kings and lesser ranked [so-called] nobility produced -- that would make Jesus into being more of a two-faced, sly & double talking deceiver than that creature Satan.
Perhaps it was men (and Satan) who had "invented" all the things objectionable which could be widely enough found (as in scarcely avoided) within the Roman Catholic religion as it was in the 16th century, for centuries before that, and lingering while tapering off in the few centuries after?
Is that last not the general concept used as the ultimate denial that "the church" (by which in this instance I do mean the Roman Catholic one) was ever in error, or had ever "sinned", for when error or sin is pointed towards, in denial that the Church of Rome be any way guilty, often is replied something along the lines of "that was not The Church doing that" but instead is attributed to individuals to themselves shoulder all blame?
In this type of forensic examination -- the RC Church appears and is presented as "visible upon earth" but when pressed for what it had visibly done when those things objectionable, then it shrinks to less visible -- turning into a pile of decrees and proclamations, "teaching authority of magesterium" and the like, even if in ordinary magesterium the stinking rot from the goings on of past centuries activities of that crew can still be detected for those not much so well accustomed to the smell of the charnal houses as to not notice them, or to excuse using human beings as spectator spectacular torch-fuel as being not disagreeable to the Holy Spirit -- as long as the human being burned was first identified as a heretic.
Meanwhile, when that which is truly holy be found within the RCC (it takes a bit of looking around, but is not impossible task), with that having come from God even by their own admission, the same excuse-makers who maintain that the RCC has never been in error also attribute these holy aspects to that ecclesiastical community at the same time, either declaring or intimating that such holiness can not be found much of anywhere else (and if so, then not in fulness) there again doubling down on how it all be present as much for reason of their own being always right (in their own eyes) as it be from God Himself, by grace.
For if it be by grace (and it is, according to such men as Ratzinger) then where is this same grace when Luther is spoken of? Has the portions of that which God would extend through Christ to even Lutherans have fully died to then be dug up and burned as were the remains of Wycliffe, to then be cast into the river Swift? Those men again and again figuratively appear, standing on the banks of the rivers and streams of Europe as it were, declaring "repent" even as they themselves as men, were arguably imperfect also...
Such devils these men be. Whom will rid us of these meddlesome priests? Becket is still thinking upon it...
I was waiting for someone to point that out to our dear, bombastic vlad, lol.
Well, as usual, your long post says little or nothing of important and in no way changes the truth of anything I said.