Not sure where you are getting this information. I'm guessing again that you didn't read the links I provided? Luther didn't "remove" ANY books from his German translation of the Bible - not even the Apocryphal books. He did, however, question FOUR (not seven) New Testament books, though he did not remove them. From Luther and the Canon:
Sometimes it is said that in the actual printings of Luther’s New Testament these four books were printed last without page numbers. The citation above says it was a “list” without page numbers.[20] Also of importance to note is Luther did not treat the four questionable New Testament books in the exact same way as he did the Old Testament apocrypha. Luther critic Hartmann Grisar has explained, “…[Luther] simply excluded the so-called deutero-canonical books of the Old Testament from the list of sacred writings. In his edition they are grouped together at the end of the Old Testament under the title: ‘Apocrypha, i.e., books not to be regarded as equal to Holy Writ, but which are useful and good to read.’ …Luther’s New Testament is somewhat more conservative.”[21] Grisar dubs Luther “conservative” because Luther did not include such a heading before the New Testament books he questioned. Luther’s opinion on the apocrypha was solidified, whereas with the New Testament Luther uses caution.
Luther also found different levels of Christocentric clarity within the Old Testament. He observed that Genesis, Psalms, and Jonah spoke more to the apostolic standard, while the book of Esther did not.[22] The editors of Luther’s Works further explain the judgments contained in the prefaces:
Luther cannot be criticized for explicitly removing books from the canon of sacred Scripture. One can though disapprove of Luther’s critical questioning of particular New Testament books. Paul Althaus explains, “Luther did not intend to require anyone to accept his judgment, he only wanted to express his own feeling about these particular books.”[24] Althaus finds this to be apparent in Luther’s original prefaces of 1522, but even more so in his revisions of 1530. Lutheran writer Mark Bartling concurs: “Luther’s whole approach was one of only questioning, never rejecting. James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation are only questioned, they are never rejected.”[25] Roland Bainton notes,
I was careful the second time to word it that Luther removed them FROM THE CANON, lest anyone think I meant he didn’t publish them. As your own source notes (but oddly leaves out 2-3 John* and 2 Peter* ), he treated them the same way he treated the Old Testament dueterocanonicals, and defamed them in his commentary (”as epistle of straw” ... “certainly not a description of a the Christian God”)
Further, the context of his denunciations of these books must be made clear. The Catholic Church had pointed out to him where the doctrines such as purgatory, participation for the expiation for sins, the need for faith to be made manifest in work, etc., were located, utterly contradicting his assertion that they were not scriptural. THEN he responded by declaring that the books could not be scriptural. So saying he merely questioned them is a whitewash.
Since you have continued to assert the outright ludicrous assertion that Luther merely “questioned” what has become known as “Luther’s Antilegomena,” here’s what Luther wrote in his own bible, to say nothing of his response to the Catholic refutation of his claim that the particular Catholic doctrines were not found in scripture. You tell me if they sound like he was open to the idea that they were in fact canonical:
“I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle; and my reasons follow:
In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works... He mangles the Scriptures and thereby opposes Paul and all Scripture. “
“My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it. But to teach Christ, this is the thing which an apostle is bound above all else to do; as Christ says in Acts 1, “You shall be my witnesses.” Therefore I stick to the books which present Christ to me clearly and purely.”
“these are the books which show to thee Christ, and teach everything that is necessary and blessed for thee to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book of doctrine. Therefore, St. James’ Epistle is a perfect straw-epistle compared with them, for it has in it nothing of an evangelic kind.” (Note: this is is contrast with Luther’s emphasis that ALL of scripture is necessary for doctrine.)
As for Luther’s rejection of 2 Peter and 2 and 3 John, these are admittedly less clear that he rejected their canonicity. He did not enumerate his reasons for rejecting them. But he left out 2 Peter and all 3 letters of John when enumerating the New Testament works which “show us Christ” and are needed for doctrine. And he bases the legitimacy of his opposition to Hebrews, Revelations, James and Jude on their omission by certain ancient sources, which also exclude 2 Peter and 2 and 3 John.
While Luther included the NT deuterocanonicals, or Antilegomena, in a seperate section of the bible, out of order, and with disparaging notes that they were not authentic, subsequent Lutherans published bibles completely removing them, including Jacob Lucius, J Vogt, and Gustavus Adolphus. It wasn’t until the alliance between Anglicans, Lutherans and Calvinists that bibles excluding the Antilegomena were rejected by Lutheran churches.