1) Are you referring to Luther's abridged Bible? Do you see the irony of your question?
2) Who will hear more of the Bible at church in a three year period, a Catholic or Protestant?
3) If the Bible is the SOLE or ULTIMATE rule of faith, by what authority did Luther remove books from the Bible? Did the Bible tell him to do it?
Which is begging the question, assuming that needs to be proved. What books did Luther's Bible not contain that you object to?
Who will hear more of the Bible at church in a three year period, a Catholic or Protestant?
How are you going to prove this? How much of the Bible does a weekly Catholic hear? And how is even a comparison of a multiplicity of churches which is so typically wide that you can drive a Unitarian Scientology Swedenborgian 747 thru it not specious and even meaningful?
If the Bible is the SOLE or ULTIMATE rule of faith, by what authority did Luther remove books from the Bible?
Again this begs the question. What authoritative indisputable infallible canon did Luther remove books from, and in dissent from the all of Rome's scholars at Trent and before that?
And by what infallible authority (which your question presumes is essential for a canon) were OT writings established by, which the Lord and apostles invoked in substantiating their Truth claims?
Did the Bible tell him to do it?
In principle the Bible commands believers to exercise judgment:
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thessalonians 5:21)
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. (1 Corinthians 2:15)
And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment; That ye may approve things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ; (Philippians 1:9-10)
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. (1 John 4:1)
Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. (Matthew 7:20)
(For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;) Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. (Ephesians 5:9-10)
Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. (Ephesians 5:10)
The question then are, can believers discern btwn both true men and writings of God and false ones without an infallible magisterium (which is what your question presupposes)? If so, why must Luther be wrong, versus how could he be shown to be wrong, and how were true men and writings of God established as being so?
This is supposed to be LOGICAL?
It does quite CLEARLY show you have no problems repeating what history has show to be INCORRECT:
Most Bible based preachers include a sermon citing chapters/verses/passages/entire books of the Bible. They encourage to read those passages later.
Most Baptist Churches hold “Sunday School” before the Sunday service and “Wednesday Bible Studies.” “Sunday School” is often another word for “Bible Study.”
Nearly every Baptist Church I've attended provided a Bible Study plan to “Read the Bible in a Year.”
Do you really want to argue who will “hear more Bible?”
Incidentally, the first time I read the Bible completely through I had it on a computer screen parallel with Strong's Concordance and Matthew Henry's concise commentary. I was about 33 years old, I had left Catholicism at about 21 and had never actually read the Bible. I was very annoyed when I learned how far the Catholic Church strayed from the teachings of Jesus and His apostles.