[Springfield Reformer]

 if he is held to account for his rabid hatred of the Jews, and fails to enter heaven on the basis of Sola Fide, then the reformed religion generally called the Reformation was re-based on error and is illegitimate

There are a number of reasons why your logic above doesn't work, but I believe the two biggest problems are these

1. Our uncertainty of Luther's final spiritual state from God's point of view:

Let's suppose for the sake of argument Luther's opposition to the Jews went too far and was blameworthy. Does anyone know whether Luther might have repented in his final moments?  That's harder to say.  Some of his later work, while still concerned about protecting Christian faith from Jewish unbelief, seemed to be more temperate.  Was he maturing on the issue?  And this is the central problem with this premise.  An unrecorded late in life change of heart is possible. Because with God all things are possible, are they not?  Therefore we cannot make the argument that Sola Fide "didn't work" in Luther's case. Only God knows that for certain.

2.  The Reformation's reaffirmation of Sola Fide was not based on just one individual.

Even if one factors out all the Scriptural and patristic evidence, not to mention the pre-reformation figures and groups who held an evangelical form of the faith, there are multiple claims to the reformation-era appearance of Sola Fide. For example, it was French RC Scholar Lefevre D’Etaples who explicated Sola Fide before either Luther or Calvin, who influenced them both, and who apparently was the individual who influenced Calvin to break with Rome, though he never did so himself.  

Furthermore, Calvin was himself a priest, and his break with Rome was his own, not Luther's.  What Luther had done that the reformers before him failed to do, was not invent new doctrine, or be the first or last to break with Rome, but to make such a good case for repudiating Rome that it excited European political interest in developing an alternative to the Holy Roman Empire.  So while Calvin and other reform-minded persons no doubt benefited from the changing political environment, he does not trace his spiritual line through Luther, but through Lefevre D’Etaples and possibly others still.  Indeed, at the stream of Sola Fide Luther appears as only one of it's many discoverers.  There were those before him, and those after him, and many of those not because of him, but merely along side him, finding for themselves the simplicity of the Gospel in Scripture.

So blaming the Reformation all on Luther is a gross oversimplification of what was going on during the Reformation era.  To pin it all on Luther may simplify the polemic against non-Catholics, but it is a cartoon version of a much richer reality, and has no power to discredit Sola Fide by way of a genetic fallacy.

There are other problems with the logic presented, but these are sufficient to show that the conclusion does not follow from these unsupportable premises.  

What does seem apparent is that the impulse to simplify the work of God in any of the reformational movements to some single, supposedly vulnerable target tells us more about the RC model of emperor-driven theology than it does about the opponents of that model.  It looks like projection to me.  But we don't use that model.  Protestantism will never be discredited by such means.  Our model absorbs a Luther, takes what matches Scripture, and spits out the rest, without missing a beat.  It baffles me that the "take out the leader" strategy is even used.  The RC apologist set us up with a tiny toy pope that exists only in their own pope-oriented imagination, then knocks him down, thinking that will impress those of us whose only ecclesiastical Papa is our Father in Heaven, whose word we possess and feed on every day.  

Peace,

SR

[af_vet_1981]

Furthermore, Calvin was himself a priest,

False

Calvin never was ordained in the Catholic Church; his training was chiefly in law and the humanities; he took no vows.

[daniel1212]

Does anyone know whether Luther might have repented in his final moments?

That is only allowed of a Ted Kennedy or a Hugo Chavez , etc. As if they needed to as a RC.

[boatbums]

What does seem apparent is that the impulse to simplify the work of God in any of the reformational movements to some single, supposedly vulnerable target tells us more about the RC model of emperor-driven theology than it does about the opponents of that model. It looks like projection to me. But we don't use that model. Protestantism will never be discredited by such means. Our model absorbs a Luther, takes what matches Scripture, and spits out the rest, without missing a beat. It baffles me that the "take out the leader" strategy is even used. The RC apologist set us up with a tiny toy pope that exists only in their own pope-oriented imagination, then knocks him down, thinking that will impress those of us whose only ecclesiastical Papa is our Father in Heaven, whose word we possess and feed on every day.

I think for some, it's their ONLY reference point. They cannot imagine NOT having some overarching, we-tell-you-what-you-are-to-believe magesterium on which to place ALL their trust - and blame, I suppose - for what they hold as the Christian faith. It never seems to occur to them that God has given us His sacred word, that we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God and that it is because of God that we are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God — that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.

Hopefully, the day will come when those who drag out their "Luther Card" to play hammer-the-Protestants finally realize that what it is ALL about is the truth of the gospel that compels and not fealty to a man or men. It is Christ ALONE to whom we bow and exalt.