Odd that; I'm not even certain to whom you refer, nor would I know his last name were who I think you probably mean. On the other hand, you must defend Martin Luther for he is foundational to the Reformation. If he has evil fruit, and is a false apostle, his disciples are, shall we say, exposed. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Matthew, Catholic chapter seven, Protestant verses fifteen to twenty three,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James
A meaningless construct considering the evil roles of many 'Vicars' that are ignored simply because they originated in Rome instead of Germany. As for false apostles, the Roman 'gospel' doesn't hold up to the Gospel enunciated in scripture. Roman teaching requires for salvation many things not contained in the Gospel of John. As a result it is shown by Scripture to be false.
Who must defend Luther? Who called him an apostle? Why would you suppose Gamecock (a Calvinist) or anyone here to be a disciple of Luther? Why do you believe that Luther is the foundation of the Reformation?
No one here follows Luther. Luther is just a man.