As I had said;
It takes effort, but to understand the Luther's theological premises, rather than rely upon books written from perspective of having already decided he was wrong (in everything) and then, focusing upon impugning the man's character (while cherry-picking, and showcasing isolated quotes-- some of which were not even his own words, but instead, occasionally, were attributed to him by others) in effort to prove him wrong (and thus "prove" the Protestant Reformation entirely wrong) one would need read Luther in more entirety of his own words to provide fuller context.
When that context is more fully realized, and then held up against Scripture itself, and then too compared with precepts touched upon within writings of earliest centuries church note-worthies, then it can be seen that Luther was not inventing much of anything, although in places he did, as I had said;
Who's in your saddle?
Did you not say that to me? #27 Did you not say that about Luther -- that someone, or some thing was ---there alleging that it was not God who was? You did so in comment #28.
If a pair of Luther's comments you'd highlighted (#12 #40) had been ill-advised, "something new", or some kind of heresy, then your own attempt to use those very same ideas against Luther would be to follow the thinking of one you have branded an 'arch-heretic'.
Obviously enough(?) I should not need "defend" Luther as for what was cited in comments #12, and #27 either (which allegedly were from Luther -- you've still failed to proved a single direct link to where you'd been copy/pasting from) since those were similar to what you've adopted as reasonable for yourself to use, and apply.
A book that you not only recommended, but directed another freeper to read prior to himself ever commenting again upon Luther (at all) is among a genre of hate-fest Luther-bash Romanist butthurt bleatings of the worst sort.
Interestingly enough, what you had cited from there in comment #9 and #14 were much like the others I've linked to in this post, and which you had sought to use against Luther, saying it was not God (so must have been the devil?) while putting the question to me too.
Explain how those concepts could be so utterly mistaken, to be example of heresy -- yet, you yourself seek to apply the concepts to Luther, and to myself?
Your circular logic is most amusing.