Of course. It's obvious. It need not be said: "Luther was not reformed."

Breadcrumbs took me to this reformed webpage, on which I read something that I have read many times before:

I recently finished some work on Martin Luther. Of course, Luther is not Reformed

(Emphasis added.)

It was surprising to me, at first, that the "Of course, Luther was not Reformed" sentiment does not come the Arminian camp, who perhaps want to claim Luther as their own,¹ but from a rather lidless-eyed subset of the Reformed, who have redefined the term "Reformed" so narrowly that probably less than 100 special people on the planet qualify as Truly Reformed ™.

There is no group that I know of who are more prone to "No True Scotsman" arguments than my fellow Reformed.²

I wonder how many who make this statement have actually read what Luther wrote on Romans. There is no way a fair-minded person could read Luther on Romans and not conclude that he was Reformed.

---

¹ That does happen, of sorts. I have been in polite arguments with Lutherans who insist, in spite of voluminous evidence to the contrary, that Luther did not advocate predestination.

² No doubt (like Luther, though nothing like Luther ³) it would be said of me: "Of course he is not Reformed."

³ The ghost of Philip Melanchthon: "I met Martin Luther, and you are no Martin Luther."