Martin Luther is named as father of protestantism.?

From what I know, there are several denominations of protestantism. But how do the protestants themselves view Martin Luther?

Thanks in advance!
Addt:

Blessed - Since martin Luther never rejected umbilical teachings, it means his (father of protestantism) past teachings are no longer important to other protestants like you. Right?
Addtl:

Blessed - Thank you for your answer! It is a good one. Especially the your statement: "Sometimes that resolution can be that discussing the passages leads to a better BIBLICAL understanding and we come to an agreement. Other times, it may be decided that this is not "essential doctrine" and respectfully "agree to disagree."

JWs have clarified things and came to agree on many things, but since the question is about protestant, I will no longer elaborate about our belief.

I respect what you said that the founders of your faith are not men, I hope you will also respect if I will say that the line of witnesses of Jehovah reaches back to faithful Abel.
. Hebrews 11:4?12:1 says: ?By faith Abel offered God a sacrifice of greater worth than Cain .?.?. By faith Noah, after being given divine warning of things not yet beheld, showed godly fear .?.?. By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed in going out into a place he was destined to receive as an inheritance .?.?. By faith Moses, when grown up, refused to be called the son of the daughter of Pharaoh, choosing to be ill-treated with the people of God rather than to have the temporary enjoyment of sin .?.?. So, then, because we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also put off every weight and the sin that easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us.?

With reference to Jesus Christ, the Bible states: ?These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God.? Of whom was he a witness?He himself said that he made his Father?s name manifest. He was the foremost witness Jehova
Ooooops..sorry for elaborating, I already said I won't. I just felt obliged to do such since many are misinformed how we view the C.T. Russell and others that belong to the anointed class..

Thank you for your time and answer!
Addtl:

I also do not agree with your previous answers...but I still respect it =)

Technically, almost every mainstream CHRISTIAN sect that isn't Catholic or (Greek) Orthodox is considered protestant.

Protestant just meant you "protested" the catholic church, and it was originally just a protest to the sale of indulgences, but later evolved into a belief that individuals should be allowed to read the bible for themselves, pomp and circumstance was unnecessary, etc. The Anglican church is also considered protestant since Henry the VIII "protested" against the institute of marriage, but not until 1525. Martin Luther tacked up the "95 theses" in 1517.

I used to be a member of a protestant sect (Presbyterian) and honestly I don't think half the congregation had ever heard of Martin Luther.

Those that did, just thought of him as a "mover" in their religion, but most paid no attention to him, and were taught nothing of him, since it was the "same" bible after all, and that was the only thing that mattered.

But then again I don't know if that church is the best example of an average protestant church: they condemned Halloween and sang christian hymns set to rock music, and most of us attended church in jeans....so....

Last Ent Wife: The protestant belief of consubstantiation is actually the belief that the wafer and wine are SYMBOLIC of the blood and body. Transubstantiation is the belief that it becomes the blood and body, and it is a catholic idea.


Add:

The reason I say Orthodox is not considered protestant is because Christianity schism ed into the Catholic and Orthodox sects around the time the capital of the Roman empire was moved to the city of Nova Roma (previously called Byzantium). "Catholics", as they would later be associated, wanted the capital in Rome with the pope, the "Orthodox" church wanted it in Constantinople. This resulted in an East-West Schism of Christianity, when "Catholicism" (or what would later become the Roman Catholic church in Italy) broke from Orthodox Christianity.

The real protestant movement began in 1517 with Martin Luther.

(apparently some of you think I am misrepresenting history or protestantism and have given me thumbs down...I don't see why because my post is 100% fact, based on history and on my life experiences with my Presbyterian church.)

Sry. I'm atheist, but I know he wasn't a very nice guy. He had a penchant for roasting feet and burning people alive...only if they didn't love Jesus the way he wanted them to.

Actually, most Protestant denominations today have no idea what Luther taught or believed in. They certainly wouldn't like his veneration of the Virgin Mary, nor would they approve of the fact that he taught a version of "consubstantiation" meaning the body and blood of Christ is present simultaneously with the bread and wine.

Most protestants don't study history much. Ah, take for example, the first answerer.

EDIT - Luther taught a sacramental union system in which the blood and body were physically present (real presence), which most protestant denominations do not believe in, and that is the point I was trying to make.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacramental_union

Oh, and you are 100% about Orthodox, they are certainly not Protestant.

There are Lutherans, also Methodists, Presbyterians, and lots of different ones. I really don't think about Luther--the Reformation was bound to happen some time. BTW Henry VIII broke off first, and the Armenians and Coptics were never part of Catholicism.

Martin Luther at first did not want to break from the church but by G D'S hand the reformation began, if it were not Luther then as the Lord Jesus once said "These stones shall praise G D" if the voices calling out were to be silenced and so it would have been with Luther. Maybe not stones but other reformers.
I think he was an instrument of G D.
Peace

I try not to hold any man in too high regard because they are sinful and errant. From some of the quotes I've read, it appears that Martin Luther never rejected some of the clearly umbilical teachings that the Catholic church subscribed to. That this is unfortunate, but I'm thankful that some good came out of his split with the Catholic Church.

I consider myself protestant because I fully believe the "Five Solas" to be in accordance with the Word of God:

1 Sola Scripture ("by Scripture alone")
2 Sola Fidel ("by faith alone")
3 Sola Gratia ("by grace alone")
4 Solus Christus ("Christ alone")
5 Soli Deo gloria ("glory to God alone")

Edit to Rutch: His teachings do not take precidence over the Word of God. Like any other religious leader, every word out of their mouths should be tested against the Bible for accuracy. Anything found to be untrue should be dismissed. If my current pastor was to present information that did not line up with Scriptures, or even my own understanding, I would bring it to his attention for discussion hoping for resolution. Sometimes that resolution can be that discussing the passages leads to a better BIBLICAL understanding and we come to an agreement. Other times, it may be decided that this is not "essential doctrine" and respectfully "agree to disagree."

In the case of Martin Luther, consulting with him is not possible!

But I would say that his teachings on "transubstanciation" is not an "essential doctrine." However, I strongly believe that his veneration of Mary is unbiblical and idolatrous. I stand on God's Word, not on Martin Luther's. If such clearly unbiblical and idolatrous practices were happening within a church that I visited, I would not return.

Further, I believe that the term "father of protestantism" is one of a historical/secular nature, not one from a Christian perspective. I do not credit him as a "father" of my faith. He is no more the founder of my faith than William Miller, Jonas Wendell, Nelson H. Barbour, and Johannes Greber (men whose teachings influenced Charles Taze Russell) would be considered founders of your religion.

Edit: I do not agree that "Jehovah's Witnesses" can trace their roots back to Abel, no more than I believe that Peter is the first "pope" of the Catholic church, or that baptists began in the first century. The apostolic church of the first century could make the claim that their roots are in Judaism, the religion first founded by God, Himself. Once accepting their Messiah, they became followers of Jesus, called "The Way" and later called "Christians." There are no churches/religions today that can legitimately claim to be part of the apostolic church, but instead there are individuals who strive to return to those teachings as outlined by the inerrant word of God. Any religion/denomination claiming to have an exclusive "right" to claim these inspired men as the founders of their religion is being less than truthful, especially when their current teachings deviate from God's Word. God is the author and finisher of my faith.

Hebrews 12:2

"Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God."

the definition of my faith is not Protestant, it is Christian. And further, I did not think of becoming Protestant because of Martin Luther. I simply read the Bible and recognized that it was not at all what I was being taught. To take this a step further, I would also like to point out that I researched the Catholic Church and they have no right to claim Apostolic succession, thereby making the need to discuss Luther as the father of anything a moot point. People that were Bible believing Christians always existed since the first century.
http://anothersideofcatholicism.com/Chapter-02.shtml