But there was Protestant soteriology, like in Augustine, Chrysostom, and also even in contrary views of what the Papacy is.
“But there was Protestant soteriology, like in Augustine, Chrysostom, and also even in contrary views of what the Papacy is.”
No. Years ago I read Alister McGrath’s doctoral dissertation when it was published as a two volume book. https://www.amazon.com/Iustitia-Dei-Christian-Doctrine-Justification/dp/0521533899 I do not know what changes might have been made between the original two volume version and the third edition available now. In the original version he mentioned that Luther introduced a “theological novum unknown in the previous fifteen centuries of catholic thought” into soteriology. That quote is found through the “Look Inside” feature at Amazon for the book. Just type in “novum” as your search word and it should come up as the second listing but it won’t let you go to the actual page. If you put your cursor on it, you can read at least that much of the quote. Anyway, the point is, that even as great an expert on Protestant soteriology as Alister McGrath ADMITS that Luther introduced NEW THINGS, NOVELTIES into an understanding of salvation that became pervasive among the emerging group we call Protestants.
Now, I realize that’s only one thing - but it is admitted by a great authority among Protestants (oh, I can just hear the coming possible response, “We only have the Bible as out authority. . . “). If McGrath is an honest man, and admits Luther was wrong on even one small point that made its way into Protestant soteriology, what else could there be that he doesn’t realize is a “novum”?
Luther was NOT following St. Augustine. He was adapting him. Luther was NOT following St. John Chrysostom. He was adapting him as he saw fit. Luther didn’t even follow the Bible. He adapted it to suit his needs.
Some Protestants have harsher views of Luther than I do: