Let me be clear that I don't necessarily mean the extreme "Trail of Blood"-type historians. Even Lutherans, Calvinists, even somewhat Catholic-minded Anglicans assert on some level that Rome corrupted the pure Gospel of the early centuries.
If there's a Protestant group that doesn't hold to that, I'd be happy to be corrected on that score, but I don't know of any.
I appreciate that. Some of your fellow Catholics on FR believe that all Protestants buy into the "Trail of Blood" stuff. I'm glad to hear you don't make the same sweeping generalities that they do.
Even Lutherans, Calvinists, even somewhat Catholic-minded Anglicans assert on some level that Rome corrupted the pure Gospel of the early centuries.
Now this I would modify, at least to say when and how rapidly Rome "modified" the gospel, and perhaps more importantly, to spell out if anyone could be saved/sanctified anyway (under the modified gospel). I'm not one who believes that no one could be justified/sanctified before the Reformation, but then again there are Catholics on FR who would accuse all Protestants of believing just this. So while I do believe that there was a "corruption" of doctrine in history prior to the Reformation, I do not believe that God's grace had been lifted from the Catholic Church, or that the Catholic Church wasn't part of the "true" Church in some way, prior to the Reformation (or beyond).
If there's a Protestant group that doesn't hold to that, I'd be happy to be corrected on that score, but I don't know of any.
Well, you can put me down as one. And I'd be willing to bet there are others out there, just like me.
i’d hazard a guess that all those separated from Rome beleive Rome changed something sometime ;p