I don't set myself up as the judge of St. Paul or anyone else, for that matter. I simply make the observation that a man can turn from murder to being the greatest missionary for Christ in history (in the case of St. Paul) just as one can turn from being a sincere confessor of Christ to murder. It is a huge difference which, evidently, is a moral equivalent in your mind.
Not unlike the political liberals who want to be judged for their good intentions rather than their actual results.
So, do you think your view is the view of the majority of Protestants? Or just the Calvinist view?
Given a strict definition of the label "Protestant" I consider the two one and the same. I prefer the definition of "Protestant" as derived from the Latin where the classic Protestant wasn't one just rebelling against the system, but were Confessional in that they have a proclamation articulating their faith. This is in distinction to the so-called "non-denominational" and their ideological progenitors the Anabaptists.
While the Westminster, 1689 BCF, Augsburg, Belgic et al are well thought-out declarations of faith, I consider them guard-rails rather than holy writ. Given that, there is an enormous amount of agreement on key doctrines leaving room so that the "talent" rich believers can discuss and debate what essentially is differences in doctrine due to personal prejudices, presuppositions and world-views.