[narses]

And all those poor souls who must have been lost between the Crucifixion and Martin Luther's rebellion because he said Rome was wrong, was that just too bad, or could it be that the rebellious little monk simply didn't understand?

[fortheDeclaration]

And all those poor souls who must have been lost between the Crucifixion and Martin Luther's rebellion because he said Rome was wrong, was that just too bad, or could it be that the rebellious little monk simply didn't understand?

No, the 'rebellious monk' understood very well.

It was his 'rebellion' that led millions out of darkness, despite Roman resistance.

As for the lost between the Crucifixion and Luther, there were always those who were resisting Roman falsehoods (Waldensians, Lollards, Hussites) but it was God's timing to have Luther finally break the yoke.

My concern is for the millions of Roman Catholics still depending on a church to save them and not the Atoning work of Christ.

[RochesterFan]

And all those poor souls who must have been lost between the Crucifixion and Martin Luther's rebellion because he said Rome was wrong, was that just too bad, or could it be that the rebellious little monk simply didn't understand?

No, the rebellious little monk understood all too well. He recognized and condemned the false teachers who were selling indulgences, misleading people into believing that they could buy favor with God. How many tons of pieces of the "true cross" were sold gullible sheep? What did the blind shepherds do to stop it? Luther understood the complete and utter wretchedness of the natural man, in bondage to his own will and a slave to sin and death. He understood that Aquinas was wrong when he concluded that the intellect was unscathed by the Fall and that reason alone could lead man to God. In short, the rebellious little monk found God's truth in God's Word and proclaimed the Good News to a lost world who desperately needed to hear it.