Downvotes are a cross worth bearing. :)

From a Catholic perspective, would not the Eastern Orthodox Church be the original Protestants. Not including the 451 AD Chalcedon split with the Oriental Orthodox over the nature of Jesus's divinity and humanity, the Eastern Orthodox were the first to throw off the ol' shackles of Rome, right? But they maintained the priesthood, all seven sacraments, veneration of saints, the Divine Liturgy, etc., etc.. The EO did not jetison these necessary Christian lifelines because they were not Romish inventions. I think I used the correct Jack Chick vocabulary there? The Church always provided these sacramental graces to the faithful. Even when the Copts and Ethiopians and Armenians and Syrians left in the 5th Century, they still held to their bishops and priesthood, the seven sacraments, veneration of the saints, etc. Look at the Duras Europa church from the early to mid 3rd Centruy. You find an altar and icons.

The original church did not hold to sola Scriptura or sola fide. I have looked for it in history. I cannot find it. That is why you do not see such doctrines in any of the Apostolic Churches existing today. Alister McGrath nailed it. Seriously, look up information on all the ancient churches. You find seven sacraments, bishops and the priesthood. You find Mary. You find at least the Septuagint in their OT Scriptures.

Luther and his progeny really did a number and the cacophony grows more and more discordant. To my mind the author of this piece laments the entropy inherent in and consequent to sola Scriptura. It is ironic, but given how far evangelicalism has gone, I bet that I, as a devout Roman Catholic, would share much more in common with Luther than my average 21st Century evangelical brother in Christ. I know I share much more in common with Anglicans, who are sort of the Reformed version of the Eastern Orthodox.