And demonstrate a massive problem with Protestantism. After all, who's to say they are wrong? When one sees the splits away from the historic faith as practice and agreed upon almost from the time of the earliest Christian writings, the same teachings practiced by those of the orthodox confessions of the Nicene Creed, one does have to ask 'how is it you are right for ditching these teachings, but not those over there?' It was something I pondered as an Evangelical pastor.
True, it could be argued that the Church has never been at ease in the face of new challenges from outside. But there is something that keeps the Faith from going too far no matter how much stretching is done by its adherents. In Protestantism, however, it can go as far as you wish. Just branch off with your own denomination. I knew mainline Protestants who questioned the existence of a personal God, or who openly endorsed Gnostic teachings. Why not? Why are they wrong when Protestants who reject, say, the sacramental nature of Baptism or the Eucharistic celebration practiced for almost 2000 years are not likewise wrong? By what authority can they say?
Sure, this is just the typical fawning over liberalism that factions in the Faith have always done. Whenever there is a new, hip movement, there are always those who wish to conform. For every zealot or pharisee, there are at least three Hellenists who jump on the latest. This is simply the most recent example. But in the end, some will have a pillar, an anchor that will eventually bring things back to balance, however briefly. While those without a clear standard to point to will only be able to watch as one after another, split and breach will occur until endless hundreds of varieties exist, and those bearing little resemblance to the root from which they originally sprung.