This is what always gets me though; you can't really say that the extremely liberal/conservative Lutheran/Reformed churches aren't actually Lutheran or Reformed.
Why should I want to? They are simply liberal and conservative members of those traditions, just as there are liberal and conservative Catholics.
Another example is how some Baptists congregations claim to be Reformed, but yet they belong to a Baptist convention; so you're forced to wonder whether they are Baptist or Reformed.
As far as I know the Reformed Baptists are actually Reformed, although they differ from the rest of us on baptism.
I'm not trying to be rude but the ambiguity in Protestantism about what Protestants as a whole believe really bugs me. They are very few doctrines that you can state that Protestants believe without someone saying "not all Protestants believe that."
Again, this depends upon who you consider Protestant. There is a core of Protestant belief, which is roughly Nicea, Chalcedon, justification by faith, and sola scripture. Within this core there are differences, but they don't exceed differences that have occurred within the Catholic tradition.
There have certainly been variations on when to baptize. Uniform infant baptism did finally occur, but mostly because of a superstitious fear of unbaptized children ending up in limbo, just as a fair amount of adult baptism occurred because of the weird early church idea that you couldn't be forgiven of serious sins after baptism.* Frankly I'd rather tolerate the Baptists.
Indeed there's a lot to be said for the Church preserving both traditions. They emphasize different things, both of which are important: God's prevenient grace and the importance of responding to God's call in faith. The only mainstream Protestant group I know of that doesn't baptize at all is the Salvation Army. While I think that was an overreaction, I understand where it came from, and I'm happy to count the Army as part of the Protestant tradition. (Many Friends also don't baptize, but despite my great admiration for them, and my thankfulness that the tradition exists, I don't consider them part of the mainstream Protestant Church.)
Basically I think where we differ is that I'd rather see some variation within a tradition that I think is basically right than conformity within one that I think is wrong. I would take any church in the mainstream Protestant tradition in preference to the Catholic Church. And I'm pretty familiar with the variation there. I also think you're papering over divisions within the Catholic community.
I agree that sola scripture does not produce doctrinal conformity. My own interpretation is that this is because Scripture wasn't designed to do so. I'm willing to accept the variation within the sola scripture churches as a sign that maybe God isn't so focused on doctrine as the Catholic tradition is, and that maybe he'd rather see unity in our loyalty to Christ than in our organization. Indeed I see the Reformation as a replay of the Tower of Babel: an attempt to curb the pride of an organization that had confused itself with the Kingdom of God. Perhaps having lots of languages is inconvenient, but God saw it as protecting against a more serious danger.
Indeed I think having many Christian traditions is a good thing. We all have much to learn from most of the Protestant (and Catholic traditions), and I would hate to see them reduced in a single mass of conformity. I look forward to moderation of the weirdnesses in the LDS and JW's as well. I think more orthodox variants of their tradition would add something to the Church. I don't doubt that it will happen, although probably not during my lifetime. (I just barely avoided saying that I want to add their distinctiveness to our own. Trekkies will understand.)
Don't really see the point here...what I am addressing in this thread is the degree of division or uniformity amongst the churches which have apostolic origin and those who embrace sola scriptura...
