OK, in that sense I understand what you are saying.
Me: "If you and I met the same man, and we each gave him an opposite teaching, would you judge the correctness of the teaching by which of us convinced the man?"
Again, this is not the right corollary of what I am saying. If Jake and Jim met a man and each spoke to him, and Jake sent him to Christ then Jake spoke the truth, even though Jim might have succeeded in sending him to Satan.
I was responding to your original statement:
Ultimately, the test of correctness is whether a holy work brings people to Christ.
Your response fails your own test! :)
The issue is, which men [are repositors of God's truth]. Protestantism encourages a democratic model, where not just more men, but everyone, decide moral issues for themselves. Communism says that the state decides.
Well, in my joking comparison, the state was the Church. I saw some similarities. I don't see Protestantism as being a democracy in that whatever the majority says goes. I thought a great criticism of us was that there were so many differing views. I also don't see every Protestant deciding an individual moral code. That would be chaos. Our sub-unities are fairly united with fairly similar interpretations of God's moral code. We believe none of us has any morals of our own. God defines morality in scripture, and we reckon it, and live up to it or not to whatever degree.
I lost you here. Why? I also don't see every Protestant deciding an individual moral code.
Of course not. But in principle, they could open the Bible and do just that, because that is Protestantism is all about: find out what you think the Bible said and find a church that fits you. If you can't, start your own.