Protestantism had its origin primarily in a political context. Luther had been declared a heretic at the Diet of Worms in 1521, but the Diet of Speyer of 1526 had issued what we might think of as a temporary injunction against strict enforcement of Worm's Reichstag (imperial ban) against evangelical Christianity. The injunction could only be lifted by a full council, and that wasn't going to happen for many years. The net effect was a temporary declaration of religious liberty for the princes of the free cities of Germany, which benefited the reformers.
However, at the Diet of Speyer in 1529, Ferdinand, regent of the Holy Roman Emperor (Charles V), removed the "injunction" of tolerance and insisted on compliance with the Edict of Worms to stamp out Protestantism as a duty of the princes. Obviously, this met with objection by those princes favorable to evangelical Christianity. They appealed the decision to resume hostilities. Hence their "protest" was against forcible political suppression, up to and including the execution of Anabaptists and others. It was here they were first derogated as "the protestants," for having the nerve to object to their own injury. See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestation_at_Speyer
What I do find interesting is an apparent contradiction between Wikipedia articles. In the one linked above, Ferdinand's actions in the 1529 Diet are represented as expressive of Charles' will, but in the article below, it is said that Ferdinand was subversive to the will of Charles, who wanted reconciliation, which makes more sense politically, considering his troubles with the Turks in the east:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diet_of_Speyer_(1529)
At this point, I don't know which is true, but if in fact the so-called "birth of Protestantism" came from an act of rebellion by the Catholic regent subverting the will of the Holy Roman Emperor, the irony would be almost too rich to digest.
The upshot of all this is that these recurring claims that Protestantism is a rejection of historical Christianity, and that all of it burst suddenly on the scene through one wandering German monk, are almost too ridiculous to be given the time of day. There had been an evangelical theme among Christians from day one, whether inside or outside the Roman edifice. The reformers were following more or less in the footsteps of Augustine, contra Ambrose and others, a division of thought with long duration and tolerated reasonably well until the reformation brought a messy divorce between the two. Yes, this is an oversimplification, and it deserves the work of a full treatise, but this is intended only to show that disparagement of evangelical Christianity as a novelty would only satisfy an incurious mind too eager to lay blame. The truth lies deeper than clever FR quips.
What for example of the neo-prots? Right here on FR, we have people routinely "protesting" the current efforts to liberalize Roman teaching on the family, social justice, etc. If it is right for these to dissent, then dissent itself cannot be the issue, and mocking others who dissent for different reasons is hypocritical. But dissent is just loyal opposition, someone says. Well and good. So thought Luther and the other reformers. They did not ask to be declared heretics. They did not ask to have edicts written against their very lives. They objected to that, and if ever the current "loyal opposition" to the destructive machinations of Francis, Kaspar etc is labeled "heretic," they too will object ("protest") and will doubtless explain it is the other chap who has gone heretic, and they may well be right, but they will still be "protestants" by their own definition.
Which is why debating these matters in that framework is a losing battle, for everybody. It accepts the premise that the "Church" is primarily a human institution, and not an organic spiritual entity. Once within that "institutional" domain, the arguments are so easily derailed by subjective opinion that no consensus will ever be possible. But Christ pointed us toward the organic view:
Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.
(Matthew 13:31-32)
No matter how great the size of that mustard plant, nor however many branches it grows, the life of every branch goes back to the living root, which we know is Jesus Himself. Predatory birds may come and take shelter in those branches, just as predatory men and women might come among the faithful to meet their own carnal needs. But they are not participants in the true life of the tree. They are just temporary passengers. The Lord knows those who are His.
Peace,
SR