All of this is very nice if you are talking about restorationists, but most Protestants aren't restorationists. The Lutherans for example are not.
So say the talking heads, but the strictly confessional Lutherans believe that they are maintaining Christian life and doctrine as it has always been taught and believed in all places, and yet concepts like Sola Fide are categorized as such when it is absolutely not the case. So while they might not see it as a recovery in the same way that Restorationists do, they do seek to restore pure belief and practice by gutting certain elements. So while they might not be rebuilding the Church, they were doing some pretty extensive remodeling. The real question is, how much altering can take place before it becomes a different building altogether?
Well, that depends of course upon your ecclesiology. An Anglican would say that, yes, the continuity of the church is necessary sacramentally, but we also hold that things do get off track and have to be corrected. A Baptist and I believe most Calvinists would not think the same way about the continuity of the church.
"We're only teaching the doctrine of the Apostles" is a common sales pitch but it isn't really true of anyone. Doctrinal development is essential, and that's what sets off the "humans doing the talking" problem. There's an important difference between the restorationists, who basically talk as if they were skipping fifteen hundred years of church history, and the main body of Protestants, who are conscious of standing within the history of theology even when they are reacting against it. It's not the extent of the remodelling that matters, except that one believes that it is necessary or unneeded or wrong-headed. The problem with the restorationists is that they think they are simply rewinding, when they aren't. It really is necessary to confront the development of doctrine even when one disagrees with some element of it; otherwise the tendency is to repeat old mistakes; they are thus subject to the old criticisms. And if you look at the Protestant mainstream (leaving out the Baptists for the moment) you will see that when they talk about heresies they are in general agreed with the ancients that Arianism and so forth are heresies.
The mainline view is mostly about pruning: cutting away a lot of the development in doctrine and practice (especially the latter). I suppose one can argue that this is different only in degree from restorationism but I would hold that the historical consciousness of the mainline does make a difference. At any rate none of this leads to a refutation; it simple leads to outlining some of the principal differences. People who claim that they can do without the history of theology are wrong, because they are the products of that history. But the mainline doesn't do that, and at that point the issue becomes the process of theological development. One can criticism and reject some developments without having to reject institutions to the degree that the restorationists do.