As a protestant believer, it would be politically correct to declare my apathy towards the issue on denominations, as the Protestant tradition spearheaded by our spiritual "Father" - Martin Luther - implicates the notion of an invisible unity of the Body of Christ. Thus there is a somewhat unity in the midst of a diverse milieu of traditions, sects and denominations.
A common adage preached in modern Protestantism would be that of majoring on the majors, and not the minors. As long as we still adhere to the fundamentals of the truth, of Christ, salvation, etc etc, there is no harm at all.
Yet again, on an epistemological level, I can see some problems. One of the most fundamental laws of knowledge, or what we call First Principles, is that of the Law of Non-Contradiction. What this premise means is that a contradiction cannot exist one and the same time. There cannot be a co-existence of a contradiction (in the logical sense).
Statement A: There is a basketball under the bed.
Statement B: There is NO basketball under the bed.
I cannot make the claim that statements A and B are both true, at any ONE given moment. To make such a claim is to render all reality as nonsense and illogical. Either there is, or there isn't a ball. Of course, at two different times, both A and B can be true. But at any one time, there is always an antithesis. Thus the exclusivity of truth, epistemologically. Of course, this assumes the correspondence theory of truth, as espoused by analytic philosophers such as the late Bertrand Russell and Ludwig Wittgenstein. Even the more contemporary thinker and intellectual, the late Mortimer J. Adler (author of Ten Philosophical Mistakes, Six Great Ideas, How to Read a Book), do not decry against this fundamental tenet of truth.
Bringing this premise upon the issue of denominations, we can note that there are differences within Protestantism which are not minor at all. There is such a myriad of theological differences amongst denominations which contradict each other, and yet the propopents of each tradition attribute their theological rendering to the Holy Spirit and conviction.
But how is it possible for the Holy Spirit to contradict Himself?
Hmm...
Baptismal Regeneration.
Adult Baptism contra Infant Baptism
Immersion or infusion?
Justification by faith alone..?
Scripture alone?
Spirit Baptism with tongues?
Cessationist or non-cessationist?
Calvinism contra Arminian
etc etc.
And in each issue, the bible is taken as the sole rule of faith in defense. Yet the contradictions abound.
Hmm..which view is correct? Since both contradictions cannot be right? Who to believe? All claim it is the Bible (and the Holy Spirit) which gave them the interpretation..so how?
At the end of the day, the issue would boil down to the Reformed tenet of Sola Scriptura and the nature of private interpretation and the authority of the Church in regards to the Bible. Should there be a teaching office...a magisterium to decide over theological issues? Since the bible declares the Church as the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
What about the Oral Tradition of the Church, which has perpetuated the depositum fidei into the Church, through the apostolic college to teach and instruct generations of believers?
hmm...there is much to think about, even as a Protestant Christian. When one's philosphical premise crumbles, the entire structure falls, the foundation shaky. Then what..?
Crossing the tiber..?