Replies

>>So the method is to each argue their case, and only then if it involves the set of "essential to salvation"?<<

I have never called it argue but more investigate the reason and foundations for why we believe what we believe. Not only those things essential to salvation because it’s interesting to support and back up what we believe on even the smaller things but then I am a person who enjoys a good debate. Others not so much. I firmly believe that for most people the simple gospel of “believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved – and your house” is about as far as they get in their life. As long as they are fervent in that belief I believe they are saved.

>>Would it be correct to say the differences of interpretation are settled by argument using the rules of reason?<<

Human reason seems to always be eliminated by revelation.

"Argue" doesn't only mean a verbal fight. It also is used as in "argue one's case" versus another's. This is how I meant it in this context of what happens when two disagree on interpretation. Debate, as you say, is what I took as your method in these cases with the rules of reason applying.

Human reason seems to always be eliminated by revelation.

If your method for deciding differences is by on reasoned debate, you can't eliminate human reason and still maintain it as a valid method. You could argue what a particular revelation is or means, but not bring in one's own revelation as a deus ex machina when at a loss for reasons to support one's thesis.

My point here was to point out that there is first the decision on scripture, then the decision on interpretation, then the difference on meaning that is then decided by the method of reason/logic.

The other, I think important, thing to note here is that this method of deriving theology adds another requirement, a fairly high level of competency in formal logic. (Else bad reason, or fallacies, can easily win the argument invalidating the result.)

… for most people the simple gospel of “believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved – and your house” is about as far as they get in their life. .

Isn't that a violation of your previous position that it was every Christian's task to "…determine what is scripture or revelation, what is the correct translation and meaning of same and from this what are the correct beliefs…"?

I'm not clear now where you stand on the question. If, for example, "they are fervent in that belief" because it's what their teachers taught them and what their family and social group support, aren't they then relying on others, going with the crowd, etc?

Is each tasked to arrive at their own beliefs as you do or not?