Thread by @FairOaksStation

@TheOtherPaul2 There's a lot to respond to here, so I'll try to take each of your points one at a time:
First, I take for granted that we agree that unity in interpretation of scripture is the ultimate goal (cf. 1 Cor 1:10). When we accept this premise, certain things follow

@TheOtherPaul2 In reference to norms/notions, I mean to suggest that we are temporal, fallible beings that do not have perfect objectivity. If we are to interpret in a purely private manner, we are going to fall into error because we cannot fully remove ourselves from our circumstances

@TheOtherPaul2 This suggests that we cannot examine things in a purely critical and objective manner, yes.

Regarding what we're disagreeing on, this is a conversation on sola scriptura, so I think a focus on the means of interpretation suffices; no need to get bogged down in particulars

@TheOtherPaul2 If we were to hone in on a particular disagreement, you would make your argument, I would make mine, and both of us would leave frustrated at how our interlocutor couldn't see things in our very simple, obvious way

@TheOtherPaul2 The whole of my disagreement is that we cannot simply present our arguments and then decide who is right and who is wrong in an objective fashion; if that were so, this would have been settled centuries ago

@TheOtherPaul2 Ergo, if we agree that unity in interpretation is important, we need a higher authority to intervene and settle these very disputes

@TheOtherPaul2 Certainly, we cannot be totalitarian and there will be disagreement on the margins, I agree with you there, but there are certain things that are so central to the faith that agreement is paramount: the Trinity, the nature of Christ. All these were decided at ecumenical councils