"First, there is a huge difference between using one's reason to try to figure out what the Bible says/means and using one's reason to determine that a portion of the Bible is not revelation at all because one doesn't like what it says. That's the difference between Christians and the theistic rationalists."
Here is my response:
"'Because one doesn't like what it says' is pure and unsupported conjecture Gregg. If this is the main difference and that is all you have for evidence I am not seeing it. They may not like what you think it says it does not mean they reject the Bible."
When we look at church councils and how things like the biblical canon and the trinity became "doctrine" this discussion becomes more complex than some let on. In other words, what gives a bunch of priests anymore right to determine what to put into the bible more than Jefferson or anyone else in theory? Yes, I know Jefferson discounted miracles as a pre-supposition and thus cut the bible apart based on that. I have no problem calling him a "theistic rationalist" or whatever. But with many of the others I do not see them going to this extreme.
I guess I am not seeing the difference between reasoned interpretation and using reason to discern what is genuine revelation or not in the sense of how the Bible was put together and what parts are genuine revelation. It seems as if he is saying that one has to take the whole bible on faith or he is using reason to trump revelation. But it seems to me that all one really has faith in is that the men who put the canon together were not as corrupt as the ones who voted the trinity as church doctrine. It also seems to ignore that some parts like Paul's Epistles are possibly just his opinion and not revelation. Yes, I do know this opens up a huge can of worms that most Evangelicals seem to want to keep closed.
But I do not think we are going to get to the bottom of this "reason trumps revelation" debate unless we pry it open.