The primary and most damaging difference between the Christian theologies is that some are rooted in the historical-critical method of reading ancient manuscripts - Biblical ones, in particular while others, the Spiritual hearing of the words of God.
The "historical-critical method" is much like science's methodological naturalism." In science, the method accepts that science cannot "measure" God and thus cannot say whether or not He exists; and then proceeds with the assumption that nature is knowable and predictable and therefore, whatever the explanation for a thing is, it will be natural, or material, or physical.
Likewise the historical-critical method excludes the power of God on principle in reviewing ancient texts. It is thought to be scholarly and secular - but I assert that it is useless in Spiritual understanding. And, worse, it can be harmful to new Christians.
My testimony is that the words of God are alive they are not merely text (or language symbols) and the only way to comprehend them is spiritual per se.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. - I Corinthians 2:14
(b) testing the words of God by the rules of methodological naturalism and/or
(c) testing the words of God by mans rules of logic (e.g. Law of the Excluded Middle, Law of Identity)
Man is not the "measure" of God.
I think the condensed [if possible, probably not] essence of this post would do well as a routine part of your signature.
We should talk presuppositionalism sometime, A-G!