What's the point of debating with Christians?

[postroad]

They decide which texts are literal and which are allegory. They decide what a word really means.

I find it a bit depressing. I could even cope with it if they came to a consensus. I'm thinking of Paul's use of the Hebrew Scriptures. He simply had no respect for context or even the correct rendering?

Apologists will claim he had the authority under Holy Spirit to do so. Are believers claiming the same authority when they bend the texts to fit their beliefs?

Is that what is meant by Spiritual discernment?

I find it particularly disturbing when I'm accused of eisegesis when assuming the literal interpretation of a text. I'm required to defend the plain reading and accused of attempting to force the text into a preconceived interpretation simultaneously?

[PinSeeker]

There's not. As I said, salvation is of the Lord. There is no disagreement on that. God saves. By the work of His Spirit. Because of the work of atonement on the cross by Jesus. There is no disagreement on that.

But there are a lot more salvific issues other than this one specific issue.

No, that's really the only one. All other issues are derived (and contrived, actually) from it.

No, there's just disagreement over what "salvation is of the Lord" really means...

That that right there, is a disagreement over salvific issue. What "salvation is of the Lord" means is a salvific issue.

No, that's just a human understanding issue (or lack thereof). There's no disagreement concerning the main thing, which is that salvation is of the Lord.