I will hedge what I am persuaded is irrefutable, that "it is my persuasion" that a such and such is so. That the other's agreement is not required in order for me to believe a such and such.
For example five point Calvinists do have in their minds Scriptural bases for such convictions.
Such as
www.gospeldefense.com
I agree in that each to their own persuasion. Your position is not, obviously, irrefutable (most Biblical scholars refute it). What you mean by irrefutable is able to dissuade you from your conclusions.
The issue, I guess, is truth is more objective than what one may be persuaded is true.
I believe we have to have a constant awarness of what IS true and what we UNDERSTAND to be true. Teach and insist on the firmer, and of course believe the latter with a grain of salt.
The most interesting part or issue of the discussion to me is the 1st century practices and sects.
The Saducees controlled the Temple. Jews knew they were corrupt, but their public worship revolved around the Temple.
If you were a Jew then you could not simply obey Exodus. You couldn't choose a proper lamb or goat on the 10th and hold it until passover.
You had to buy an "approved" animal (one the priests deemed "unblemished" and proper). And you had to pay to exchange your money for Temple currency to buy the sacrificial animal.
Then you had the Pharisees. They thought that the Law "belonged to the people". They made laws for personal obedience.
For example, you ate the passover meal after the sun had set (to make sure you didn't eat it before the technical date).
So you had two competing sects making laws that had to be observed (one sect controlled the ceremony-ritual and the other the society in general).
While not an issue to argue over, I do find the early Jewish practices fascinating. Perhaps it was not how things
should have been done, but it was how it was done. And it shows their failure to keep God's commands (especially the spirit of the Law).