Theoretically, since truth is single or unified, mutual and equal submission to the truth and to proper methods should lead to common, correct conclusions.
But, 1) people, even born-again Christians, are not identically constituted or formed, nor ideally reprogrammed upon conversion; but are transformed slowly by the renewing of their minds, Rom.12:2.
And 2) we are both sinful and fallible, neither of which factors is removed by regeneration.
It is also true that when we come to varying conclusions, this can be an important clue that regardless of surface-level commonalities, many people who think (sincerely) they are on the same page as others, in fact are not.
I sometimes use the "baptism" dispute as a paradigm case. The happy reality is that on many vital points of doctrine, Presbyterians and Baptists stand on much the same high ground. But we got there by two divergent, distinguishable hermeneutical routes; and the stakes we've driven in our respective surveys mapping the lay of the land do not coincide.
No, not all roads lead to God or good theology given enough time and patience. But often there is enough compatibility at a deep enough level to allow for good cooperation of a kind. We don't always have that; we should be thankful when it is found.
G-H interpretation is not a GPS kind of tool. It is a tool, and people don't always use it in the same way. It is an important tool, but there are different limits and guides various people employ when using G-H methods. Some folks use G-H interpretation narrowly construed to "squeeze out" of consideration ordinarily valid conclusions. G-H interpretation, combined with a "literalist" predilection or "dispensational" grid of pre-understanding gives a very different outcome in eschatology for sure; and sometimes also in considering which parts of Scripture are suitable for teaching or organizing in the NT era.
A covenant-theologian like myself sees the need to use G-H interpretation to make a map for navigation, combined with CT presuppositions (since I think that's the Bible's own "grid"), and a redemptive-historical lens (Christological) to focus the effort.
Biblical interpretation is serious, deep business; which is why we argue about it. Mathematicians argue. Geologists argue. People contend for things they have passion for. And people can share basic agreements, and still dispute over conclusions. Nor does the best idea always win out and win over. Knowledge can be irretrievably lost, unless God exists.
Hope this is helpful.
