I agree: Faith is absolutely an epistemological question. If God spoke to me personally and gave me access to knowledge, then I would have that knowledge. That's one "method" for getting knowledge. Is it a reliable method? If God told me that it was reliable, I would probably have to believe him. I think that's your point: A Christian asserts that knowledge can also come through divine revelation.

And that's fine. It's logically consistent. But it's not Science. I have no objective basis to assert the primacy of science or empiricism. I don't think I claimed that in the post (though maybe my tone implied it - I do have my biases). Faith/revelation is one thing and science is another.

My point in the post was to disagree with the claim that because something is logically consistent, it must be scientific. Science is testable. Revealed truth is not. Both can be logically and internally consistent (and rational, as you put it).