Very few Christians have tried to cogitate a systematic rendering of their faith on purely rational grounds (onto-theology, in Kantian language, and I'm happy to resurrect that usage over the disgusting usage by Heidegger) for the very reason why the Scholastic attempt went kaput. I shall quote Will Durant(1); "It was a trojan horse that brought in a thousand hostile elements..." of course, their project was to integrate large Aristotle's philosophy into Catholicism, but the point still stands. At some point a leap of faith is necessary, and considerably more pernicious than the assumption that the mind is capable of clear reasoning, or the senses of reliable perception. An onto-theological argument for God can be put to the acid test of reason, and the faith hiding in it revealed after the rationalist clutter obscuring it has been burned away.

"They don't suddenly happen or appear when I want them to; they happen inside of a framework that the fundamental true believers don't (or can't) acknowledge."

I assert the only framework in question is reason itself. To the extent that one wishes to ignore, evade or subvert it as being bound up in some set of self-cloistering problems one must apply those criticisms to reason in general. There are, of course, empirical aspects to the applied form of natural law, but the bare skeleton upon which that meat is added is a purely rational framework.

I should also like to clear up a point. I don't use the term pure reason as Kant does, as I find the definition highly pernicious. In a sense it inadvertently furthers the Cartesian/Baconian(2) artificial dichotomy of reason/sense and doesn't fully accept the significance of the "dogmatic" observation that sense and reason are basically useless on their own.

(1) - This is a highly inexact quote from Story of Civilization Volume IV. I can't check it as I don't have the volume right now.
(2) - This is, I admit, more than a slight caricature of the problem, and the views of Descartes (but not so much for Bacon) as well.