Perhaps you missed this lengthy post here:
Post #122
Which was completed with this post:
Post #123
I could easily post more, if you'd like.
I present many things as merely opinion. However, when I present a doctrine, I build it line upon line.
That's the great thing about computers. Back in the 70's when I was first learning to study, it would take hours to come up with lists of verses that contain a word. Now, I can get a list of every time a word is used, with or without other words, using grammar, etc., in a matter of seconds.
I rarely rely upon the works of men, such as commentaries (although Robertson and Vincent have some handy ones that don't seem to be biased toward any denomination, although Robertson was at Louisville Baptist Seminary), except for the BDAG and grammar texts.
Then, I compare it to context, and one thing that I've learned is that if you look at the grammar, it never contradicts the context. There may be some times that the grammar or context alone might be amiguous, but rarely when combined.
I also don't simply accept contradictions as being merely a mystery of God. We've been given an instruction book and I don't think that God was ambiguous in the way it is worded: I think it's precise, in every little detail, and in great detail, although men, through copying errors have created a few problems. Those can be studied through prayerfully, and many times the issue is cleared up.
But, I have learned that many things that I was taught as a child, such as all saved people are saints, are wrong and the Scriptures will not support that either through context or grammar. It's like using "lost" and "unsaved" synonymously. One of my teachers taught that contextually, "lost" did not always mean unsaved. I was blessed enough by God to be able to show him that it
never refers to an unsaved person.
A Greek professor that I know taught me that to see the Scriptures without any spin, read it in the Greek. (He also has a PhD in Hebrew, but I don't know Hebrew, so I rely on the LXX.) "Hell" is not the lake of fire; those who think that salvation can be lost point to the warnings about hell to show that salvation can be lost. Those who see that salvation is secure try to put a "saved person wouldn't really do that" or "really and truly saved" spin on it to make it fit. But, when you see that "hell" and the "lake of fire" are not synonymous, you don't have to twist or ignore any other Scriptures.
The same holds true for "saint" equals "saved", "heaven" equals "Kingdom", "age" equals "forever" arguments.
There are no contradictions in Scripture, and if you read Scriptures in the original languages, it immediately clears up about 90% of the places that
seem contradictory.
