Make a careful distinction from the text and the answer comes back as a prefix — hyper, ultra, too far. Then a verse arrives to enforce it. But Paul never wrote strive not about words, and the sentence used to forbid precision commands it in the very next breath.

There is an old way to get rid of a doctrine you cannot answer: go after the man who said it. Scripture answers it plainly. God published His own messengers' failures, kept using them, and never once made a man's record the test of his message. Weigh what was said, not who carried it.

A graphic circulating online asks how a man never under the first covenant could be redeemed from transgressions under it. The question carries a premise it never states: that the only redemption there is, is redemption from covenant transgressions. Paul says guilt reached men who never had a covenant to break, and so does the remedy.

Who are the other sheep of John 10:16? The dispute turns on a word neither side had stopped to define. Scripture uses fold of a place — something built, entered, left or become — and never once of a people. Define the word and the sentence reads itself: Israel's own scattered, brought back to one fold under one shepherd.

You have probably heard that the word translated sorceries is where we get our word pharmacy, and that Revelation therefore condemns the drug industry. This examines the method behind that claim, why the passages themselves refuse it, and what your King James already tells you without help from a lexicon.

Soundness on the text is no guarantee of soundness everywhere. Some in the grace movement press the rightly divided word past what it states into speculation — such as the claim that the Body of Christ replaces fallen angels. This piece draws the line between what God has plainly said and what men build on top of it.

Peter Ruckman's 1985 booklet attacking Mid-Acts dispensationalism substitutes ridicule for exegesis. This systematic response examines each argument on its merits, showing that his scriptural case is weaker than his confidence suggests and that Paul's plain words about his own gospel are best taken at face value.