(Part of) the rebutal of all/some and age/forever is that a verse needs to interpretet itself.
Most of the time it's not limited to the verse and is surrounding verses are used also.
Often a list of verses thoughout the Bible is compiled to further strengthen the argument.
Using a large amount of verses to support ones doctrine is a good thing because it makes it harder to quote things out of context.
That's the theory.
But is exegesis really possible in real life.
The exegesis I've seen most often is nothing more than circular reasoning. Or more clear force fitting meanings into a certain doctrine.
If I compare it with math the usual way of calculating is: x1+x2+.....=?
But the exigesis I've see most often is like: ?+?+....=100
The 'calculation' starts with stating the result sound be "all" or "elect" then verses are interpreted to fit in the calculation.
So: Exegesis does it really exist?
Lots of homiletics is passed off as hermaneutics. I personally think that traditional Biblical hermeneutics, whether you're talking general hermeneutics or special hermeneutics is more an art than a science.
I can't speak for everybody else, or for anybody else, but my own interpretive principles are literal except where the text actually tells you otherwise, and to look at the context of the entire Bible, the context of the entire New Covenant, and context of an entire author of the Bible, and the context of spiritual principles that I've learned are solidly anchored in the Word by a boat load of passages throughout the Bible.
In other words, [as an example,] because of what I believe about the atonement, faith, and what the Scriptures say to me about the intent of God regarding the overcoming of believers, our being conformed to the image of Jesus Christ, etc., then I'm very careful about reexamining any doctrine that's been traditionally used to say the opposite of what I'm firmly clear about in Scripture, such as suffering, affliction, evil, etc.
There's the occasional passage like Mark 4 that'll specifically say that if you don't understand this, then don't go to the next page and forget about everything that I've said up until now until you get this right here. Mark 4 isn't the only one like that. There are a few other passages like that in the Scriptures.
So, for me, interpretation isn't random meditations or cookie cutting [like it is with some folks] but is deeply philosophical with reading everything in the context of all of the victories secured for us through the Cross and Resurrection of Jesus Christ and the basic common sense Scriptures throughout the Bible that tell me personally that God doesn't work against Himself, such as in 1Corinthians 14 where it says that God is not the author of confusion.
Other folks, in my estimation, build everything around a very perverted view of sufferings that's thoroughly unscriptural and negates the Cross. But in saying that, I'm not saying that that's where everyone is coming from that would differ with me about quite a bit. That just seems to be what they'll squabble over with their ideas that you can never come to a place in this life where you win every single time, etc.
Church censored Exergesis is the same technique the Pharisees used. They knew the Tanakh, but saw it through the eyes of a self righteous man who wanted to make himself feel special, even if the rest had to be punished. And as we know, things did not turn out to well for the Pharisees. Jerusalem was destroyed because of their self righteousness. And if you ask me, church censored exergesis is more of a conart. In fact all it really does is create confusion. God is love, but he is going to only save a small percentage of humanity. Sin, suffering, and death are going to be destroyed, but somehow Hell is going to exist storing most of humanity. Jesus scolds the Pharisees for their self righteous behavior, but then starts another system doing the same thing.