I never cease to be amazed at how professing Christians can repeatedly cling to the same 1% or less of Scriptural passages, misapplying them to justify their erroneous positions, all as they repeatedly ignore the other 99% of divine biblical testimony. It’s insanity to me.
It’s even worse when they rely on the ambiguity fallacy to bolster their position (wherein, amongst other things, the same word can have different meanings/applications depending on the context), whilst misrepresenting the position of others via said ambiguity. A key example of this in the Bible is the word “law,” which can refer to (1) the Entire Bible; (2) the Pentateuch alone; (3) the Mosaic law (which the Christian is no longer under); (4) the law of ordinances found within the Mosaic Law (which the Christian is likewise no longer under); (5) a working force/principle (like the ‘law in [our] members, warring against the law of [our] mind’ Per Romans 7:23), or (6) the spiritual law (i.e., the extant body of commandments, imperatives, exhortations for all believers, as referenced in Romans 7:22,25).
If you are using a word one way, and they knowingly respond using it another way (or are too ignorant to discern the very clear differences in usage), all it does is lead to chaos and error. If one cannot come to terms regarding the meaning of terms, via the proper use of terms (in their full context), one is a witting/unwitting deceiver.
Simply put, if there are literally scores of passages (in the Old Testament and in the New) that contradict your position, you can’t ignore them just because you think your handful of verses (at best) trumps. It is nothing short of fraudulent to put blinders on, and never address the other clear, oft-repeated, warnings, commandments, and exhortations in Scripture. No credibility should be given to anyone who sees the passages put before them, sees the explanations for why many believe they refute the position put forth by the professor, and yet completely ignores them (seemingly thinking that by oft-restating their position, re-quoting the same few passages instead, they have somehow affirmed their stance, whilst thoroughly refuting the opposition).
See the linked content… basically, if you make an assertion, fail to properly back it up (since dropping a verse or two haphazardly is not backing it up… nor is merely quoting a man, no matter how faithful), and then think that by reasserting the position over and over again, with the same few passages (or men) re-quoted, you are proving your point… you must understand that you are not proving it at all… you are simply begging the question.
In classical rhetoric and logic, begging the question or assuming the conclusion (Latin: petitio principii) is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument’s premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it.”