Today I came across an old thread on a (now closed) forum where I used to post and found the following (now slightly edited) comment that I made about two years ago:
Someone can justify a doctrine by quoting countless scripture verses – but if his understanding of those verses is not consistent with what scripture says elsewhere, his understanding is wrong.
Someone can justify their doctrine by quoting a scripture verse but if scripture elsewhere adds MORE information not contained in that verse – then their doctrine will be only a PARTIAL truth and will not give the whole story.
Convincing arguments can be made to support most false doctrines through the use of scripture. However to maintain that support a lot more scripture needs to be ignored.
The strength/weakness of a belief can often be determined more by what is hidden (the parts of scripture ignored) than by what is revealed (the carefully selected parts of scripture that seem to support the belief).
My former involvement with WOF was prolonged because I pushed aside the doubts that arose when I read a part of scripture that seemed to contradict what the WOF teachers were saying.
Their doctrines were only strong while those contradictory parts of scripture were ignored. When those scriptures were properly addressed weaknesses in WOF doctrines were exposed.
It wasn’t until I willingly addressed those formerly ignored parts of scriptures that I could recognize and turn from those false WOF teachings.