How to Argue from the Bible Poorly

Lately, I have noticed a particular bent in conservative evangelical circles toward a special type of biblicism. This biblicism is characterized by a style of argumentation that loosely takes after the preaching of early modern preachers in their common (or plain) sense hermeneutic. The arguer cites chapter and verse as a premise in the argument (presupposing much) and begs the question by assuming their own conclusions in their premises.

Such arguers take after this example:

I think it’s implied clearly and spoken clearly in Romans 1:24-29 that homosexuality is wrong and to be avoided. And I think Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 lists a very unusual phrase about homosexuality where he says, “Those who do such things”—and he lists it along with greed and covetousness and other sins, so it’s not unique by itself in this—”those who do such things will not enter the kingdom of heaven.”

Regardless of the veracity of their presupposed conclusion, the argument is not an argument; “homosexuality is wrong; here is a verse that proves it.”

The obvious problem here is that it reads presuppositions into the text without a proper awareness of said presuppositions.

Here is another example:

Proverbs 18:21 says, “Death and life are in the power of the tongue.” Abortion is a clear example of this truth.

I assume this is trying to argue that the scripture precludes the adjudication of death and life by the tongue? I am unclear on this, as if that were true, the death penalty would be universally condemned on the same grounds by the author (as courts adjudicate life and death in the same manner). Regardless, the association between abortion and this verse is based on the assumption that abortion is killing.

Again, regardless of the veracity of their presupposed conclusion, a scriptural association is not an argument.

These scriptural associations are frankly used to score political points with audiences and readerships but are not more than that.

To continue with these associations without clear argumentation (or references to such exegetical argumentation) is heinously uncharitable to the scriptures, not to mention, it is intellectually lazy.