When discussing theology with someone who disagrees with me about a specific doctrine, if they ask me a question or raise an objection that I’ve already answered or responded to in my free eBook, they’re demonstrating that they haven’t actually studied the topic carefully enough to be qualified to be dogmatic about it yet.
This should really go without saying, but if you want to convince someone that their theological view is incorrect, you need to already be familiar with what your opponent believes and why they actually believe it when it comes to that doctrine before you begin arguing with them about it, which means being familiar with all of the important scriptural interpretations they hold, not to mention all of the arguments they use, that are relevant to the doctrine (including not only the specific interpretations of the passages of Scripture that your opponent believes proves their view, but also your opponent’s interpretations of the passages that you think proves your view as well). Because if you aren’t already familiar with all of these interpretations and arguments, you can’t say that you’ve already considered all of their interpretations and arguments, and hence can’t say that you’ve actually studied the doctrine thoroughly, since a truly thorough study of a specific doctrine would include all of the interpretations and arguments both for and against it.
When I wrote my eBook, I made sure to look up every scriptural interpretation and argument against the doctrines I included in the book that I could find, because I wanted to make sure I wasn’t missing any important details (and in some cases I did end up changing my mind about certain things as I studied, because it turned out I had missed certain details, and I made sure to adjust my theology accordingly as that occurred). And if you aren’t willing to do likewise when arguing with me, I have no reason to believe that you’ve studied the topic anywhere near as carefully as I have. (And I’m not saying any of this to brag; I’m simply pointing out the facts necessary to making my point.)
So before asking me a question about how I interpret a specific passage, and especially before simply “proof texting” passages to me that I’ve almost certainly already considered and discussed in my eBook, ask yourself how I’d answer the question or how I already interpret that passage or those passages. And if you don’t know whether I’ve already given my interpretation and/or answer in my eBook, it means you need to read the whole thing before even asking it or raising your objection. Because if you haven’t, you definitely can’t say you’ve considered all the possible answers already, or that you’ve actually studied the topic carefully enough yet, because the fact of the matter is that I almost certainly have answered it in my book (and on the off chance it turns out that I haven’t, you need to know that beforehand too). And honestly, it’s also insulting to me every time someone raises a question or objection that I’ve already answered or responded to in my book, because, by doing so, they’re implying that they think I haven’t already studied the topic carefully enough to have done so already.