Though obviously not impossible, God's word is really rather difficult to twist. It usually requires the citation of single verses with ignorance of the surrounding context, and likely a few extra steps, like "this pastor says", or "this interpretation conflicts with contemporary scientific knowledge". By far the easiest "extra step" is to circumvent the Bible almost completely and go to the "early Church". When the Biblical argument is weak, the historical argument is favored.
All too often, you'll find that this happens because heretics can get away with more. You can make any claim you want about Church history, and may even be able to find support of some form or another, and most Christians won't have a comeback because less of us study history. A faithful Christian will regularly study scripture, but who has time to read through the Church "Fathers"?
But one thing you'll notice about scripture is that it is specifically written to a Church in utter chaos. The early Church, for lack of better term, did not know what they were doing, and needed some divinely inspired documents to tell them "right, this is what you're doing wrong, this is how the Holy Spirit wants you to correct course". Not that they did nothing right, but you'll easily see that they didn't always have a full view of theology, sin ran rampant among them, and in some cases, heretics were even able to creep in and completely corrupt them and lead them astray.
One of the more tame beliefs the early Church had was that John would be immortal. In John 21:18-24, we read "Most assuredly, I say to you, when you were younger, you girded yourself and walked where you wished; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish.” This He spoke, signifying by what death he would glorify God. And when He had spoken this, He said to him, “Follow Me.” Then Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also had leaned on His breast at the supper, and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?” Peter, seeing him, said to Jesus, “But Lord, what about this man?” Jesus said to him, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you? You follow Me.” Then this saying went out among the brethren that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?” This is the disciple who testifies of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true."
What we see here is a relatively (and I believe intentionally) vague statement, an incorrect interpretation, and a correction in scripture. The vague statement: "If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you? You follow Me." The incorrect interpretation: John will remain until Jesus comes back. This saying, apparently, went out among the brethren. That is, the community of believers. The early Church.
Now, you could say "well actually, it's just the Apostles", but that really wouldn't change the case much. In fact, if anything, it would make it worse for those who argue from history. It's one thing if a false interpretation spread throughout the first century Church while the Apostles were still breathing, it's another thing entirely if the Apostles were the only ones to make this particular error.
The false interpretation came from reading too much into Jesus' statement. Jesus did not say "I will that he remain till I come", but "if I will, what is that to you? You follow me". So the simplest interpretation is to simply mind your own walk with Christ. It doesn't matter what He does with others, you do what He wants you to do. You don't need to add that He will do what, hypothetically, He would have every right to do with them.
It's interesting to note that the myth of John's immortality did not die with him. To this day, Mormonism teaches that John is still alive. To my knowledge, it is the only religion to say this. Yet, no Church has less claim to historicity than a cult originating in the 1800s, so surely no Christian would grant them legitimacy. Why, then, would we grant legitimacy to the many Churches which argue from the early Church, while being as contrary to scripture as the Mormon Church?
It is an undeniable fact that the early Church got stuff wrong. And that's to be expected. They did not have the whole New Testament. In some cases, the Apostles were only able to give brief guidance before being run out of town. Can we expect that a Church without scripture will do much better than Apollos before Aquila and Priscilla reached him in Acts 18? Of course not.
But even a faithful Church without a Bible will do better than a faithless Church who would rather be without a Bible. No Church, in the modern day nor 2,000 years ago, will ever have as much authority as the Bible, because the Bible is the word of God (2 Timothy 3:16-17). If you believe God is authoritative, there is no consistent way to argue the early Church over scripture. But if you argue the early Church over scripture, you're connected to neither, because the early Church had one thing absolutely spot on: When God spoke, they did their best to listen and obey. Being sinners, they failed as much as we do, but being saved by grace, they succeeded far more often than the Satanic servants who say "tradition" over "it is written".