This is a quote from a church website. Is there a particular logical fallacy being employed in the last paragraph (last two sentences)? The first paragraph is provided for context:
Next, as a reminder of the importance of keeping His commandments, God gives the carnal Israelites a physical symbol to remember His commandments—the wearing of tassels. The Expositor’s Commentary says: “The story of the execution of the high-handed offender is designed to bring fear to all people that they, too, might be led to the breaking of the demands of the Lord in his Law. Hence, a most practical device is given, the wearing of tassels on one's garment as a perpetual reminder of the demands of God in his Torah or Law. Again, this is a mark of grace--as is all of the Torah. The reason for the tassels is given in this paragraph. As one would walk along, the tassels would swirl about at the edge of his garment. These would be excellent memory prods to keep faith with the Torah, to obey the commands of God. Each step of the believer was to be encircled by tassels that symbolized the restraints and freedoms of knowing Yahweh. The tassels were on the fringes of the garment, with special cords on the corners made of blue (or violet) color. This passage is the legislation that establishes the wearing of the tallis (or tallith), the traditional prayer shawl of Israel (and which is the pattern for the flag of the state of Israel today).
We do not need to use tassels today as memory devices to remember all of God's laws. Instead, God's Spirit writes His laws on our hearts and minds (Hebrews 8:10), helping us to remember all of His commands (John 14:26).
I'd really appreciate if you can identify the fallacy in that last statement, because I commonly see the same sort of casuistry being used by many religious writers, but I don't know how I could call them on it specifically. This example seems fallacious, but I don't know why.