I just realized that I had never responded to this portion of your argument. Perhaps it was because you said you were going to get back to us with a clearer understanding of "reformed soteriology".
On your Rapture portion however, you again make my points even stronger, that some church traditions are dangerous. Just because the church as a whole did not speak of the Rapture in earnest for 1800 years or whatever, is a poor excuse for not teaching it, or anything else it may have forgotten such as the gifts of the spirit.
If you recall, Paul had to correct many errors in his day in his churches that he set up because of how quickly they had forgotten his and Jesus teachings. If they forgot so quickly and they did, do you think it's possible that the church proper for 1800 years following may have forgotten a few things without him? It would be reckless to think otherwise.
But you once again prove you put more importance on the teachings of men after the original than you do the original. So you do not practice "Solo Scriptura", you only talk about it. |
