That is another argument, and a much longer one at that. Let's stick to the Rapture in particular.
Either the Rapture is in the Bible, or it's not. Since it's false, it's not.
Those who hold to the belief contend that it *is* in the Bible. And in defense of their position, they point to Scripture. This is an observable fact.
Therefore, the idea did not originate in Scripture, but in man-made corruption of Scripture.
That it is a man-made corruption of Scripture I will take as a given. However, in all fairness, it has just as much root in Scripture as does any other Protestant innovation, such as 'Faith Alone'.
Man-made corruption of Scripture is not a "uniquely Protestant" phenomenon.
No, but the Rapture most certainly is. And for the record, I did not say that "man-made corruption of Scripture" was "uniquely Protestant". What I said was that the rapture theology was uniquely Protestant. The belief is only espoused by those in the Premillennial camp. As I pointed out elsewhere (on this very thread), Millennialism (aka Chiliasm) was kicked to the curb in the 4th century. It was picked back up by Protestants. More to the point, it is their rejection of Tradition (Sola Scriptura) that has allowed them do do this. Had Protestants held to the Tradition of the Church, Premillennialism would not be a topic and, by extention, niether would the Rapture.
In short, Sola Scriptura is the root cause of any current Rapture debates.
So? That is true of almost any false doctrine promoted by someone claiming Christianity.
That it is a man-made corruption of Scripture I will take as a given. However, in all fairness, it has just as much root in Scripture as does any other Protestant innovation, such as 'Faith Alone'.
I agree completely with that comment, but again, it does *not* come from 'scripture alone.' False doctrine is necessarily an addition to scripture. Apostasy is created by a failure to follow the Bible alone, because "you can't get there from here", so to speak, if you are really following only the Bible. The fact that some *claim* to do so but subsequently adopt a bunch of unscriptural nonsense does not discredit the Biblical approach itself, it just indicts those who falsely invoked it.
Since this is FR, I'll throw in a political analogy. The baby-killers point to the U.S. Constitution and claim it guarantees a right to an abortion. Since this is a false claim, it does nothing to discredit the idea of appealing to the text of the Constitution for ultimate legal authority (sola constitutiona?) rather than tradition (judicial precedent, case law, living-document crap).