We have already established that appealing to a popular, theological position is not a fallacious argument. As I recall, you backward-acceded to that concession.
As you also recall, that is, as I stated, the reason that “Church not appearing after chapter 4 Revelation” is to be considered as one evidence for a pre-touchdown rapture.
“We have already established that appealing to a popular, theological position is not a fallacious argument. As I recall, you backward-acceded to that concession.”
No, I didn’t. I said that your position, that an argument’s popularity was evidence of its validity, could be valid, but not without demonstration. However, the point you are missing is that, such a demonstration, for all intents and purposes, is impossible. So, your argument is fallacious for the same reason that the slippery slope argument is fallacious; not because it is never valid, but because its validity can never be reliably demonstrated.
There are many reasons the argument could be popular that aren’t dependent on its validity. How could one ever demonstrate that those aren’t the reasons? It would require seeing into every individual proponent’s heart and mind to make such a demonstration, so it is not reasonable to expect any such demonstration could ever be done. Thus, such arguments must be discarded as fallacious, even if, hypothetically, they could be valid in some circumstances.