The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Why reject SCRIPTURALISM ?

Why reject SCRIPTURALISM ?

Scripturalism is self-referentially incoherent.
Scripturalism is refuted by Scripture itself.
The infallibilist constraint on knowledge is in conflict with Scripturalism and yet is regularly employed by Scripturalists against alternative modes of knowledge.
The internalist constraint on knowledge is in conflict with Scripturalism and yet is regularly employed by Scripturalists in arguments against non-Christians.
The occasionalist psychology of belief is in conflict with Scripturalism and yet is regularly appealed to by Scripturalists as an alternative to genuinely empirical modes of knowledge
The occasionalist psychology of belief is in conflict with Scripturalists’ reliance on the internalist constraint on knowledge.
Scripturalists cannot show how a Christian worldview solves various philosophical and ethical problems raised for non-Christian worldviews.
A Scripturalist cannot know that he exists, cannot have assurance of salvation, and cannot know how to apply God’s ethical requirements to his life.
A Scripturalist must reject historic Christian doctrine as something unknowable.

So, why accept Scripturalism ?

Of particular note, were the comments on 02-15-2006, 11:35 PM and, 02-15-2006, 11:43 PM (...It's incoherent. In other words, it fails to justify itself because it does not imply itself (it contains no statement of identity).

Additional:

Some thoughts on Sola Scriptura

Straw,

Interesting how you reject "Sola Scriptura" but claim to be a Christian. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" /> How can this be when the entire Christian faith (repository of biblical doctrine) rests solely upon Scripture. And, what pray tell is the alternative if Scripture isn't self-authenticating?

There is enough here to refute every statement you have made: Sola Scriptura.

In His grace,

Dear Pilgrim,

(changed comment, and subject)

If I have come across too strong on this matter of Sola Scriptura, it is not because I completely reject it. Rather, I defended Sola Scriptura boldy on multi-denomonational (open) forum (for quite some time) and needless to say; I am not as confident now, as I was back then.

I am sure you have read the work of Robert Bowman. I am going to read what you have linked. (today) I am going to give you a link to a current discussion : Defining the doctrine of Sola Scriptura by Robert Bowman started in August 2006. It is top of the list, at the moment, in the Bible segment to the BIOLA forum Apologetics.com

Defining The Doctrine Of Sola Scriptura
(an ongoing debate since August 2006)

Earnestly,