Quote:
Originally Posted by Civbert  A few more benefits of Scripturalism (my preferred term).
Scripturalism simple. It doesn't present complex arguments to confuse the unbeliever or trick him. The unbeliever can either accept it, or reject it. But he can not defeat it. Chueng's presuppositionalism is a straight forward presuppositionalism. The presupposition is the Bible is the Word of God. And it builds on that. Any one who argues against the principle of presuppositionalism (that all world views are logically based on axioms) shoot themselves in the foot. A worldview without axioms is total nonsense or is playing mind games.
Scripturalism is non-circular. It has a logical start and justifies knowledge from the axiom. Again, not tricks, not mind games. Take it or leave it.
Scripturalism does not depend on Scripturalists to be valid. If one looks at the attracts on Scripturalism, they are mostly ad hominems - attacking Scripturalists instead of Scripturalism itself.
Scripturalism is Christian from the start. It doesn't start with "evidence" or arguments for God's existence. It starts with the Word.
Scripturalism is coherent. It starts with one axiom, and logically build on it.
Scripturalism is rational. It does not depend on subjective experiences or "feelings" or mysticism.
Scripturalism is comprehensive. It explains the world as we experience, but does not depend on experience to prove itself. I answers questions of both the world and the spirit. |
&
again!
But, I guess the question I have is Cheung advocating Scripturalism? If so, why not just call it that? Instead he prefers "Christian Rationalism" and then he spends the better part of a page explaining and clarifying. Don't get me wrong, most of what I've read from Cheung has been spot on, and, at least he has avoided muddying the water as have the defenders of so-called "althetic Scripturalism."
Anyway, I recall reading that he doesn’t consider himself a Scripturalist in the Clarkian sense. Is that correct? Not exactly sure where he differs, but then again I haven’t read enough of all that he has available. I admit I get a little uneasy when people equate Cheung with Clark, since, from what little I've read, Cheung doesn't seem to want to invite that comparison. Maybe it's just a matter of style too? Dr. Robbins makes it very clear that he is defending and promoting the Scripturalism of Gordon Clark. Cheung, while clearly influenced by Clark (to his benefit), seems to be defending and promoting the "Christian Rationalism" of Vincent Cheung. I admit this is not exactly fair on my part, but given the self-refuting, self-contradictory nonsense entailed in so-called "althetic Scripturalsim," perhaps you can see why I would be a little suspect.
Anyway, great post and nice summation. Preach it brother Tony!!!
