Sola Scriptura and the Quadrilateral

[Chris Patton]

Can some of you help with clarifying the differentiation between the reformers view of sola scriptura and the wesleyan quadrilateral? I have my conclusions, but was wondering how you might explain it.

Thanks,

Chris

[Ryan Scott]

I think it has to do with the primacy of scripture. We may use a bunch of different streams of knowledge and interpretation, but we consider scripture to be our ultimate authority. The reformers went with "sola scriptura" in the same vein, however, their immediate context was against a Roman Catholic hierarchy that came to see the rule of Church as superior to scripture at times.

We don't face the same contextual issue, so we have to flesh the idea out a bit further. I don't think the reformers would argue much with John Wesley's understanding of scripture, in fact he got a lot of it from them.

[Mike Schutz]

Can some of you help with clarifying the differentiation between the reformers view of sola scriptura and the wesleyan quadrilateral? I have my conclusions, but was wondering how you might explain it.

Thanks,

Chris

Of course, we always have to remember that the "Wesleyan Quadrilateral" was not from Wesley, but a description of Wesley's thought, as explained by Outler.

[Scott Sherwood]

I think it has to do with the primacy of scripture. We may use a bunch of different streams of knowledge and interpretation, but we consider scripture to be our ultimate authority. The reformers went with "sola scriptura" in the same vein, however, their immediate context was against a Roman Catholic hierarchy that came to see the rule of Church as superior to scripture at times.

We don't face the same contextual issue, so we have to flesh the idea out a bit further. I don't think the reformers would argue much with John Wesley's understanding of scripture, in fact he got a lot of it from them.

Well said.

Some have tried to re-invent Wesley by claiming that the quadrilateral represents 4 sources of theological truth all of which must be balanced out by the other three. This is clearly not what Wesley taught. Scripture was THE authoritative revelation of God's truth for Wesley. The quadrilateral (not his word) represented the four ways we have of understanding Scripture. He said that Scripture must be first interpreted by other Scripture. Tradition, Reason, and Experience were also helpful in interpreting and contextualizing the truth of Scripture.

[Chris Patton]

I understand the the quadrilateral is not specifically Wesley. What do we do with the people who say "God said, I believe it, that settles it" (an aberrant form of Sola Scriptura, but I won't them them) and how do we begin to help them understand the ways we interpret Scripture? Maybe my initial question should be, how do we help people understand that if ANYONE talks about Scripture, they are interpreting, and so there really can be no such thing as "only Scripture" in the ways it is popularly discussed?

Peace,

Chris

[John Kennedy]

IMO even the most vociferous sola scriptura people are de facto 'quadists'. No one takes scripture 'straight. We employ reason in attempting to understand and apply it, we read it through the lenses of tradition (no matter how intensely we attempt to disavow having a tradition), and, since amnesia is not all that common, our experience extensively influences our understanding.

The most fundamental problem with the sola scriptura position is the well-intentioned intellectual dishonesty of its loudest proponents.

[Chris Patton]

I agree, but how would one begin to explain this to people who have been shaped by the other view? I am not trying to rock someone's world, but it seems the "sola" view has been reason not to deal with scripture carefully and thus people do not see the need for careful study--so they don't study scripture at all, or do it in a haphazard way that only supports their conclusions.

I am asking because comments lately during Bible studies that sound something like "I just don't think that way, I just read the Bible and do what it says" as a response to keep from dealing with some of the difficult (but very important) texts in Scripture (The Gospel of Mark, for one, even at a cursory read flies in the face of much of simple, easy Christianity).

Chris

[Ryan Scott]

For me, the easiest way is to ask where scripture came from. Not like "God inspired it," but understanding their view of inspiration is the key step. From there you can have a more informed discussion.

Obviously, for some people, "I thought it, that's good enough for me" is their eternal mode of being.

[Charles W Christian]

Some theologians have argued (and argued well, I believe) that Luther meant supreme scriptura when he said, sola scriptura. In other words, Luther was not discounting things like tradition (he was a Catholic, after all) or reason (he and especially later Reformers were very much part of the Enlightenment Era). Rather, in his context, Luther was trying to elevate Scripture as supreme "arbitor" of matters of faith and practice.

There's lots more to say, but that's a start, I think....

Thanks,
CWC

[Eric Frey]

I think my difficulty with the whole thing is that each of the four are means by which Christ is revealed to us. I think that is often left out of the discussion as if the only thing that matters is learning the Scripture. Would any say that Christ is revealed less in the sacraments than he is in the scripture? I don't think so. Some may argue that the sacraments are based on scripture, but I would suggest that the sacraments were in use prior to scripture. Or how about preaching? It seems clear that the sermon was a traditional form and minsitry of the church prior to scripture (understood as telling the Good News of Christ), yet it was powerfully effective in revealing Christ to the world. Both the the preaching of Christ (word) and the celebrating of Christ (sacrament) are traditions that are confirmed by scripture. So I don't think it is nearly as neat or simple as we'd like it to be.

More to your point Chris, I push their assumptions sometimes to the point of absurdity. Confront them with the difficult text. Keep the converstation in the realm of plenary inspiration not proof texting, lovingly start helping them to tear down the walls you are finding so they can start rebuilding them in a more helpful way. Always ask them questions. Don't tell them. Guide them toward coming to their own conclusions.

The other thing that I find vital is good preaching. If they see you wrestling with the difficult texts, and how your understanding of scripture blossoms into something so beautiful and gracious, then they will be less apprehensive when you ask them to ask the tough questions.

[Chris Patton]

Driving to work today, I happened upon a radio sermon (highly unusual for me to listen to), just as the preacher was commenting on the complexity of Paul's writings and how carefully Paul must have listened to God whispering in his ear to make sure he wrote exactly how God wanted it written. AARRGGHH!

And of course this radio person will immediately have far more authority on these matters than my wife and I, the pastors of the church.

I know what you mean, Eric, about pointing out difficult passages in Scripture. I guess what I am trying to discuss is how to help people see that we view Scripture through a lens and there is no way around that, so we might as well be honest about our lenses.

[Eric Frey]

I always enjoy trying to get them to hear scripture from varried points of view. For instance, how would a slave hear Paul's words "In him their is neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek, slave or free." Those are easy ones. This type of discussion is a great use for the different type of criticisms: African American, feminist, etc. Or even how does a RC hear things differently than we protestants do? Or Pentecostals hear the Pentecost story different than we do? It is really a pretty fun exercise?

[Jamie Wayne]

Chris,

What's interesting, to me, is that the Quadrilateral is a step back towards Roman Catholicism, which has a "three-legged" stool approach somewhat similar to the Anglican church, of Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. If I'm not mistaken (I'm going from memory, here, it's the document from Vatican II called Dei Verbum that addresses this - it's actually quite a decent read, if you ask me).

Regardless, I appreciate your frustration.

Jamie

[Jamie Wayne]

Scripture cannot be understood without context, and that means, at least, considering the intended audience and the person interpreting Scripture.

[Jamie Wayne]

Eric,

I think that, as an Anglo-Nazarene, it's important to remember the part of both the XXXIX Articles and the XVI Articles that speaks to Scripture "containing all things necessary to salvation."

That goes along the lines of what you said about plenary inspiration...but often people forget - or never knew.

Jamie

[Chris Patton]

I agree that this is a good way to begin to help people on an individual level. Is there any way to address this issue on a larger scale, given that the "sola Scriptura" (and by this I mean the mis-interpretation) has wreaked so much havoc, and caused what i believe are serious problems in how Christians read, view, then enact Scripture? Or are we stuck trying to deal with these issues on an individual basis only? If people of the other view can write and preach for popular consumption especially on these issues, why can't we?

[Genevieve Boller]

I agree that this is a good way to begin to help people on an individual level. Is there any way to address this issue on a larger scale, given that the "sola Scriptura" (and by this I mean the mis-interpretation) has wreaked so much havoc, and caused what i believe are serious problems in how Christians read, view, then enact Scripture? Or are we stuck trying to deal with these issues on an individual basis only? If people of the other view can write and preach for popular consumption especially on these issues, why can't we?

Because our view doesn't work people up into a zealous fervor.

[Chris Patton]

I think I know what you mean, and I certainly don't think we should fight fire with fire, but shouldn't there be some concern that their method is such that it seems as if it is the only point of view and we thus risk capitulation in the church to a view we do not hold simply because we have been less willing to talk about it in the public square?

[Genevieve Boller]

I don't think we are less willing to talk about it--I think it's preached regularly--it's just that it doesn't elicit the same response, so people don't leave church thinking about it, dwelling on it, and imagining how they can finally show So-and-so how wrong they are because Pastor preached on just that subject today and the Bible clearly says ____.

Am I making sense? I think most people really just want to be told X passage means Y, and then they feel safe and secure knowing that everything is neat and simple and easy for them to understand... and they can then categorize other things and people in their lives accordingly. Most people, as a general rule, don't feel comfortable with gray areas or abstracts--they like concrete and tangible. If you tell them that a passage of Scripture can be interpreted in different ways, and then throw in the idea of cultural relativity and context, it's unsettling to them.

And, like I said, it's less likely to make you feel certain that you're right. Everyone likes to be right. Am I right? ;)

But that doesn't answer your real question, I guess. So how do we "fight" this? Hmm...

Maybe find ways to demonstrate the fundamental truth just below the surface of all of Scripture. Maybe focusing intently on the Bible (and all of it's individual passages) as one long cohesive story that never contradicts itself or Who God is--preaching the story and veering away from isolated texts whenever possible.

Maybe really, REALLY encouraging people to ask questions...the big questions that really bother them...and making our Bible studies deeper and more probing than we've ever done before.

[Daniel Hamlin]

Am I making sense? I think most people really just want to be told X passage means Y, and then they feel safe and secure knowing that everything is neat and simple and easy for them to understand... and they can then categorize other things and people in their lives accordingly. Most people, as a general rule, don't feel comfortable with gray areas or abstracts--they like concrete and tangible. If you tell them that a passage of Scripture can be interpreted in different ways, and then throw in the idea of cultural relativity and context, it's unsettling to them.

And, like I said, it's less likely to make you feel certain that you're right. Everyone likes to be right. Am I right? ;)

[snip]

Maybe really, REALLY encouraging people to ask questions...the big questions that really bother them...and making our Bible studies deeper and more probing than we've ever done before.

So true!