Considering the Wesleyan Quadrilateral

Because of the doctrinal craziness that one finds in so many Christian circles today, people are searching for a reliable guide (or guides). Some have walked away from the faith altogether, called "deconstruction". Others have left the Charismatic movement and have turned towards Reformed Protestantism. And still others are turning to Catholicism or Orthodoxy. 

Many Protestants declare that they believe in Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone over and against "Tradition"), but in reality, everyone has a "tradition" (or traditions), whether they realize it or not. All of those movements I mentioned in the first paragraph are, in fact, traditions!

Ironically, today the most vocal proponents against so-called "Tradition" in favor of Sola Scriptura are almost always the ones with the strongest commitment to a particular theological tradition. Those who identify themselves as "Reformed" view everything through the theological traditions of St. Augustine and of John Calvin. Claiming to be "tradition-less", Reformed Christians interpret the Scriptures through the lenses of Augustine and Calvin (and/or others in the Reformed Tradition). Thus they even refer to themselves as Augustinians and/or Calvinists. 

When we can admit the obvious, namely that we all have traditions, the question becomes what tradition we will follow.

Note: the word "tradition" for many Protestants is a bad word. I learned very quickly as a Protestant Evangelical that Catholics have "traditions", which are bad, and Protestants got rid of those bad traditions. 

But according to the Apostle Paul, not all traditions are bad. 

He wrote, "Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you." (1 Cor. 11:2)

The Apostle Paul also wrote, "Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us."(2 Thes. 3:6)

When the Apostle Paul spoke of "tradition", he meant what the Apostles received from Christ and/or what the Apostles received from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. We can call this "Apostolic Tradition". This is what we find in the pages of our New Testament Scriptures.

For Anglicans, they speak of Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. As Protestants, that would mean the primacy of Scripture as our authority for faith and practice as understood through the light of tradition and reason.

Anglican John Wesley, added to that "Experience" and the late Methodist scholar Albert Outler came up with the term "Wesleyan Quadrilateral" to refer to those 4 pillars - Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience. Again, as Protestants, this would mean the primacy of Scripture as authoritative for our faith and practice as Christians, as understood through the light of tradition, reason, and experience.

Many years ago, I adopted the approach of John Wesley and was ultimately ordained in 1999 into an Anglican Communion of churches. John Wesley described his faith as “the religion of the Bible,” “the religion of the primitive church,” “the religion of the Church of England [Anglican].” And under the claim about the primitive, or early, church, he writes that the Wesleyan vision “is clearly expressed even in the small remains of Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp. It is seen more at large in the writings of Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and Cyprian. And even in the fourth century it was found in the works of Chrysostom, Basil, Ephrem the Syrian, and Macarius.” To this he finally adds, “It would be easy to produce a cloud of witnesses testifying the same thing [consensus], were not this a point which no one will contest who has the least acquaintance with Christian antiquity” (“On Laying the Foundations of the New Chapel”). Source: "John Wesley and the Depth of the Great Tradition" LINK

To illustrate how this works, regarding a theological issue and/or an issue of Christian practice (how we should live), let us consider the issue of the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit listed in 1 Corinthians 12 (i.e., healing, prophecy, miracles, etc.). The tradition that I became a Christian within did NOT emphasize these gifts. One tradition, called Cessationism, which had influenced my first church, taught that these gifts ENDED (or "ceased") when the Apostles died in the 1st Century. Who is correct? Which "tradition" should I follow? I looked at the writings of the Christians who lived immediately after the 1st Century and discovered that these gifts continued in operation in the 2nd and 3rd century church. We all have the same Scripture (1 Corinthians 12), but looking at the earliest tradition, which is also me using reason, I concluded that these gifts were still available to Christians after the Apostolic age. And that brings me into my own experience, where I began to see these gifts operating in our lives and ministry. 

I recently did a blog post where I applied the same criteria to answer the question, "Can a Christian be demonized?" The Scriptures do not explicitly answer this question. We next turn to the tradition and experience of the earliest Christians, and we discover that at the end of the 2nd Century one of the undisputed leaders, Tertullian, shared the story of a Christian woman who attended the pagan Roman theater and became demonized, requiring her to receive exorcism prayer. I would add to that our own experience of Christians who were (or became) demonized, and I establish my current theology and practice.

As to what tradition I look to as my final court of appeals, I would appeal to reason: that we look to the earliest Christian beliefs and practices; namely, the Christians who lived closest to the Apostles. This was Wesley's practice. And secondarily, I would be looking for their consensus beliefs and practices; also what Wesley did. This is how I would conclude what the Apostles meant in their writings and had handed down to their successors. For example, how do we know that Jesus Himself was/is God? Because ALL Christians in the late 1st Century and into the 2nd Century (and 3rd and 4th) believed Him to be God and worshipped Him as God. This was the universal consensus of the early Christians, Jesus is God. There were other doctrines and practices where Christians had differences. These would have been what we today would call "secondary issues", issues where Christians did differ. From reason, I would conclude that these were also issues that the Apostles did NOT clarify or hand down.

Additional Source: "The Wesleyan Quadrilateral" - LINK - https://www.wesleyan.org/the-wesleyan-quadrilateral