The Wesleyan Quadrilateral
How should we approach studying Scripture? When I first started studying the bible, I encountered some difficulty. With all the different beliefs between denominations, I couldn’t figure out who to believe. For some authors, it seemed that they came to their conclusions based on their own personal revelation from God. At the end of the day, I was left feeling like I would never understand the Word because of the different viewpoints.
I attend a non-denominational church, but I read literature from all denominations. What I’m looking for is a historically orthodox faith. Many denominations came from trying to get back to the original teachings of Scripture. Catholic and Orthodox churches would claim they have preserved the original teachings. Baptists are trying to get back to the correct understanding of baptism. Pentecostals are trying to get back to the correct understanding of the gifts of the spirit. Martin Luther was trying to get back to the correct understanding of faith. The bible reveals that the Jewish leaders at the time of Christ had misunderstandings of the Word and it’s obvious that not every denomination today can be correct as they contradict each other. Ultimately, Jesus is the only correct interpreter of Scripture.
The Wesleyan Quadrilateral stands on the principle of “Prima Scriptura” which says that Scripture is the highest authority. But it also adds that Scripture is informed by tradition, reason, and experience which are subordinate to it. I found this approach important because it gives me a way to navigate through the different teachings throughout history and from various denominations and schools of thought. We still start from a position rooted in the gospel message, the presence of the Holy Spirit, and prayer. Then after that, we go on to what the Scriptures reveal on the subject.
Scripture
The New Testament shows how Jesus interpreted the Old Testament. For example, Matt. 22:41-46 relates to Ps. 110:1; Matt. 19:3-9 to Gen. 2:24; and Matt. 12:15-21 to Isa. 42:1-4. As we study the use of the Old Testament in the New Testament by Jesus and then by the other writers of Scripture, we get a foundation for interpretation. We find that some Old Testament passages are examples, others are types fulfilled in the New Testament, and yet others are prophecy. I can’t go into all of the principles here but we do get a set of guidelines to start us off. Yet, even with this, there are still many things we can’t understand from just reading the Scripture. Sometimes we need to study the language and cultures to gain clarity but other times the meaning is obscured by the history of the church.
Tradition
This is where tradition comes into play, not the tradition of rituals but the tradition of interpretation. What have Christians said about this passage historically. The hope is that the church will preserve the original teachings of Jesus but there are many obstacles to that. Even from the earliest times this has been an issue.
I was most impressed by reading the book Against Heresies by Irenaeus of Lyon. Written about 150 years after the crucifixion, it shows how the Gnostics would twist the Scriptures out of context to meet their own needs. Irenaeus compares the Scriptures to someone making a picture out of pebbles or jewels. They can arrange them into a beautiful image of the king, or they can use the same pieces to make a picture of a dog or a fox and deceive those who are ignorant of the correct interpretation. Because of this, I always look for the earliest reference to a doctrine or interpretation to see if it sheds any light on the how we should understand it.
If we look at the rider on the white horse in Revelation 6, it is often interpreted to be the Antichrist by Protestants. The earliest allusion to the passage I found implies it represents the first coming of Jesus in the Incarnation. The earliest commentary on the book ties it to the coming of the Holy Spirit. Of course, we don’t have an early historical reference for every portion of Scripture and these extra-biblical writings are still subject to human error. When this fails, we still have practical reasoning to resolve other questions.
Reason
Using reason doesn’t put our mind above the Scriptures but works under their authority to resolve issues. For example, God can’t contradict Himself, so if two Scriptures seem to be opposed, we need to reconcile them through reasoning. More specifically, this is done through logic which follows the three acts of the mind: understanding, judging, and reasoning. Understanding is when we know what the terms and phrases mean, including any additional nuance implied by the author or the context of a passage. Judging, is when we determine if a statement is true or not. There’s no hard and fast rule for judging. Some truth is known through common sense, some through scientific discovery, some through experience, and some through revelation from God. The last step, reasoning, just tells us whether our conclusions make logical sense based on our premises.
A basic example would be that we should interpret obscure Scriptures through more clear Scriptures. So in the case of two Scriptures that contradict, we can judge them through a Scripture with a more certain interpretation. Take for instance I Pet. 2:12 with Acts 5:29. One passages says to obey every ordinance of man and the other to obey God rather than men. Reviewing other Scriptures we find the godly purpose of government in Romans 13. It has a purpose to promote good and punish evil under God’s authority. But if it is promoting evil or punishing good, as when Pharaoh commanded the midwives to drown the Hebrew children, then we obey God instead. This is a logical conclusion.
Experience
The last part of the puzzle is experience, which is necessary if we want to actually see change in our life. Our faith is not dictated by our experience, it’s dictated by the Word of God in any and all circumstances. But, when it comes to how Scripture affects our actual day to day life, it would be difficult to maintain belief if we didn’t see the practical results. Imagine if the church promoted prayer according to the Word and yet there was no one in the world who could claim that their prayers had been answered by God. It would undermine our entire understanding and teaching on prayer. Experience, being the most subjective category, gets the least weight in informing Scripture and must remain submitted to the above areas. But ultimately, our goal is not just to be well informed about the Bible but live a life where we can “serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life” (Luke 1:74-75). So, our teachings must also prove true in experience for the church.
When Paul tells Timothy to teach sound doctrine, it’s for the purpose of “love that issues from a pure heart, and a good conscience and a sincere faith” (1 Tim. 1:5). So, we are all called to understand the Word for the purpose of better loving others. As we examine our own faith and how the cross and resurrection have affected us, we have the above tools to help us navigate the sometimes murky waters of doctrine.
The Wit of Writ 
Leave a comment