FA+
Shop
Criticisms of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral
11 years ago
This article lacks value-statements.
A little while ago, I tried discussing theology with a specific group here on FA. The issue was that we disagreed, and that I failed to correctly apply and provide my arguments. Regardless, after we agreed to disagree (my way of saying I’m not wholly done yet), one of the people I knew from college decided to take things into his own hands, make an FA account, and approach them. While I don’t condone his actions then and what he did afterward*, I did manage to glean some information from his and their encounters in notes. However, from that point on to now, I have come across glaring philosophical contradictions about the quadrilateral and the contradictions of that group to their own methodology.
I was initially excited to hear about the Quadrilateral as I love theology all around. I love hearing about different ways that people study the Word of God. But, however, I was disappointed that it was so contradicting to both philosophy (love of wisdom and discernment of truth) and their own actions. As I grew in my studies and brought in ethics and philosophy, I realized just how poorly this Quadrilateral stands up for examining Christian theology. I admit that I may not have true knowledge of how the Quadrilateral is meant to be applied. The people who I learned it from contradict it so much I doubt they are giving an honest or complete description of the Quadrilateral. However, previous mentions from older theologians about “Wesleyans” have suggested that “Wesleyans” have been bonkers throughout history. So honestly, I’m working off of what I have been shown by people who admit to be Wesleyans.
I figured I would start by paraphrasing the points offered in the group’s description and then pointing out the philosophical issues. These issues are fundamental in nature and, in my own opinion, extremely dangerous for any considerations of God.
Scripture:
Frankly what the Bible says in the matter, but with a catch. Wesleyan philosophy here rejects the idea of viewing the Bible holistically. “Proof texting (using one of two verses to build an argument or focusing on isolated passages) can lead to distorted and sick forms of religion.” The group also suggests that the Bible is “silent” on matters, but later I will get to this. The last part of their description relies on “revelation” for seeking the mind of Christ. The only good sounding thing about this is that it’s supposed to involve Christ, but even this sells God short.
I dare not say that using an isolated passage if there are more is any bit of “proof texting.” However, building a Biblical case on an entire subject by viewing all of the verses is the only logical path to discovering what God wants regarding any subject. Their view of the Bible discounts that any theological progress can be made, suggests relativism instead, and denies there being any truth. Lastly, as supported by both C.S. Lewis and me, all sin and evil (as from The Screwtape Letters) comes from false revelation and lack or denial of knowledge that God has offered or is offering us.
There is a lot about the Bible that Christ was not involved in. However, if we view God as the triune being he is, then the entire Bible would be necessary to look at, as Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity. It would be absolutely foolish to ignore God on matters he wants us to hear about. Lastly, the group I’m referring to completely contradicts Christ’s own words at the minimum, twice, with their theology. This is without any direct study into their own theology. I can assume more than twice from viewing some of their journals. Lastly, they suggested that things should be applied in a “Christ-like” manner, which they have done the opposite of.
Also, the Bible may not include certain matters, but through studying the Bible, we can glean the Godly discernment that God has given us. My current examination of transhumanist ethics would suggest that this type of examination and learned discernment is utterly important. God gave us more than some are willing to credit to Him, apparently.
Tradition:
The fact that they have tradition on here is absolutely absurd in their own regards. “What do the traditions of the church down through time, and the lessons of history in general tell us? We should glean the best from the past, and respect the wisdom of generations which have preceded us.”
I’m going to say this is perhaps the most contradictory clash between them and Christianity. They have ignored the stance of the Early Church and the actions of Christ in the culture He was in, history, and even called Christianity (up to this point) wrong for teaching Doctrines that come from the Bible itself. On top, they participated in a non-Christian ritual that is in contradiction to Jesus’ own words. If anything, the group itself suggests that tradition is completely and wholly wrong in every step of the way, even before Jesus, given their approach on the Bible and history.
Reason:
“Reason requires that we use our minds to ask if what we believe makes sense.” Sounds great so far. Then this: “As we address any theological issue we must ask: Is it logical, fair to all concerned, simple and straight forward in its approach and sound minded at its foundation.” Uhmm... “Science tells us how, religion tells us why. The two need not be at odds. Reason holds them together in creative tension and constructive partnership. We need not turn off our minds when we enter the spiritual realm and ask religious questions. God is the giver of all knowledge, whatever the source. We can and should use the disciplines of psychology, sociology, biology, archeology, and anthropology in our formation of Christian theology.” Alright, back to being good again, despite there being an unspoken catch.
Firstly, all Christian theology should have no issues being combined with honest and truthful science. As an evidentialist, I say this is absolutely necessary for building up a healthy theology. I would only suggest that the only time reality should be inconsistent is for a miracle, something of which the Bible itself acknowledges is unusual and special. However, being a computer scientist and having examined and participated in studies, I can point out that even scientists have screwed up their own experiments in favor of their own goals or opinions. Even something as rigid as computer science can fall to false methodology. Rather, I only suggest believing in science if the phenomenological laws proved by literal and empirical studies are accurate and truthful. That is rarer than it sounds.
However, this part in the quadrilateral falls to opinion/relativism like the last two. “Fairness,” when actually fair, is great. But it’s rare, and this group has made it obvious they’re not interested in fair theology. The word “simple” is and of itself an opinion. What is simple to me is not simple to others. There is no objective definition for “simple” that can be derived. When looking at this group’s posts, I see the complete lack of solid science or any science at all. It is not good to mix science, an objective study based on physical reality, with opinion- especially on theological matters. Modern militant atheists show with their actions what I am implying.
Experience:
At first glance, this is what indicated that the Quadrilateral was deceptive or insufficient. Immediately, the error in its logic is found: “Within the context of our own experience how does a particular prove its relevancy and accuracy?” <- “Since theology is meant to be applied to daily life, how do our thoughts about God and ourselves bring about constructive solutions, loving relationships and positive faith. If our beliefs are divisive, oppressive, permissive, or compulsive they will not bring a wholesome balance to our lives. Since faith without works is dead, we must constantly judge the quality of our theology against its practicality in daily life. Experience helps us put things first. Often times, practical experience and application become the key to making theology relevant and dynamic.”
There is so much wrong wrapped up in this paragraph. Basically, it suggests that theology is relative to our own life experiences. The issue here is that this is applying past experience with theology. This is limiting theology to whatever works for us. Immediately, that throws out anything that we don’t like since anything we don’t like is impractical to our emotional nature. Practicality itself is an opinion. However, this group’s beliefs and their actions have been incredibly divisive to me and others, oppressive to me (and probably others)**, permissive of Biblically sinful actions, and of recently, been of a completely compulsive nature. If anything, this Quadrilateral would suggest that their theology is wrong in every category.
I cannot recommend the Quadrilateral to be sufficient for any kind of examination after what I have been shown. However, if you have a point and would like to argue, feel free to do so in the comments***.
And regarding the group itself: I don’t hate LGBT people. I really don’t. I have no personal stock in whether or not homosexuality/polygamy is allowed. I simply don’t care. The issue comes from evidentialism. If you are not willing to argue that homosexuality is approved of and backed by the Bible, then I will maintain whatever point has the most evidence and truth for it. So far, there has not been any solid case for homosexuality and its permissiveness in the Bible.
* - Dropped out of college between semesters, deactivated his Facebook account, changed his number, then ranted about how some Christians don’t really believe in their God before becoming unreachable. As far as I can tell, he was complaining about the group in discussion here and a group that was local to his home somewhere in the state of Missouri. For that last part, I don’t know what he was referring to. “Back home” isn’t very descriptive.
** - Just try to start a conversation or theological discussion with them and have a contrasting view. I’ve already been blocked once for bringing a Biblical case to their page. They’ve made it readily apparent to me that they’re not up to being told they're wrong and not up to defending their view. I can only glean from these experiences that their view has failed and does not stand up, and as such use their authority as a page owner to simply block those who advocate Biblical and Godly truth.
*** - Just be nice, be honest, and state your points and evidence clearly.
A little while ago, I tried discussing theology with a specific group here on FA. The issue was that we disagreed, and that I failed to correctly apply and provide my arguments. Regardless, after we agreed to disagree (my way of saying I’m not wholly done yet), one of the people I knew from college decided to take things into his own hands, make an FA account, and approach them. While I don’t condone his actions then and what he did afterward*, I did manage to glean some information from his and their encounters in notes. However, from that point on to now, I have come across glaring philosophical contradictions about the quadrilateral and the contradictions of that group to their own methodology.
I was initially excited to hear about the Quadrilateral as I love theology all around. I love hearing about different ways that people study the Word of God. But, however, I was disappointed that it was so contradicting to both philosophy (love of wisdom and discernment of truth) and their own actions. As I grew in my studies and brought in ethics and philosophy, I realized just how poorly this Quadrilateral stands up for examining Christian theology. I admit that I may not have true knowledge of how the Quadrilateral is meant to be applied. The people who I learned it from contradict it so much I doubt they are giving an honest or complete description of the Quadrilateral. However, previous mentions from older theologians about “Wesleyans” have suggested that “Wesleyans” have been bonkers throughout history. So honestly, I’m working off of what I have been shown by people who admit to be Wesleyans.
I figured I would start by paraphrasing the points offered in the group’s description and then pointing out the philosophical issues. These issues are fundamental in nature and, in my own opinion, extremely dangerous for any considerations of God.
Scripture:
Frankly what the Bible says in the matter, but with a catch. Wesleyan philosophy here rejects the idea of viewing the Bible holistically. “Proof texting (using one of two verses to build an argument or focusing on isolated passages) can lead to distorted and sick forms of religion.” The group also suggests that the Bible is “silent” on matters, but later I will get to this. The last part of their description relies on “revelation” for seeking the mind of Christ. The only good sounding thing about this is that it’s supposed to involve Christ, but even this sells God short.
I dare not say that using an isolated passage if there are more is any bit of “proof texting.” However, building a Biblical case on an entire subject by viewing all of the verses is the only logical path to discovering what God wants regarding any subject. Their view of the Bible discounts that any theological progress can be made, suggests relativism instead, and denies there being any truth. Lastly, as supported by both C.S. Lewis and me, all sin and evil (as from The Screwtape Letters) comes from false revelation and lack or denial of knowledge that God has offered or is offering us.
There is a lot about the Bible that Christ was not involved in. However, if we view God as the triune being he is, then the entire Bible would be necessary to look at, as Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity. It would be absolutely foolish to ignore God on matters he wants us to hear about. Lastly, the group I’m referring to completely contradicts Christ’s own words at the minimum, twice, with their theology. This is without any direct study into their own theology. I can assume more than twice from viewing some of their journals. Lastly, they suggested that things should be applied in a “Christ-like” manner, which they have done the opposite of.
Also, the Bible may not include certain matters, but through studying the Bible, we can glean the Godly discernment that God has given us. My current examination of transhumanist ethics would suggest that this type of examination and learned discernment is utterly important. God gave us more than some are willing to credit to Him, apparently.
Tradition:
The fact that they have tradition on here is absolutely absurd in their own regards. “What do the traditions of the church down through time, and the lessons of history in general tell us? We should glean the best from the past, and respect the wisdom of generations which have preceded us.”
I’m going to say this is perhaps the most contradictory clash between them and Christianity. They have ignored the stance of the Early Church and the actions of Christ in the culture He was in, history, and even called Christianity (up to this point) wrong for teaching Doctrines that come from the Bible itself. On top, they participated in a non-Christian ritual that is in contradiction to Jesus’ own words. If anything, the group itself suggests that tradition is completely and wholly wrong in every step of the way, even before Jesus, given their approach on the Bible and history.
Reason:
“Reason requires that we use our minds to ask if what we believe makes sense.” Sounds great so far. Then this: “As we address any theological issue we must ask: Is it logical, fair to all concerned, simple and straight forward in its approach and sound minded at its foundation.” Uhmm... “Science tells us how, religion tells us why. The two need not be at odds. Reason holds them together in creative tension and constructive partnership. We need not turn off our minds when we enter the spiritual realm and ask religious questions. God is the giver of all knowledge, whatever the source. We can and should use the disciplines of psychology, sociology, biology, archeology, and anthropology in our formation of Christian theology.” Alright, back to being good again, despite there being an unspoken catch.
Firstly, all Christian theology should have no issues being combined with honest and truthful science. As an evidentialist, I say this is absolutely necessary for building up a healthy theology. I would only suggest that the only time reality should be inconsistent is for a miracle, something of which the Bible itself acknowledges is unusual and special. However, being a computer scientist and having examined and participated in studies, I can point out that even scientists have screwed up their own experiments in favor of their own goals or opinions. Even something as rigid as computer science can fall to false methodology. Rather, I only suggest believing in science if the phenomenological laws proved by literal and empirical studies are accurate and truthful. That is rarer than it sounds.
However, this part in the quadrilateral falls to opinion/relativism like the last two. “Fairness,” when actually fair, is great. But it’s rare, and this group has made it obvious they’re not interested in fair theology. The word “simple” is and of itself an opinion. What is simple to me is not simple to others. There is no objective definition for “simple” that can be derived. When looking at this group’s posts, I see the complete lack of solid science or any science at all. It is not good to mix science, an objective study based on physical reality, with opinion- especially on theological matters. Modern militant atheists show with their actions what I am implying.
Experience:
At first glance, this is what indicated that the Quadrilateral was deceptive or insufficient. Immediately, the error in its logic is found: “Within the context of our own experience how does a particular prove its relevancy and accuracy?” <- “Since theology is meant to be applied to daily life, how do our thoughts about God and ourselves bring about constructive solutions, loving relationships and positive faith. If our beliefs are divisive, oppressive, permissive, or compulsive they will not bring a wholesome balance to our lives. Since faith without works is dead, we must constantly judge the quality of our theology against its practicality in daily life. Experience helps us put things first. Often times, practical experience and application become the key to making theology relevant and dynamic.”
There is so much wrong wrapped up in this paragraph. Basically, it suggests that theology is relative to our own life experiences. The issue here is that this is applying past experience with theology. This is limiting theology to whatever works for us. Immediately, that throws out anything that we don’t like since anything we don’t like is impractical to our emotional nature. Practicality itself is an opinion. However, this group’s beliefs and their actions have been incredibly divisive to me and others, oppressive to me (and probably others)**, permissive of Biblically sinful actions, and of recently, been of a completely compulsive nature. If anything, this Quadrilateral would suggest that their theology is wrong in every category.
I cannot recommend the Quadrilateral to be sufficient for any kind of examination after what I have been shown. However, if you have a point and would like to argue, feel free to do so in the comments***.
And regarding the group itself: I don’t hate LGBT people. I really don’t. I have no personal stock in whether or not homosexuality/polygamy is allowed. I simply don’t care. The issue comes from evidentialism. If you are not willing to argue that homosexuality is approved of and backed by the Bible, then I will maintain whatever point has the most evidence and truth for it. So far, there has not been any solid case for homosexuality and its permissiveness in the Bible.
* - Dropped out of college between semesters, deactivated his Facebook account, changed his number, then ranted about how some Christians don’t really believe in their God before becoming unreachable. As far as I can tell, he was complaining about the group in discussion here and a group that was local to his home somewhere in the state of Missouri. For that last part, I don’t know what he was referring to. “Back home” isn’t very descriptive.
** - Just try to start a conversation or theological discussion with them and have a contrasting view. I’ve already been blocked once for bringing a Biblical case to their page. They’ve made it readily apparent to me that they’re not up to being told they're wrong and not up to defending their view. I can only glean from these experiences that their view has failed and does not stand up, and as such use their authority as a page owner to simply block those who advocate Biblical and Godly truth.
*** - Just be nice, be honest, and state your points and evidence clearly.
Ironically, the Wesleyan Methodist Church was one of the first to succumb to social dogma and allow for heresies in their churches. I guess that makes sense, if the Quadrilateral allows for opinion to run their version of god.