Can a Factbook entry be created for the Wesleyan Quadrilateral with links to the following dictionary entries (along with any others that I don't own):
https://ref.ly/logosres/globaldicttheol?ref=Page.p+932&off=1562
https://ref.ly/logosres/nwdctth2nded?hw=Wesleyan+Quadrilateral
https://ref.ly/logosres/pdtheol?hw=Wesleyan+quadrilateral
https://ref.ly/logosres/wstmnstrdcxpndd?hw=Quadrilateral%2c+Wesleyan
I second that motion!
I'd like to piggyback and ask a related question. If not the right place, am happy to post my question to a separate thread. So here it goes...
Is it easy to identify instances where Mr. Wesley used reason (one side of the quadrilateral) to either push back against a doctrine or provide evidence in favor of a doctrine? Are there resources where such instances are concentrated?
Thanks
Hi 1Cor 10:31, good question to research.
Seems like some resources talk about Wesley and reason:
https://www.logos.com/product/157845/faith-and-reason-three-views
A screen captue of an older ed.:
The footnote above seems to point to:
https://tosihydaquzozav.epapereditions.icu/thy-nature-and-thy-name-is-love-book-33629qr.php
From Amazon books (sorry, no Kindle) review:
"...Written by leading process and Wesleyan theologians, this book will be helpful to college, seminary, and graduate students, as well as professors. The book can also serve as a supplemental text for philosophy and theology classes. Thy Nature & Thy Name is Love brings leading scholars into dialogue over points of convergence and divergence between Wesleyan and process theologies. This diverse group of authors, which includes two African American and two women scholars, addresses issues of doctrine, such as sanctification, as well as more methodological questions, such as epistemology, metaphysics, and aesthetics."
Another way one could look at this is:
https://www.logos.com/product/192201/the-foolishness-of-god-the-place-of-reason-in-the-theology-of-martin-luther
Maybe look at the Bible verses / pericopes provided and look them up with cited by in Wesley's resources.
Including something like:
https://www.logos.com/product/201299/the-wesley-study-bible
I would have made a basic search for "reason" in a quick John Wesley collection to see what my resources have to say, if it wasn't for "preparing your library" taking forever.
Hope some of this helps.
P. S. It would be nice to have a resource like the Catholic Topical Index, but that referenced to other theologians like Wesley, Calvin, Barth, etc.
OK, quick collection "John Wesley", basic search for the term: reason
quick collection "reason", basic search for the term: Wesley
While I am not a Wesleyian, I believe that the elements in the quadrilateral are generally all brought to bear in pretty much any answer although an answer may emphasize one or another of the elements. I suspect that the better question is to ask for examples where he did not use reason. I base this answer on the similar models of the Anglicans and the Catholics which share 3 of the 4 elements of the quadrilateral. Note the Wesleyian quadrilateral is not from Wesley. Note that there is also a Lambeth Quadrilateral which is a topic in Logos.
Can a Factbook entry be created for the Wesleyan Quadrilateral with links to the following dictionary entries
Yes: these dictionaries haven't yet been aligned with the Logos Controlled Vocabulary (the mechanism that gets dictionary articles into Factbook), but that work is planned.
Thanks for taking the time to suggest new Factbook entries. We'd like to implement a more direct way to do so in the future, but for now, a forum post (especially with a clear title like the one you've used here) is the best way to suggest others.
Dear Hamilton,
Thank you very much for the extensive help. Super appreciative of your effort.
The first resource is a good place to start, in general, for the role of reason. I didn't even know that I had the resource.
Your search ideas should help me locate more of such resources.
I don't have the Wesleyan study Bible, but have some Wesleyan commentaries. I had not read these commentaries before, but you give me a reason to look into them.
I have a lot of people in my orbit who don't believe reasoning has a role in coming up with new truths or rejecting truths we've believed in. I believe God is the most logical being, so everything He designed should be consistent with logic. I am ok if I am unable to connect the dots, but I tend to eject things that are blatantly illogical. I've been collecting material whenever I stumble upon well-reasoned arguments and I am always looking to add more. Thank you very much for your help, Hamilton.
I don't know if my beliefs can be easily put into one of the denominational buckets. I would like to think I am non-denominational based on my beliefs compared to other Christans. The one belief I have is that the Bible is without error and, because of that assumption, the Bible is my starting point.
As I had mentioned in my response to Hamilton, I am trying to reason with people in my orbit to consider reason as a genuine tool to use in interpreting the Bible to arrive at doctrinal truths. They think that just because I am a financial economist, I am obsessed with reasoning and trying to express everything mathematically. I have been trying, but failing, to convince people that Math is also a language but with the added benefit of precision thrown in. If I show respected theologians/pastors/seminarians...have used sound reasoning along with Bible verses to make their point, maybe people would reconsider their beliefs. With whatever I've read so far, theologians/pastors/seminarians use logic here and there, but it doesn't run through everything they write about. Would be happy to hear which authors/theologians are well-known for using reason.
I didn't know the Anglicans and Catholics used reasoning. I've read Aquinas's Summa here and there. Haven't been able to entice my Catholic friends to read the Summa[:(] Would love to know others who are known for their reasoning skill.
Thank you MJ.
You are welcome 1 Cor 10:31.
stumble upon well-reasoned arguments and I am always looking to add more
It would be really good if such list of well-reasoned arguments were put together in a resource and in a systematic way to make it easy to check if thing are so.
It is bad that I cannot get the following in any type of digital format:
It would probably shed light into the problem of reason when it deals with theology.
There are some very interesting resources: (probably not Wesleyan)
https://www.logos.com/product/187286/a-model-for-evangelical-theology-integrating-scripture-tradition-reason-experience-and-community
https://www.logos.com/product/175051/how-reason-can-lead-to-god-a-philosophers-bridge-to-faith
https://www.logos.com/search?query=faith%20and%20reason&sortBy=Relevance&limit=60&page=1&ownership=all&geographicAvailability=availableToMe
Good sub-thread, thank you for bringing it up.
Would be happy to hear which authors/theologians are well-known for using reason.
For a starting point, there are a number of theologians who figure in the history of logic. That is where I would start:
You might find this article from the non-denominational Stone-Campbell movement prespective helpful: Church columnist: Come now, let us reason together - LaGrange Daily News | LaGrange Daily News (lagrangenews.com)
the Wesleyan Quadrilateral
I would hope that any Factbook Entries on epistemology would include the 3-legged stool, the quadrilateral, and the 5 actors on the Stage of Truth proposed here https://www.credocourses.com/product/introduction-to-theology/ (the 5 adds "general revelation" as distinct from experience)
Can a Factbook entry be created for the Wesleyan Quadrilateral with links to the following dictionary entries Yes: these dictionaries haven't yet been aligned with the Logos Controlled Vocabulary (the mechanism that gets dictionary articles into Factbook), but that work is planned. Thanks for taking the time to suggest new Factbook entries. We'd like to implement a more direct way to do so in the future, but for now, a forum post (especially with a clear title like the one you've used here) is the best way to suggest others.
[H]. Thanks Sean.
Hi David Thomas:
Do you happen to know how many gigabytes would the download be?
https://www.credocourses.com/product/theology-program-digital-bundle/
Hi David Thomas: Do you happen to know how many gigabytes would the download be? https://www.credocourses.com/product/theology-program-digital-bundle/
This one (https://www.credocourses.com/product/platinum-thumb-drive-bundle/) includes material from above. It costs $200 instead of $100. It seems to come with a 256GB thumb drive.
Thanks MJ. I did read the article and liked it, especially because of Isaiah 1:18. If I ever get my blog up and running, that's the verse I had planned to use as an invitation to people to reason with me.
1Cor10:31"> stumble upon well-reasoned arguments and I am always looking to add more
CS Lewis is one of my favorite authors, one who consistently uses logic and reasoning. There are others who resort to reasoning when needed. To me, Bible + reasoning, by definition, has to yield more truths than just the Bible alone. A better and bigger toolkit has to yield greater riches.
If I ever get my blog up and running, I will list all the instances where people have used reasoning to make their point. What makes a person a good researcher (example: paying attention to details) is also what makes a person a poor blogger (can't let go until all the loose ends are tied up in a neat bow).
Thanks for pointing me to other resources. They all look good.
I especially liked the search. Using this, I was able to identify resources that I own on this topic (it must have come with some base packages).
Thank you. Appreciate your help very much.
Please share with us the link to the blog once is running.
I am not against reason, I just think the other parts of a quadrilateral have to be taken into consideration. The whole counsel of God requires a diachronical read instead of a synchronical one because revelation is progressive.
There is a difference between knowing God personally, and then using systemics to communicate to others about such encounter with God (hopefully giving enough detail to allow each to encounter God by him / herself).
Couple of things to be weary about reason:
1 Man is not the ultimate measure. We did not create ourselves, so refusing to be a part (minimal at that compared to Christ's part)of a set system by someone else [see article to which the link points below], and accepting the moral order ingrained in creation set by th Creator has very real risks of leading to apostasy.
2 a quote from an interesting article:
"...Too much concern with theological and philosophical problems, they believed, obscured the fact that salvation depends upon personal trust in a personal saviour."
3 too much insistence on individualism, freedom of thought outside any guiding Counsel (divine, and other), ends up in something like:
"...Liberalism was a product of the climate of opinion that emerged at the time of the Renaissance and the Reformation. As the political expression of the new individualism, it was a political declaration of faith in the autonomy of the human reason and the essential goodness of man." {Ibid}
Inherent goodness of man, and right reliance on oneself to arrive to truth (rationalism), clashes bluntly with the Biblical Christian Worldview, that compares us to sheep all gone astray, easy prey of predators (spiritual and others), that need the Good Shepherd Jesus to get us back in the flock.
4 cherry of the cake (or sunday):
"...The Renaissance produced the concept of autonomous individual or the ‘master-less man’. No longer was the God the focal point of thought and life, but man. No longer was it a question of discovering that which was in conformity to God’s will but rather that which was in conformity to human reason." [Ibid]
Quotes from:
https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/essay/characteristics-of-modernism-rationalism-individualism-and-universalism/38467
Different angle for further research, reflection and constructive comment. [excellent subject reason: just has to redeem its flawed parts]]
Peace and grace.
I suspect that the better question is to ask for examples where he did not use reason. I base this answer on the similar models of the Anglicans and the Catholics which share 3 of the 4 elements of the quadrilateral. Note the Wesleyian quadrilateral is not from Wesley. Note that there is also a Lambeth Quadrilateral which is a topic in Logos.
Excellent research idea MJ.
And my point exactly underlying most of my posts through time.
How much of key theological insight from different authors is due to a particular part of the quadrilateral.
Just to mention some cases:
Paul: extremely cognizant and acquainted with: Scriptures, Tradition (Gamaliel), reason... Paul probably reasoning them Christians are blaspheming, I see no connection of what they believe and do with any of what we know to be true Religion.
Voila, through God's grace, comes EXPERIENCE into Paul's life... he meets Jesus Christ, and eventually he gets it right: all is rubbish compared to the knowledge of He who created us and saves us: Jesus Christ Lord and Savior, none other.
Then we have Jonathan Edwards:
awesome tradition, reason, Scripture, but note his late emphasis in experience after something extraordinary happened to him:
So it seems that in two of the most advanced theologians in their time, experience modified the other legs of their quadrilaterals, so the Methodist insistence of Scripture being of weightier value, is relative to the kind of experience the persons has.
Scripture alone can never surpass meeting Living Torah face to face ever.
Strange that popular traditions do not make this subject primary in their study curriculum.
Some interesting articles about the quadrilateral:
https://www.theopedia.com/wesleyan-quadrilateral
https://www.pecometh.org/blog/bid/370891/the-keys-to-confirmation-scripture-tradition-experience-and-reason
http://archives.gcah.org/bitstream/handle/10516/5736/MH-1991-January-Campbell.pdf?sequence=1
In Catholicism contemplation is stressed in some orders / internal branches, being in the presence of God is possible and is much what Christianity is about. I wonder how many of the saints, had a one on one actual interaction with God, and not only contemplation.
Most of modern thought on the subject want to label as delusional if a believer hears and talks to God, but is it so according to the Bible?
Lots of research needed about the topic.
[note I am using reason (the right type), to understand that experience under certain cases is more important than Scripture, as we as humans can get its interpretation wrong. Now the Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself, so His messages will not go against the Bible, as He intended it to be the message interpreted, which may differ from what a particular tradition interprets it.]
So it seems that in two of the most advanced theologians in their time, experience modified the other legs of their quadrilaterals, so the Methodist insistence of Scripture being of weightier value, is relative to the kind of experience the persons has. Scripture alone can never surpass meeting Living Torah face to face ever. Strange that popular traditions do not make this subject primary in their study curriculum.
They do if you look under the right terminology. See Bernard McGinn's The Presence of God series tracking the history of it but using a term that some reject because they misunderstand it associating it with esoteric or occult teachings. It is neither.
Note each volume is > 300 pages - this is extensive but not comprehensive. Also see his:
Hi Hamilton,
I don't want to get into a debate about the role of reason in unearthing truths. I'll just give a hypothetical example. Let's say the Bible says that A is the sole cause of B. Let's say the Bible also says that B is the sole cause of C. One can naturally infer that A is the sole cause of C. But not everybody is going to make the connection. If from your experience you know/expect that A causes C, you'll make the connection/connect the dots in the Bible to unearth this truth that A causes C. By the way, we don't need the Bible to know that there is a God who set everything in motion. Knowledge of science is what is needed.
From Gordon Conwell seminary's website, I read that there are over 35,000 denominations. I think this explosion of denominations is because different people interpret Scriptures differently. If we are logical and we are made in the image of God, then God must be ultra logical. He didn't pick the doctrines out of a hat. There is rationale behind each of His choices. Thus, His doctrines (viewed from our angle, doctrines are our beliefs) cannot be illogical. I may not understand his rationale, but it cannot be illogical. His logic can never be worse than that of a human being.
I appreciate all the resources and MJ have provided. I have already started reading the Faith and Reason: Three Views." About 15 pages into the Introduction...very frustrating. I wish the authors were in front of me to argue.
Thank you.
If we are logical and we are made in the image of God, then God must be ultra logical. He didn't pick the doctrines out of a hat. There is rationale behind each of His choices. Thus, His doctrines (viewed from our angle, doctrines are our beliefs) cannot be illogical. I may not understand his rationale, but it cannot be illogical. His logic can never be worse than that of a human being.
May I give a warning? Logics are built only for very set types of statements and situations. Much of human reasoning is not logical in nature but is well reasoned often using informal logic (Douglas Walton has many books out on various informal logics ... and he is very readable). Then there is the "logic" inherent in syntax and narrative. And there is visual reasoning, analogical reasoning, decompositional reasoning . . .. And there is fallacy detection which is, perhaps, best called an art given the failure of most attempts to systematize it.
My point is that you need (and may have done) to carefully define "logical" as you used it above or you will fall into many needless arguments.
Hi MJ! Thanks for pointing out the various types of reasoning. This back-and-forth is a good reminder for me that I should never forget striving to be as precise as possible. Taking the time to be precise can definitely help me avoid getting into needless arguments.
The ultimate question that I have been tackling the last few years is a simple one: why I believe what I believe. To tackle this question, I have to put myself in the shoes of God. Given my training, I ask: If God were a financial economist, how would He have devised His system to achieve His goal? His system can't be inferior to what a financial economist will design. So what I really have in mind is more of a rationale for God's choice of doctrines for us as believers. This approach has made me eject beliefs that I grew up with (without questioning), add new beliefs, and give certainty to beliefs that I continue to hold.
For all those who think simple reasoning has very little role, here is a passage that tickles me no end because Jesus is using simple logic to beat back people’s suggestions that He is the devil.
Matthew 12:22-28 (ESV): 22 Then a demon-oppressed man who was blind and mute was brought to him, and he healed him, so that the man spoke and saw. 23 And all the people were amazed, and said, “Can this be the Son of David?” 24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons.” 25 Knowing their thoughts, he said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand. 26 And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? 27 And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. 28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
Jesus is effectively asking: why will the devil drive out the devil? The New Bible Commentary says: Jesus’ first reply (25–26) merely pointed out what a silly idea this was: Satan would not attack his own troops!
1 Cor 10:31:
Yes I understand what you are saying. I was just pointing out a fact:
Two academicians may come to different conclusions about a passage, so which one is correct?
Paul understood that the story of Hagar and Sarah was about the slave and the free. How did he get to such conclusion? could reason alone allow him to do that, or was it through the Holy Spirit?
2 Peter 1:20 - 21:
20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture comesfrom one’s own interpretation. 21For no such prophecy was ever brought forth by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.…
No matter how much hermeneutics, grammar historical stuff, reason and the like someone uses, there are certain key parts of the Scripture that are to be understood only through the unveiling of its meaning through the Holy Spirit (usually appointed men of God), and when they receive the real interpretation, it will not contradict other things in the Bible.
I will leave it at that.
I wish the authors were in front of me to argue
Before you could post questions to authors, I think that has been disabled.
Looking forward to your blog.
Note the Wesleyian quadrilateral is not from Wesley.
So very true, MJ. Dr. Albert Outler coined the term in his younger days as a progressive theologian. It is a term that he later regretted using.
Dr. Albert Outler said, "There is one phrase I wish I had never used: the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. It has created the wrong image in the minds of so many people and, I am sure, will lead to all kinds of controversy."
