i affirm the wesleyan quadrilateral. for those that dont know the wesleyan quadrilateral comes from john wesley, the founder of the methodist societies (later churches). the wesleyan quadrilateral was seen in how john came to theological conclusions, he used: scripture, tradition, experience, and reason. he believed scripture to be the sole source of truth and that reason, tradition, and experience possibly enhanced or helped us understand the truth of scripture.
this is my basic understanding of the wesleyan quadrilateral. i will be the first to admit that i am not wesleyan scholar and i still have a lot to learn on this subject. this is part of the reason i am posting, i am hoping that someone of more knowledge will be able to correct me or help me understand this theological scruture better.
on to my actual post:
from my perspective everyone has a perspective (i need to save that one!). it seems to me that everyone has a different lens or perspective they work from and it is this through this lens that they understand the world around them. the lens is made up of their biological make up, life experiences, social class, education, family life, etc etc. two people will be able to watch the same event in history and form two completely different opinions from that event, i believe that is because of their lens. these lens are neither wrong or right, they simply are.
i heard a good example the other day to illustrate this point. two people might be looking up at a tree. person number one might look up and say "look there is a bird in the tree". person number two, however, might not be able to see the bird because of a tree limb in the way and say "no you are wrong there is no bird". unless both people are able to realize that they are coming from different perspectives then the conversastion and observations will go no where.
so this is my question: how are we able to use scripture as the sole source of truth when how we read scripture is dependent upon our traditions, experiences, and reasons.
two people from different backgrounds will read the same scripture and find two completely truths. are we then to assume that both people are correct and that each one of their interpretations holds truth? or is only one person correct. and maybe there is a third option of both people are completely wrong. it seems that with the second option we then have to understand how the person came to their interpretations, going to their traditions, reasons, and experiences.
i am trying to understand how we can hold something that seems so subjective as the sole authority on truth. from the example i gave about with the tree, i dont want to go so far as to say there is no bird or that because the bird was not visible to the second man that he was actually correct. i do believe in absolute truths, i simply wonder how many of our truths are not so absolute.
just some thoughts that are going through my mind right now. maybe a few of you will be able to help me think through this topic.
4 comments:
As for the bird/tree example: the truth is that there is, in fact a bird. Just because the second person couldn't see it didn't nullify the fact that it was there. Does that mean that there is always an absolute truth? Are we "wrong" if we are being blocked by the branch? How do we apply that to life? Issues? Ah, so many questions. Let me know if you ever figure it out.
Wesylan-Armenian or Calvinist I think we have to see scripture in light of what IT says despite our philosophy. For example the Bible makes it clear that we have free will we have to decided...but it also makes it clear that God is sovereign. It's a balanced approach. The fact that you have weslyan leanings matters little in comparison to what the word says. Now I think we should have agreement on the essentials and liberty on the non-essentials. (that's to paraphrase the bible answer man.)
@ Krutches - ah, but that is assuming that you and i are able to properly read and understand what the Word says. What you believe the Bible "makes clear" may not be so clear to someone else.
This goes back to the tree example. What if you have a branch in the way and don't realize it? Suddenly what seems so clear to you may actually be wrong.
Doesn't this highlight the essential role of the Holy Spirit in enlightening each of us?
And doesn't this highlight our need to interact with humility and His love for each other to learn from each other? Likely we all have interfering branches. We certainly are finite humans attempting to discuss the infinite. (the parable of the 5 blind indians trying to describe an elephant comes to mind in this context).
As in a lifelong quest, we help each other hobble along, with the essential help from God's Spirit in us.
gene --
Post a Comment