This semester I am a Teacher's Assistant for a class called Theology of Believer's Church Tradition. While the title of the class is problematic, as it begs the question what should we consider those outside of this tradition. BCT (as we call it) is a strand within "Evangelicalism" (a term that is slowly beginning to have its definition restored) holds to what we call the "four sola"s. The irony being that sola is Latin for "alone". The four "sola"s are sola gratia (Grace Alone). sola fide (Faith alone), , solus Christus (Christ Alone), sola scriptura (Scripture alone). So salvation is granted by grace alone to those who have faith alone in only Jesus Christ, which is revealed by Scripture alone.
I thought the veneration of scripture was unique to BCT, until recently I was reading Clark Pinnock's Most Moved Mover. In this work he writes that "as an evangelical, my primary commitment is to Scripture, not to tradition, reason, or experience because I believe that any authentically theological model must have biblical backing and resonance" (p. 19). I am unclear as to whether Pinnock means that because he is an evangelical, or that because of his understanding of a theological model he must venerate scripture above all else.
Let us presume he means that an authentic theological model that is biblically based must venerate Scripture above reason, tradition, and experience. It appears self-evident to me that such a model is possible without venerating scripture, as a base can have four corners. If it is not self-evident then that me show how this definition of what it is to be "biblically based" is inherently faulty. The scripture that we use today has been copied over the ages millions of times. In this copying we have been reliant on the reason of the scribes (guided by the Spirit) to take the manuscripts and discern what was editorial comments from the previous scribes and what was original content (hence the multiple ends of Mark). Furthermore, because of our Evangelical tradition we hold the 66 books of the Bible as scripture. If we were Catholic we would have more books that we would include as scripture.
Is it then that one must venerate scripture above reason, tradition, and experience? If this is what he means and it is true can those of us who use the Wesleyan Quadrilateral to engage in the discipline of theology consider ourselves Evangelical? My understanding of the WQ is that scripture, reason, tradition, and experience are considered the four primary modes that God reveals himself (the four corners of our foundation). These four modes are not fit into some sort of hierarchy, but are equal in authority and each mode must adhere to the assertions of the other 3 modes. This four way system of checks and balances is to ensure that one mode is not venerated above the rest.
This leaves me asking: If Pinnock is correct about what it means to be an Evangelical and I am correct about the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, then should I continue to consider myself an Evangelical or have I become orphan?
TSB VIII
2 months ago
5 comments:
I don't think you are correct as to the WQ. Quadrilateral is a mis-nomer. Outler, himself, came to regret using that title. Wesley never did. Randy Maddox, in "Responsible Grace" says this:
"Wesley's so-called 'quadrilateral' of theological authorities could more adequately be described as a unilateral rule of Scripture within a trilateral hermeneutic of reason, tradition, and experience."
As far as I know, Maddox is one of the most highly regarded contemporary Wesleyan theologians.
Maddox and Outler are definitely two very highly respected Wesleyan theologians. I'll have to look at "Responsible Grace". Although, referring to reason, tradition, and experience as the "trilateral hermeneutic" still shows the reality that scripture is being interpreted through these three and to certain extent is subject to them. So I wonder how true it is to say that scripture is superior to reason, tradition, and experience?
Hi Dave,
I have a few thoughts--hopefully that will comfort you and affirm that you are not an orphan! :)
First, it seems quite obvious to me that the necessity of basic rational functions to read and interpret Scripture is not a source of theology. The example you cite of scribes picking and choosing is not an example of reason being a source for theology, but the very tool of interpretation that Matthew mentions to give Scripture its primacy; to get at a better interpretation of this source. This kind of 'reason' is not a source of theology.
Of course, we do use reason, our experiences, and the wider experiences of other Christians as sources for theology. The question is how these get adjudicated. If they are all sources, then what is the 'norm'? If my experience is different from yours and we both have a commitment to truth, how do we judge between our experiences? The answer of sola Scriptura is that Scripture is the norm. Of course, this could be a never ending cycle as we have debates over interpretation, but sola Scriptura says that we must both appeal to Scripture and not to something else as what we should consider 'normative.'
I think this is Reformation theology and, therefore, Wesleyan. I do not think you'll ever find Wesley saying that tradition and/or experience is a mode of revelation, co-equal to Scripture.
My point of demonstrating the use of ration and tradition in the copying of Scripture was to show that to engage Scripture at any level makes use of reason and tradition, as well as (but not as apparent) experience. To say Sola Scripture and elevate above reason, tradition, and experience is to turn a blind eye to the obvious influence that are involved in engaging Scripture.
While Scripture can be the common ground, I would argue experience, tradition, and reason can serve as common ground, as well. For instance if I am to engage an atheist in theological discussion I will not be appealing to Scripture as a common ground, I will most likely appeal to reason (although Scripture will inform my argument).
Hi Dave,
Sola Scriptura does not argue that Scripture must always be common ground, but that it adjudicates between sources of theology. This means that Scripture is a 'norm' between sources of theology. No one will say that experience, reason, and tradition are not sources of theology--they all are--but Sola Scriptura affirms its status as what calls these others into line. This does not turn a blind eye to engaging Scripture because 'reason' or 'rationality' in engaging Scripture is not 'reason' as a source for knowledge of God.
Perhaps we can take this further if I ask how you would distinguish between a theological source and a theological norm.
Post a Comment