Rate this:

Matt,

As such topics require considerable exposition; I would like to spread my response to your latest comment over several posts. I see no other way to assure that these topics are comprehensively addressed while simultaneously securing their brevity.

“We cannot pretend that orthodoxy and general practice is based on only the sacred writings of a faith. This is a big sticking point especially among Christians but also found prominently in Islam and Judaism. Sorry to keep using these three religions but they are some of the biggest and all follow a more western religious philosophy than an eastern one. I am fond of John Wesley’s work here. He has been credited with developing the Wesleyan Quadrilateral to come to theological conclusions. The four points are Scripture –The Holy Bible, Tradition – Two Millenia of practices, Reason – rational thinking and sensible interpretation, and Experience – a Christian’s personal and communal journey in Christ.”

In regards to your apology for the illustrative usage of Islam, Judaism and Christianity; that is the topic, so there is no apology needed. If you were to somehow refer to Zoroastrianism or Taoism, I would wonder if you had been paying attention.

The work of John Wesley in this area is indeed paramount. The term itself was coined by 20th century American Methodist Albert C. Outler in his introduction to the 1964 collection John Wesley. However, you have misinterpreted the nature of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. Regarding the essence of this creed, the United Methodist Church, asserts that “Wesley believed that the living core of the Christian faith was revealed in Scripture, illumined by tradition, vivified in personal experience, and confirmed by reason: Scripture however is primary, revealing the Word of God, so far as it is necessary for our salvation.” (*) Wesley recognized that Scripture alone was our basis and everything else came secondary. This is a critical point that we must understand. He at no point and time lowered the value of Scripture to the level of the other three points. Yes they were equal in terms of making up each one quarter of the quadrilateral, but they were not equal in weight.

What we are really discussing is the argument of subjectivity vs. objectivity. The reasoning of a person, the experience of a person, and the traditions of a person may all change throughout their lives. However, what cannot change is the objective truth from which they base their worldviews. Every single one of these three religions, and in fact all religions, have certain creeds that are widely understood to be non negotiable. To deny this would be nothing short of ridiculous. To attempt to build a worldview on purely subjective principles is philosophically impossible, foolhardy, and we observe it to be unsustainable when more than surface level scrutiny is applied. Objective truth must be the basis, otherwise it is a house built on quicksand. For example, even the Relativist bases his worldview on the objective truth that there is no objective truth. Objective, non negotiable truth is at the heart of every subjective interpretation. Remove it, and implosion is imminent.

Having shown that Wesley believed that the text was of primary importance, and that an absolute must rest at the basis of a worldview, I will now address the level of significance that I have applied to the various texts. We find this thread of a primary importance of text woven throughout these three religions, which is the precise reason for my concentration. The claim of inerrancy is never applied to a person’s reason, experience, or tradition but it is applied to the texts. Allow me to pose some questions to you. From where do we get the idea that Mohammed is the last prophet of Allah? From where do we get the idea that Jesus was the son of God and that He died on a cross as a payment and sacrifice for our sin? From where do we get the idea that God chose a race of people to bring about the Messiah only to preserve their race for millennia through reoccurring tragedies?

All of these ideas or concepts originate in their respective texts. You see without the texts of these religions, they are nothing more than ideas or concepts no different than a religion based upon a flying spaghetti monster god or the belief that my desk chair is my god. Any one of them may claim truth. The ease of dissecting and analyzing a source of information, such as these texts, is easier to do and is wiser than spending time dissecting the various subjective conclusions of individuals.

In my next post, I will be addressing the issue of orthodoxies and the Nicene Creed and its formation. This will be followed in the near future by an explanation of Mark 16:9-20. God Bless.

(*) The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church, Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 2004. Pg. 77

Advertisement