Archive: The Wesleyan Quadrilateral—Not Equilateral

Putting Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience into focus

by Robert G. Tuttle, Jr.
Associate Professor, Historical Theology, Oral Roberts University School of Theology
Contributing editor, Good News Board of Directors

United Methodists for many years have appealed to Scripture, reason, tradition, and experience. We have called this the Wesley quadrilateral, the source of “our present existing and established standards of doctrine.”[1] In 1972 the Wesley quadrilateral first appeared, along with considerable definition, in the doctrinal statement in our Book of Discipline. United Methodists refer to it regularly to support a broad swath of Christian teaching.

Unfortunately, we have too frequently understood quadrilateral to mean equilateral, as though there is no principal source on which faith depends. The results have been conflict and inconsistency.

At some points, however, our people deserve a United Methodist response to our troubled times to provide direction for the church. We have the right to expect enough compatibility in the understanding of our doctrinal essentials that we do not raise more questions than we answer. If we are ever to be United Methodist, we must realize that quadrilateral does not mean equilateral.

Wesley appealed to Scripture, reason, tradition, and experience when attempting to document and support his own position.[2] But his quadrilateral had a dominant side—Scripture. He fully intended that Scripture take precedent. He wrote in the preface to his standard sermons: “God himself has condescended to teach the way: For this very end he came from heaven. He hath written it down in a book.” He then exclaims, “O, give me that book! At any price, give me the book of God! I have it: Here is knowledge enough for me. Let me be homo unius libri” (a man of one book).[3]

The Primacy of Scripture

If Wesley was truly a man of one Book (which some have difficulty believing since he used so many different sources), the place to begin is with his view of Scripture.

Wesley insisted that Scripture is the principal authority—the only measure whereby all other truth is tested. In his reply to a Roman catechism he writes: “The Scripture, therefore, is a rule sufficient in itself, and was by men divinely inspired at once delivered to the world; and so neither needs, nor is capable of, any further addition” (Works, Vol. X, p. 90).

In 1755 he writes to a friend, Samuel Furly, a general rule for interpreting Scripture: “The literal sense of every text is to be taken, if it be not contrary to some other texts; but in that case, the obscured text is to be interpreted by those which speak more plainly” (Letters, Telford ed., Vol. III, p. 129). Here we see not only a reverence for the Word of God, but a healthy guideline for interpretation as well.

The point should be well taken. Any measure for truth must begin with Scripture. Without this focus it is every man for himself; there is no unity of the faith. We are “tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine” (Ephesians 4:14). We can reach only so high. If we are to know the truth, then God must stoop to reveal it to us. This brings us to the rest of the quadrilateral. Although Scripture takes precedence, Wesley also clearly appeals to reason, tradition, and experience in support of Scripture.

Reason, Tradition, Experience

Though Scripture is sufficient unto itself and is the foundation of true religion, Wesley writes: “Now, of what excellent use is reason, if we would either understand ourselves, or explain to others, those living oracles!” (Works, Vol. VI, p. 354). He states quite clearly that without reason we cannot understand the essential truths of Scripture. Reason, in this instance however, is not mere human intelligence. It must be assisted by the Holy Spirit if we are to understand the mysteries of God.

Wesley’s appreciation for reason not only preceded but extended far beyond Aldersgate. In 1741 he writes of Luther: “How does he decry reason, right or wrong, as an irreconcilable enemy to the Gospel of Christ! Whereas, what is reason (the faculty so called) but the power of apprehending, judging, and discoursing? Which power is no more to be condemned in the gross than seeing, hearing, or feeling” (Works, Vol. 1, p. 3 15).

Yet, in spite of Wesley’s profound respect for reason, he was clear as to what reason could and could not do. He knew, for example, that if people were left to themselves they would not reason their way to Heaven, but to hell. Ultimately, reason in and of itself falls short; it is a rope of sand.

In his sermon, “The Case of Reason Impartially Considered,” Wesley sought to demonstrate the complete inability of reason to produce faith. He stated: “Although it is always consistent with reason, yet reason cannot produce faith, in the scriptural sense of the word. Faith, according to Scripture, is ‘an evidence,’ or conviction, ‘of things not seen.’ It is a divine evidence bringing a full conviction of an invisible, eternal world” (Works, Vol. VI, p. 355). Reason, even in its highest state of improvement, could never produce a firm conviction in anyone’s mind.

Although Wesley persisted in his own appreciation for reason throughout his life, he insisted that God be on the throne of grace as the one who takes the initiative in the drama of rescue. Reason can do much with regard to both the foundation and the superstructure of religion. Ultimately, however, reason can produce neither faith, hope, nor love. These are gifts of God.

As for tradition, Wesley writes that it is generally supposed that traditional evidence is weakened by length of time. Of necessity it passes through many hands in a continued succession of ages. Although other evidence is perhaps stronger, he insists: “I do not undervalue traditional evidence. Let it have its place and its due honour. It is highly serviceable in its kind, and in its degree” (Works, Vol. X, p. 75).

Wesley objected to the Catholic view that tradition is absolute truth. However, he does admit that men of strong and clear understanding should be aware of the full force of tradition. Like reason, tradition must not be given equal weight with Scripture. Wesley does emphasize the link tradition supplies through 1700 years of history with Jesus and the Apostles. It is an unbroken chain drawing us into fellowship with those who have finished the race, fought the fight, and who now reign with God in His glory and might.

Experience (apart from Scripture) is the strongest proof of Christianity. Wesley quotes, “‘What the Scripture promises, I enjoy. Come and see what Christianity has done here …’ ” (Works, Vol. X, p. 79). He insisted that we cannot have reasonable assurance of something unless we have experienced it personally. John Wesley was assured of both justification and sanctification because he had experienced them in his own life. “What Christianity (considered as a doctrine) promised, is accomplished in my soul. And Christianity, considered as an inward principle, is the completion of all these promises” (Works, Vol. X, p. 75).

Although traditional proof is complex, experience is simple: “One thing I do know, that whereas I was blind, now I see” (John 9:25). Tradition establishes the evidence a long way off; experience makes it present to all persons. As for the proof of Christian doctrine, Wesley states that Christianity is an experience of “holiness and happiness, the image of God impressed on a created spirit; a fountain of peace and love springing up into everlasting life” (Works, Vol. X, p. 75).

The Proper Perspective

We either begin with Scripture which is then served by reason, tradition, and experience; or we begin with reason, tradition, and experience as served by Scripture. Can we reach God out of our own humanity or, ultimately, must He stoop to reveal Himself to us? Wesley believed that God must stoop to reveal Himself to us.

If our United Methodist interpretation of the Wesley quadrilateral is to be true to Wesley then we, too, must begin with Scripture. Again, quadrilateral does not imply equal emphasis even in a pluralistic church. A clear understanding of just how we arrive at doctrine is most important.

Of course, we will not agree on all things. But concerning matters which strike at the root of Christianity we must have some agreement lest we scatter our United Methodist constituents abroad without the common cord to keep them in fellowship one with another. Sometimes there is not a great distance between grinding the ax and burying the hatchet. I hope that this is interpreted as the latter. Surely we owe United Methodists (if not Wesley himself) that much and more.

[1] The Book of Discipline, 1980. Page 78.

[2] John Wesley, Works. 3rd edition. Volume X, pages 75-79.

[3] Works, Vol. V, p. 3.