Christian Understanding
Divine Revelation, Human Understanding
"Mere" Christian faith is rooted in a history of God speaking to people. That is to say, true faith is based not on human intellectual insight but on what God has revealed to people in time. Christians believe that God has spoken across the great chasm that separates the Creator and the created. That He has done so demonstrates both His desire to show Himself and His grace in so doing.
Christians speak of Divine Revelation as something fixed. Particular "revelations" may come and go -- for example, God may speak to me in prayer -- but Revelation proper is bedrock. Given the nature of the Christian God -- the Unchanging One -- this is completely appropriate. "God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?" (1)
How is it then that Christians differ so widely in their beliefs and practices? I can think of only three possible explanations: 1) God has not, in fact, spoken. That is, the very premise that He has done so is false: There is no such thing as Divine Revelation. 2) God has spoken but He sometimes changes His mind or even lies. Either He's like a well-intentioned parent who gives new or different information to her children as circumstances change. Or He's like a politician who makes both promises and "facts" suit the need at hand. 3) Our comprehension of Divine Revelation is so conditioned by the human epistemic predicament – our limitations, our fallibility, our prejudices – that different Christians possess different understandings of Divine Revelation. Thus, the fault is not with God but with us. (2)
I take it that only the third option is compatible with “mere” Christian faith. If the first were true then the story would be over at the first syllable. Christianity could make no claim to speak for God. One could talk about Christian ideas, connected with past and present Christian belief and practice, but one could not legitimately claim anything more for these than a purely human origin and basis.
If the second explanation were true then major adjustments to the historic and usual beliefs about the Christian God would be necessary. The notion that God might lie is certainly beyond the pale: Such a “God” would not be recognizably Christian. As to whether the Christian God can change His mind, this takes us into deep waters. Classical doctrine says “No”: God’s omniscience, omnipotence, and “simplicity” entail that He can never truly change His mind. Other, still recognizably Christian, views have it that God can change His mind, perhaps through our prayers. Still, the scope for such changes must of necessity be quite limited: The Christian God is not wont to change His mind willy-nilly, least of all on matters of Divine Revelation.
Knowing in part
Saint Paul's famous chapter on love -- 1 Corinthians 13 -- falls within a broader discussion about how God speaks to Christians through His Holy Spirit. Significantly, he has this to say:
"Mere" Christian faith is rooted in a history of God speaking to people. That is to say, true faith is based not on human intellectual insight but on what God has revealed to people in time. Christians believe that God has spoken across the great chasm that separates the Creator and the created. That He has done so demonstrates both His desire to show Himself and His grace in so doing.
Christians speak of Divine Revelation as something fixed. Particular "revelations" may come and go -- for example, God may speak to me in prayer -- but Revelation proper is bedrock. Given the nature of the Christian God -- the Unchanging One -- this is completely appropriate. "God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?" (1)
How is it then that Christians differ so widely in their beliefs and practices? I can think of only three possible explanations: 1) God has not, in fact, spoken. That is, the very premise that He has done so is false: There is no such thing as Divine Revelation. 2) God has spoken but He sometimes changes His mind or even lies. Either He's like a well-intentioned parent who gives new or different information to her children as circumstances change. Or He's like a politician who makes both promises and "facts" suit the need at hand. 3) Our comprehension of Divine Revelation is so conditioned by the human epistemic predicament – our limitations, our fallibility, our prejudices – that different Christians possess different understandings of Divine Revelation. Thus, the fault is not with God but with us. (2)
I take it that only the third option is compatible with “mere” Christian faith. If the first were true then the story would be over at the first syllable. Christianity could make no claim to speak for God. One could talk about Christian ideas, connected with past and present Christian belief and practice, but one could not legitimately claim anything more for these than a purely human origin and basis.
If the second explanation were true then major adjustments to the historic and usual beliefs about the Christian God would be necessary. The notion that God might lie is certainly beyond the pale: Such a “God” would not be recognizably Christian. As to whether the Christian God can change His mind, this takes us into deep waters. Classical doctrine says “No”: God’s omniscience, omnipotence, and “simplicity” entail that He can never truly change His mind. Other, still recognizably Christian, views have it that God can change His mind, perhaps through our prayers. Still, the scope for such changes must of necessity be quite limited: The Christian God is not wont to change His mind willy-nilly, least of all on matters of Divine Revelation.
Knowing in part
Saint Paul's famous chapter on love -- 1 Corinthians 13 -- falls within a broader discussion about how God speaks to Christians through His Holy Spirit. Significantly, he has this to say:
|
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. (3)
|
Catholic Christians capture this idea of "know[ing] fully, even as I am fully known" through their doctrine of the beatific vision. This is
|
[t]he immediate knowledge of God which the angelic spirits and the souls of the just enjoy in Heaven. It is called "vision" to distinguish it from the mediate knowledge of God which the human mind may attain in the present life. And since in beholding God face to face the created intelligence finds perfect happiness, the vision is termed "beatific". (4)
|
That is the goal. But in the meantime we are, as Paul writes, like children. Our talking, thinking, and reasoning are immature. As the King James has it: "we see through a glass, darkly."
So we know only in part. We do not possess the beatific vision but are instead limited to our partial, incomplete understandings of Divine Revelation. What should follow from this? Humility. Respect for other Christian understandings. A willingness to learn from other Christians, both those now alive as well as faithful believers from the past. Caution in our pronouncements. Like the proverbial blind men and the elephant, we should realize that our individual knowledge is quite incomplete and that we need others to help us if we desire to know God. (5)
Theological Justification
This awareness of our limited understanding should not, however, discourage us from seeking Divine Revelation. That would be to reject God's gracious gift. Rather, it should force us to think carefully about how we go about acquiring it. Moreover, we have a distinct advantage over the blind men and their elephant: God is desirous, in a way an elephant most decidedly is not, to reveal Himself. So, in addition to our own efforts and the aid of others, He Who Reveals Himself is helping us come to know Him. And that is a comfort indeed.
What is the best way to think about the distinction between our limited understanding versus the Divine Revelation itself? Our knowing in part versus the beatific vision? I take it to be through the epistemological categories of knowledge and justification (or warrant). (6) If knowledge is non-accidentally true belief, true belief possessing full warrant or justification, then the beatific vision is, as it were, the upper limit of human knowledge of God. Then, there will be no more questions, no more doubts, no more uncertainties, no more debates: "I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."
Until then -- that is, here, now, in "the real world" -- we are far removed from the beatific vision, from the pure knowledge of God. There may be particular beliefs that we qua Christians are justified in claiming to be bona fide knowledge -- the core statements of the Creeds, say -- but these are relatively few in number. For all other beliefs, however, we can fairly claim only a certain level of justification. Our proclamation of these second-tier beliefs should thus be governed by the justification we actually possess. It will not do to make theological mountains out of scriptural molehills: thence lies the way of church splits, denominational profusion, and schism. (7)
This is not at all to say that Christians may not legitimately disagree. Conscience may even dictate that they should part ways over different, sincerely held understandings. It is simply to say that such disagreements and departures should be thought through quite carefully. It is also to say that when a Christian thinks about her understanding on a particular issue or question, or evaluates it with respect to another Christian's understanding on that issue or question, that she should do so in terms of careful consideration of her justification, her reasons for holding to her particular understanding. Concern for both truth and love requires such care.
A Quadrilateral + One
Theologians through the centuries have thought a great deal about these things. That is to say, they've considered the sources of justification for Christian beliefs. A number of (more or less complicated) theories and schemes have been proposed. But the so-called Wesleyan Quadrilateral is, to my mind, good enough as a place to start. (8) It seems to capture, at a high level, the main sources of belief-justification available to a Christian. Here is a standard definition:
So we know only in part. We do not possess the beatific vision but are instead limited to our partial, incomplete understandings of Divine Revelation. What should follow from this? Humility. Respect for other Christian understandings. A willingness to learn from other Christians, both those now alive as well as faithful believers from the past. Caution in our pronouncements. Like the proverbial blind men and the elephant, we should realize that our individual knowledge is quite incomplete and that we need others to help us if we desire to know God. (5)
Theological Justification
This awareness of our limited understanding should not, however, discourage us from seeking Divine Revelation. That would be to reject God's gracious gift. Rather, it should force us to think carefully about how we go about acquiring it. Moreover, we have a distinct advantage over the blind men and their elephant: God is desirous, in a way an elephant most decidedly is not, to reveal Himself. So, in addition to our own efforts and the aid of others, He Who Reveals Himself is helping us come to know Him. And that is a comfort indeed.
What is the best way to think about the distinction between our limited understanding versus the Divine Revelation itself? Our knowing in part versus the beatific vision? I take it to be through the epistemological categories of knowledge and justification (or warrant). (6) If knowledge is non-accidentally true belief, true belief possessing full warrant or justification, then the beatific vision is, as it were, the upper limit of human knowledge of God. Then, there will be no more questions, no more doubts, no more uncertainties, no more debates: "I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."
Until then -- that is, here, now, in "the real world" -- we are far removed from the beatific vision, from the pure knowledge of God. There may be particular beliefs that we qua Christians are justified in claiming to be bona fide knowledge -- the core statements of the Creeds, say -- but these are relatively few in number. For all other beliefs, however, we can fairly claim only a certain level of justification. Our proclamation of these second-tier beliefs should thus be governed by the justification we actually possess. It will not do to make theological mountains out of scriptural molehills: thence lies the way of church splits, denominational profusion, and schism. (7)
This is not at all to say that Christians may not legitimately disagree. Conscience may even dictate that they should part ways over different, sincerely held understandings. It is simply to say that such disagreements and departures should be thought through quite carefully. It is also to say that when a Christian thinks about her understanding on a particular issue or question, or evaluates it with respect to another Christian's understanding on that issue or question, that she should do so in terms of careful consideration of her justification, her reasons for holding to her particular understanding. Concern for both truth and love requires such care.
A Quadrilateral + One
Theologians through the centuries have thought a great deal about these things. That is to say, they've considered the sources of justification for Christian beliefs. A number of (more or less complicated) theories and schemes have been proposed. But the so-called Wesleyan Quadrilateral is, to my mind, good enough as a place to start. (8) It seems to capture, at a high level, the main sources of belief-justification available to a Christian. Here is a standard definition:
|
The ... four components or "sides" of the quadrilateral are (1) Scripture, (2) tradition, (3) reason, and (4) experience. [...] Scripture is considered the primary source and standard for Christian doctrine. Tradition is [historical] experience and the witness of development and growth of the faith through the past centuries and in many nations and cultures. Experience is the individual's understanding and appropriating of the faith in the light of his or her own life. Through reason the individual Christian brings to bear on the Christian faith discerning and cogent thought. These four elements taken together bring the individual Christian to a mature and fulfilling understanding of the Christian faith and the required response of worship and service. (9)
|
One might be tempted to add a fifth side: the belief-justification that we obtain through our interaction and engagement with fellow Christians. However, this source is so interwoven through The Four that it wouldn't be justice to make the social aspect of belief-justification a standalone component. Humans are social beings; believing that I, individually, come to The Four in a sort of social vacuum is absurd.
This social component should remind us of two things:
Taking Theological Sides
Particular groups answering to the term 'Christian' have particular views as to each of the sides of the Quadrilateral. They also have distinct views as to the relative importance of each -- notwithstanding most everyone's claim that "the Bible is the Word of God" -- as well as to how The Four are mutually related and informing. Intellectually, some groups have acute self-awareness as to what their band or tribe believes and why. For other groups -- not so much. The Roman Catholic Church falls into the former, an Independent Baptist church in rural Georgia likely into the latter.
One could in principle "plot" Christian groups in terms of their views on the four sources of belief-justification, the relative importance they give to each in practice (proclamation notwithstanding), and how they see each source informing the others. One might begin by identifying the range of possible positions for each of The Four. A particular group's actual position would fall within this spectrum. (10) Thus,
This analysis is helpful, I think, as far as it goes. But it fails to capture the two other questions pertinent to the Quadrilateral: For a particular group, what is the relative importance it gives (in deed if not in word) to each side? And, how does it imagine each of the sides relating to and informing the others? These second-order questions turn out to be essential to where a particular group finds itself within the ranges of first-order positions listed just above.
Most Christians are, by and large, largely unaware of these second-order issues. They have not thought about the questions in explicit terms; they are oblivious to how the answers to them shape belief about the first-order positions; and they are unaware of the, as it were, non-linear nature of how an answer to a second-order question may determine a first-order position which may in turn influence how a different second-order question is answered. Here is a simple example:
As this example makes clear, Christians come to theological questions with sets of interlocking beliefs and assumptions about the Quadrilateral. More often than not, these are implicit and not-worked-out; often, in intellectual terms, they're an unruly mess. To the degree that this is true for a particular Christian on a particular question, to that degree the justification she can in principle possess for her particular understanding on that question is diminished.
To restate this: Since it is to the Quadrilateral that Christians appeal to justify particular beliefs -- that is, its four sides are the proximate bases used by Christians to justify their particular understandings -- and since the various questions about The Four, both individually and collectively, touch on the proximate bases for their justification, it follows that the ultimate justification a Christian possesses for a particular understanding rests on her beliefs about, and in particular her reasons for holding these beliefs about, the nature of each of The Four and the second-order issues surrounding them.
To a study of these I now turn, in the pages that follow. My aim is to begin thinking about the ultimate bases I possess, qua Christian, for my particular beliefs seen through the prism of the Quadrilateral.
This social component should remind us of two things:
- Our approach to Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience is highly conditioned by our environment. My justification for a particular understanding on a particular topic depends, to a very great degree, on my past and present associates (e.g., church denomination), as well as my milieu in general (e.g., consumerist America). We should thus pay careful attention to our environment: How has it formed me? How is it forming me? What are the implicit, unrecognized, and ever-present assumptions that I bring to bear in my opinions and judgments about matters of faith?
- The converse of (1) is this: Christians need each other. Spiritual knowledge rarely (if ever) comes in a nice-and-tidy package directly from On High. Our culture is a highly individualistic one: It is important to know that, in the grand sweep of history, this is quite unusual. The milieu to which the Scriptures were first directed took community as a fundamental reality. This assumption is implicit on almost every page: the people of Israel, the Church, the Body of Christ and its members, the community of saints. Excessive individualism can easily turn into a narcissistic solipsism, as the state of Christianity in early twenty-first century America amply demonstrates. Community is thus crucial if we desire a well-justified Christian understanding.
Taking Theological Sides
Particular groups answering to the term 'Christian' have particular views as to each of the sides of the Quadrilateral. They also have distinct views as to the relative importance of each -- notwithstanding most everyone's claim that "the Bible is the Word of God" -- as well as to how The Four are mutually related and informing. Intellectually, some groups have acute self-awareness as to what their band or tribe believes and why. For other groups -- not so much. The Roman Catholic Church falls into the former, an Independent Baptist church in rural Georgia likely into the latter.
One could in principle "plot" Christian groups in terms of their views on the four sources of belief-justification, the relative importance they give to each in practice (proclamation notwithstanding), and how they see each source informing the others. One might begin by identifying the range of possible positions for each of The Four. A particular group's actual position would fall within this spectrum. (10) Thus,
- Scripture: At one end, those who hold to a "high" view of Scripture, believing it fully inspired by God. At the other, those who, though still maintaining that the Bible is in some sense "God's Word," see its contents as being primarily shaped, and thus limited, by its human authors. The Reformers and their intellectual heirs exemplify the former, the liberal "mainline" Protestant denominations the latter.
- Tradition: At one end, those who believe in a (capital 'T') Tradition which is on a par with Scripture. At the other, those who eschew any "traditions of man" (except of course those of their own denomination or sect). The Roman Catholic Church exemplifies the former, many non-denominational, broadly evangelical churches (e.g., "Bible Churches") the latter.
- Reason: At one end, those who possess elaborate, comprehensive, and systematic theologies. At the other, those who, on vigilant guard against "hollow and deceptive philosophy," profess a Christianity that is palpably anti-intellectual. (11) The various "Scholastic" movements exemplify the former, fundamentalist Christian churches the latter.
- Experience: At one end, those who believe that the activity of the Holy Spirit is as pervasive and visible now as it was in the days of the Apostles. At the other, those who are convinced that the Spirit's activity -- particularly as touching the miraculous and revelatory -- has been largely "refocused" into His speaking through the Bible. The various varieties of Pentecostalism exemplify the former, so-called cessationists the latter.
This analysis is helpful, I think, as far as it goes. But it fails to capture the two other questions pertinent to the Quadrilateral: For a particular group, what is the relative importance it gives (in deed if not in word) to each side? And, how does it imagine each of the sides relating to and informing the others? These second-order questions turn out to be essential to where a particular group finds itself within the ranges of first-order positions listed just above.
Most Christians are, by and large, largely unaware of these second-order issues. They have not thought about the questions in explicit terms; they are oblivious to how the answers to them shape belief about the first-order positions; and they are unaware of the, as it were, non-linear nature of how an answer to a second-order question may determine a first-order position which may in turn influence how a different second-order question is answered. Here is a simple example:
- Charismatic Christians emphasize their experience of the Holy Spirit's present activity in "signs and wonders." If asked, they would also enthusiastically proclaim a "high" view of Scripture. They are, after all, emulating what the Apostles did in the Book of Acts; moreover, their respect for the Bible as God's Word is manifest in their common practice of "speaking" the Scriptures, believing that that very act is efficacious for all manner of things. But their emphasis on the Spirit's activity not only colors their understanding of Scriptural content but also of what a "high" view of Scripture in fact means. Thus, a person from a Baptist, Dispensationalist background might disagree both with their Scriptural understanding of the Spirit's work and with the practice of "speaking" Scripture as they do, considering the latter an almost "magical" act and thus unworthy of God's Word. In a similar vein, a Charismatic understanding of tradition tends to skip over most of what Christians were up to between the Apostles and the Azusa Street Revival in 1906. An emphasis on the Spirit's present activity, as well as the paucity of examples of the "right kind" of experiences in Christian history, almost guarantees this flat view of Christian history. To return to the Baptist, he is clearly constrained as to what he can accept as "valid" experience by the kind of Dispensationalism he holds. Assuming it is cessationist, then no amount of "charisma" will suffice to convince him that such experiences count as genuine moves of the Holy Spirit. As to tradition, he will emphasize the Reformers' eschewing of the "miracles" common in the Catholic Church at that time, while de-emphasizing the bits of Christian history in which the miraculous seems prominent.
As this example makes clear, Christians come to theological questions with sets of interlocking beliefs and assumptions about the Quadrilateral. More often than not, these are implicit and not-worked-out; often, in intellectual terms, they're an unruly mess. To the degree that this is true for a particular Christian on a particular question, to that degree the justification she can in principle possess for her particular understanding on that question is diminished.
To restate this: Since it is to the Quadrilateral that Christians appeal to justify particular beliefs -- that is, its four sides are the proximate bases used by Christians to justify their particular understandings -- and since the various questions about The Four, both individually and collectively, touch on the proximate bases for their justification, it follows that the ultimate justification a Christian possesses for a particular understanding rests on her beliefs about, and in particular her reasons for holding these beliefs about, the nature of each of The Four and the second-order issues surrounding them.
To a study of these I now turn, in the pages that follow. My aim is to begin thinking about the ultimate bases I possess, qua Christian, for my particular beliefs seen through the prism of the Quadrilateral.
Footnotes:
(1) Numbers 23:19 (NIV).
(2) This might seem an appropriate place to discuss the detrimental effects, due to the Fall, on human noetic capacities: That is, the limitations to our ability to acquire knowledge, specifically knowledge about God, redounding to us because of sin. I'm going to treat this at A Christian Philosophy rather than here. This is a difficult issue, one which often produces more heat than light. Logically, it comes before a discussion of Christian Understanding since your perspective on sin and cognition has obvious ramifications on your overall religious epistemology (which is what Christian Understanding is really about). Be that as it may, it just is the case that all Christians -- even ones convinced that human reason provides next to nothing unaided by God -- act as if reason were indispensable when they try to give an account of what they believe. That is because it is. Here I'm going to assume that particular groups' assumptions about sin and cognition are, so to speak, already boiled into their beliefs about particular theological questions.
(3) 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 (NIV). Surely the thirteenth chapter of Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians must rank among the most beautiful passages in the entire Western canon.
(4) From the entry "Beatific Vision" in The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 2. (New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907) by Edward Pace. Retrieved on 12/23/14 from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364a.htm.
(5) Thus I say: For one group -- in particular, for American conservative evangelical Christians who more often than not lack historical perspective -- to, without further ado, dismiss another (e.g., the Catholics or the Orthodox) as lying outside the bounds of faithful belief and practice is simply not justified. (Indeed, it is discourteous, ignorant, and shabby.) This is not to say that all beliefs and expressions are on equal footing. Some fit the data of Scripture, history, experience, and reason better than others. Moreover, one can hope that understanding and application of the Gospel has grown through the centuries. So, too, is it reasonable to suppose that God has given different emphases to different streams within Christianity. Nevertheless, the point still remains.
(6) Refer to the discussion on epistemology on the Philosophy Page for more information.
(7) As the explosion in denominations and sects -- some of them not even recognizably Christian (e.g., Mormonism) -- since the Protestant Reformation amply testifies. This is the doctrine of "the priesthood of the believer" gone absolutely riot. It's frankly scandalous.
(8) "Wesleyan" because originating with John Wesley, founder of the Methodists (1703 - 1791). I understand that it was Albert C. Outler who coined the term 'Wesleyan Quadrilateral'. Outler's article "The Wesleyan Quadrilateral in John Wesley" in The Wesleyan Theological Journal Vol. 20., No. 1, (Spring 1985) is a brief, helpful survey of the background in Wesley (and Anglicanism before him). It is available at http://wesley.nnu.edu/fileadmin/imported_site/wesleyjournal/1985-wtj-20-1.pdf. The relevant Wikipedia entry is good also. It should be noted that I'm not here claiming for my interpretation of the Quadrilateral -- namely, as sources of belief-justification -- any particular basis in Wesley or the Wesleyan tradition beyond the bare statement of the four sides. It should also be noted that Wesley and Wesleyans don't see the side of Scripture as on an equal basis with the other three: it is preeminent. The other three are largely, in this view, means to an end, namely, understanding the first. (Outler himself seems to express some misgivings at having coined the term in the first place.)
(9) From the entry "The Wesleyan Quadrilateral" in A Dictionary for United Methodists (Abingdon Press, 1991) by Alan K. Waltz as retrieved on 12/26/14 from http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?mid=258&GID=312&GMOD=VWD&GCAT=W. I've modified the definition slightly, removing reference to the United Methodists and clarifying that the experience relevant to tradition is historical experience.
(10) Perhaps this project has been attempted, and I'm unaware of it. Note that in what follows I'm ignoring what I consider fringe groups among the "merely" Christian, while admitting that identifying such in practice is difficult. I am also explicitly excluding groups that are so beyond the pale (e.g., Unitarian Universalism, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witness, et al.) as to count as Christian only in the loosest sense.
(11) Colossians 2:18 (NIV).
Original 12/31/14.
(1) Numbers 23:19 (NIV).
(2) This might seem an appropriate place to discuss the detrimental effects, due to the Fall, on human noetic capacities: That is, the limitations to our ability to acquire knowledge, specifically knowledge about God, redounding to us because of sin. I'm going to treat this at A Christian Philosophy rather than here. This is a difficult issue, one which often produces more heat than light. Logically, it comes before a discussion of Christian Understanding since your perspective on sin and cognition has obvious ramifications on your overall religious epistemology (which is what Christian Understanding is really about). Be that as it may, it just is the case that all Christians -- even ones convinced that human reason provides next to nothing unaided by God -- act as if reason were indispensable when they try to give an account of what they believe. That is because it is. Here I'm going to assume that particular groups' assumptions about sin and cognition are, so to speak, already boiled into their beliefs about particular theological questions.
(3) 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 (NIV). Surely the thirteenth chapter of Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians must rank among the most beautiful passages in the entire Western canon.
(4) From the entry "Beatific Vision" in The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 2. (New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907) by Edward Pace. Retrieved on 12/23/14 from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364a.htm.
(5) Thus I say: For one group -- in particular, for American conservative evangelical Christians who more often than not lack historical perspective -- to, without further ado, dismiss another (e.g., the Catholics or the Orthodox) as lying outside the bounds of faithful belief and practice is simply not justified. (Indeed, it is discourteous, ignorant, and shabby.) This is not to say that all beliefs and expressions are on equal footing. Some fit the data of Scripture, history, experience, and reason better than others. Moreover, one can hope that understanding and application of the Gospel has grown through the centuries. So, too, is it reasonable to suppose that God has given different emphases to different streams within Christianity. Nevertheless, the point still remains.
(6) Refer to the discussion on epistemology on the Philosophy Page for more information.
(7) As the explosion in denominations and sects -- some of them not even recognizably Christian (e.g., Mormonism) -- since the Protestant Reformation amply testifies. This is the doctrine of "the priesthood of the believer" gone absolutely riot. It's frankly scandalous.
(8) "Wesleyan" because originating with John Wesley, founder of the Methodists (1703 - 1791). I understand that it was Albert C. Outler who coined the term 'Wesleyan Quadrilateral'. Outler's article "The Wesleyan Quadrilateral in John Wesley" in The Wesleyan Theological Journal Vol. 20., No. 1, (Spring 1985) is a brief, helpful survey of the background in Wesley (and Anglicanism before him). It is available at http://wesley.nnu.edu/fileadmin/imported_site/wesleyjournal/1985-wtj-20-1.pdf. The relevant Wikipedia entry is good also. It should be noted that I'm not here claiming for my interpretation of the Quadrilateral -- namely, as sources of belief-justification -- any particular basis in Wesley or the Wesleyan tradition beyond the bare statement of the four sides. It should also be noted that Wesley and Wesleyans don't see the side of Scripture as on an equal basis with the other three: it is preeminent. The other three are largely, in this view, means to an end, namely, understanding the first. (Outler himself seems to express some misgivings at having coined the term in the first place.)
(9) From the entry "The Wesleyan Quadrilateral" in A Dictionary for United Methodists (Abingdon Press, 1991) by Alan K. Waltz as retrieved on 12/26/14 from http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?mid=258&GID=312&GMOD=VWD&GCAT=W. I've modified the definition slightly, removing reference to the United Methodists and clarifying that the experience relevant to tradition is historical experience.
(10) Perhaps this project has been attempted, and I'm unaware of it. Note that in what follows I'm ignoring what I consider fringe groups among the "merely" Christian, while admitting that identifying such in practice is difficult. I am also explicitly excluding groups that are so beyond the pale (e.g., Unitarian Universalism, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witness, et al.) as to count as Christian only in the loosest sense.
(11) Colossians 2:18 (NIV).
Original 12/31/14.