The question of the role of Scripture in theology is crucial and has occupied the attention of theologians for centuries. Even though opinions vary sharply as to the exact role of Scripture in theology, virtually all Christian theologians within the full spectrum of opinion agree that Scripture has to play some part in Christian theology.¹ Throughout church history, the Bible—the written Word of God to humanity—has played an authoritative role in Christian theology. The German theologian Gerhard Ebeling once suggested that the history of Christianity is simply the history of the interpretation of the Bible.² In Christian theology, the decisive question has been and still is how Scripture is related to other sources of theology, such as tradition, reason, and experience, and what the meaning of sola Scriptura is over against these other sources. The sola Scriptura principle is the call to judge all faith and practice by Scripture alone (sola Scriptura). No wonder it has become one of the great “battle cries” of the Protestant Reformation.³ James Packer aptly said that sola Scriptura “shows the essential motivation and concern, theological and religious, of the entire Reformation movement.”⁴ According to Markus Barth, the “words sola Scriptura are preferably to be interpreted not as a nominative but as an instrumental ablative, ‘by Scripture alone.’ Thus, the formula describes an efficient and normative instrument which God uses and puts into the hands of the church.”⁵ This means that Scripture is the normative standard by which other sources of theology are evaluated and judged. Every theology is influenced to some degree by at least the following sources: Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience.⁶ The interplay of these sources and which of these sources has the highest and final authority in matters of faith and practice is the decisive question that influences and shapes every theology.⁷ In this article we will look more closely at what has been called the Wesleyan Quadrilateral and examine its approach vis-à-vis the sola Scriptura principle. This is particularly significant, not only because Ellen G. White, a founding member and influential person of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, came out of Methodism,⁸ but because some have recently claimed that the sola Scriptura principle has become problematic and have questioned “whether conservative Protestants can, in all honesty, continue to give assent to this venerable principle.”⁹

The Wesleyan Quadrilateral

The Wesleyan Quadrilateral¹⁰ is a phrase that stands for a paradigm or model that has come to describe the principal factors of how John Wesley (1703–1791) conceived of the task of theology.¹¹ It represents a modern attempt to summarize the relationship of the four sources in theology (Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience) that guided Wesley and his followers in their reflection on theology. When Methodists today try to answer questions about God and their faith, they use an approach called the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. While Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience make up the four sides of the Quadrilateral, the hermeneutical interplay of the four different sources in the formulation of theological positions is more complex.¹² The Wesleyan Quadrilateral asserts the United Methodist Church’s understanding 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.’”¹³ With this concise description of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, we will now provide some brief historical background information to the emergence of this principle.

The Historical Background to the Wesleyan Quadrilateral

Interestingly, Wesley never formulated the succinct statement that is now commonly referred to as the Wesleyan Quadrilateral and did not use the word “quadrilateral” in his writings, nor did he approve it.¹⁴ It is a rather new word that was coined by Albert Outler, a respected Methodist theologian,¹⁵ in the late 1960s while serving on the commission on doctrine and doctrinal standards of the United Methodist Church.¹⁶ Outler, who for decades was professor of theology at Southern Methodist University, chose the term “quadrilateral” because of its historic significance as a theological term in the Anglican and Episcopalian traditions, where it was used for the “Lambeth Quadrilateral,” which was agreed on at the General Convention of the (Anglican) Protestant Episcopal Church held in Chicago in 1886.¹⁷ It represents the essentials for a reunited Christian church. The Lambeth Quadrilateral affirms Scripture as the rule and ultimate standard of the Christian faith, the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and the historic episcopate. In the Anglican tradition, a combination of Scripture, tradition, and reason was promoted as early as the sixteenth century.¹⁸ The Wesleyan Quadrilateral added a fourth emphasis, experience, resulting in the four components or “sides” of the quadrilateral: (1) Scripture, (2) tradition, (3) reason, and (4) experience.¹⁹ Wesley never used the term “quadrilateral,” and so it might be more appropriate to speak of the “United Methodist Church Quadrilateral” or the “Albert Outler Quadrilateral.”²⁰ Since its formulation, the “Wesleyan Quadrilateral” has developed a life of its own where people often treat all four sources as of equal authority, thus diminishing the authority of Scripture.²¹ Attaching Wesley’s respected name to it lends authority to a theological method that often is misused or misconstrued, which ultimately also leads to a misrepresentation of Wesley himself and what he believed.²²

While the Wesleyan Quadrilateral is somewhat different from the Lambeth Quadrilateral, Outler thought that the term could serve as a helpful way to refer to the complex interaction of the four sources in Wesley’s theology.²³ Much later, however, Outler wished he had never done so because it opened a Pandora’s box of all sorts of formulations that amounted to allowing either tradition, reason, or experience to trump what the Bible said about some subjects.²⁴ Since Wesley himself did not explicitly articulate his theological method, the attempt to describe the particulars of his theological procedures proves to be a challenge. Nevertheless, one can fairly conclude that the misunderstanding of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral lies in thinking that for Wesley these four sides are equal. The very nature of a geometric term implies an equality or homogenization of the four elements.²⁵ But for Wesley they were not equal. “For him, Scripture always represented the primary source of religious authority.”²⁶ Randy L. Maddox states that “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.”²⁷ Donald Thorsen even suggests that “if one insists in choosing a geometric figure as a paradigm for Wesley, a tetrahedron—a tetrahedral pyramid—would be more appropriate. Scripture would serve as the foundation of the pyramid, with the three sides labeled tradition, reason, and experience as complementary but not primary sources of religious authority.”²⁸

While this perspective seems closer to what John Wesley might have had in mind for his theology, it still raises some important questions about the role and authority of the Bible in theology. When Scripture is primary, revealing the Word of God only “so far as it is necessary for our salvation”²⁹ then merely a central teaching of the Christian faith is revealed in Scripture. But, as has been pointed out, “what is not said here is what authority the Bible has when it addresses issues other than soteriology.”³⁰ Furthermore, if Scripture is illumined by tradition, vivified through our personal experience, and confirmed by human reason, it leaves Scripture as the primary source in the theology but not as the sole source of its own exposition. Thus, despite recognizing the primacy and priority of Scripture in the light of tradition, reason, and experience, it ultimately weakens its role as the ultimate and final authority that decides all matters of faith and practice. In giving primacy to Scripture, Wesley and his followers felt free to introduce extrabiblical authorities in theological reflection and formulation.³¹ To affirm the primacy of Scripture is not something that is typical or restricted to Protestants. The Roman Catholic Church also affirms the primacy of Scripture for their faith.³² Roman Catholic theology affirms the divine inspiration of Scripture and also the historical primacy of Scripture over against later historical developments. But to affirm the primacy of Scripture is not the same as to affirm sola Scriptura where Scripture is the final and highest authority for faith and practice and the sole source of its own exposition. It is this Scripture principle that has become so characteristic of the Protestant reformers of the sixteenth century.³³ To better understand the role of Scripture as prima Scriptura in the Wesleyan Quadrilateral and the crucial difference between prima Scriptura and sola Scriptura, we will briefly compare and contrast the two.

Prima Scriptura versus Sola Scriptura

Prima Scriptura expresses the idea that the canon of Scripture is the first or primary way in which God’s revelation comes to us. Prima Scriptura conveys the thought that Scripture is merely the first among other sources that play an instrumental role in theology. In prima Scriptura, the Bible is seen as authoritative but it leaves the door open for other (authoritative) sources in theology that illumine and shape the interpretation of Scripture. While Scripture holds a place of primacy in prima Scriptura, under this rubric it becomes one of several sources that rule our faith and practice.

The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura, on the other hand, affirms more than the primacy of Scripture. It also includes the sufficiency of Scripture as the only source by which all other sources of theology are judged in matters of faith and practice in the church. Thus, Scripture alone is the arbiter by which everything else in theology is measured and decided. Sola Scriptura implies that Scripture alone (1) “is the uniquely infallible source of divine revelation that is available to contemporary humans collectively; (2) Scripture alone provides a sufficient and fully trustworthy basis of theology; and (3) Scripture is the uniquely authoritative and final norm of theological interpretation that norms all others.”³⁴ As such, sola Scriptura entails the concept of tota Scriptura, where all of Scripture functions as the infallible source of divine revelation and the final norm of theology. It also affirms the unity of Scripture, which implies that Scripture is internally coherent and allows us to interpret Scripture with Scripture (analogia Scriptura). Without a unity of Scripture, we could not distinguish between truth and error or oppose theological heresy, but would be left with conflicting and contradictory voices in Scripture that reflect inconsistent theological positions that cannot sustain theological and biblical unity. Sola Scriptura also implies the clarity of Scripture (claritas Scriptura), without which Scripture could not be understood clearly in what it affirms.³⁵

Sola Scriptura does not mean solo Scriptura. The principle of “the Bible alone” (sola Scriptura) does not exclude other sources besides Scripture, such as tradition, reason, and experience, but “all additional knowledge, experience, or revelation must build upon and remain faithful to the all-sufficient foundation of Scripture.”³⁶ This means that all other sources in theology are judged by Scripture and are subservient to Scripture. The Bible norms all other theological sources. The appeal to sola Scriptura, therefore, acknowledges the unique, divine authority of Scripture. The sola has to do with the exclusion of rivals and is intended to safeguard the final authority of Scripture from its dependence on the church and its tradition, on human reason,³⁷ and human experience. This means that the standard of its interpretation should not come from outside of Scripture, but rather from Scripture itself, which is the sole source of its own exposition.

Sola Scriptura and the Self-Interpretation of Scripture

The self-interpretation of Scripture is expressed in such formulas as “scriptura sacra sui ipsius interpres” (“holy Scripture is its own interpreter”), “Scripturam ex Scriptura explicandam esse” (“Scripture is explained through Scripture”), and “Scriptura Scripturam interpretatur” (“Scripture interprets Scripture”).³⁸ Ellen G. White has confirmed the validity and importance of this sola Scriptura principle. In the introduction to the book The Great Controversy she writes, “The Holy Scriptures are to be accepted as an authoritative, infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the revealer of doctrines, and the test of experience.”³⁹ In a similar manner, Seventh-day Adventists affirm the authority of Scripture. Fundamental Belief 1 echoes White’s words and states,

The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration. The inspired authors spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has communicated to humanity the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the supreme, authoritative, and infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the definite revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God’s acts in history.⁴⁰

White describes this theological approach, where Scripture is the highest and final standard in theology, in the following words:

But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms. The opinion of learned men, the deductions of science, the creeds or decisions of ecclesiastical councils, as numerous and discordant as are the churches which they represent, the voice of the majority—not one nor all of these should be regarded as evidence for or against any point of religious faith. Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain “Thus saith the Lord” in its support.⁴¹

Does Sola Scriptura Work?

In stark contrast to such a high view of Scripture, some have claimed that a sola Scriptura approach is deficient in light of a “bewildering array of doctrinal options that have arisen among groups that strenuously profess fidelity to the Bible as their sole authority” and therefore a Quadrilateral alternative has been suggested⁴² as “the best way to begin the exodus out of this embarrassing, pluralistic impasse” that is deemed to be the result of sola Scriptura.⁴³

For critics of a sola Scriptura principle, the Wesleyan Quadrilateral seems to lead the way to an approach that affirms the primacy of Holy Scripture (prima Scriptura) vis-à-vis other sources of theology. One Methodist scholar has described the interplay of the different sources in theology in a prima Scriptura approach of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral as follows:

The Scriptures are, in this view, the primal font of Christian truth. But since they must be interpreted in every succeeding age in each new cultural context, there is also a need for the positive aid of tradition, understood as the collective wisdom of the Christian community in all centuries and all communions. Such interpretations, however, must also be guided by reason. Wesley expressly excludes interpretations that lead either to logical absurdities or to indictments of God’s goodness. This is a demand for clarity and cogency in all Christian formulations. None of this, however, will suffice until all are given life and power by “the inner witness of the Spirit that we are the children of God”. This is the Christian experience that turns sound doctrine into living faith.⁴⁴

Such a theological methodology, however, poses its own set of problems. When Scripture is in need of the positive aid of tradition, it is no longer Scripture alone that is allowed to interpret Scripture. This is reminiscent of the Roman Catholic position, where Scripture is interpreted through the lens of tradition.⁴⁵ One also has to recognize that the so-called “collective wisdom of the Christian community in all centuries and all communions” is not as monolithic and uniform as it is claimed to be. Addressing the new emphasis on the importance of tradition in the relationship between Scripture and tradition in recent theology, John Peckham raises the important question: which of the traditions and which communities should be chosen?⁴⁶ Vincent of Lerin’s famous rule of faith, “What has been believed everywhere, always, and by all,”⁴⁷ is historically not as uniform and harmonious as it is claimed to be in the Roman Catholic tradition.⁴⁸ Furthermore, when Scripture remains only the primary source, it no longer plays an exclusive role where Scripture alone is the decisive authority. If Scripture is only the prima donna in the choir, its role is “not there to pontificate, but to work in complementary fashion.”⁴⁹ This means that with the prima Scriptura approach in the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, “the Bible is given greater freedom to be a powerful witness to the truths that give it redemptive sufficiency, not mere scientific or historic accuracy.”⁵⁰ This, however, undermines the full trustworthiness of Scripture and ignores the numerous interplay between history and theology in Scripture.⁵¹

The plurality of different doctrinal opinions, bemoaned by some, ignores the fact that there is also considerable unity in the understanding of biblical truth across denominational boundaries. Theological pluralism is not the fault of Scripture or a deficiency of the sola Scriptura principle, but has to do with different hermeneutical approaches that significantly influence the interpretation of Scripture,⁵² and also to a large degree with the presuppositions with which interpreters approach Scripture.⁵³ This leads us to another important factor in the discussion of the role of Scripture in the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.

The Formal and Material Authority of Scripture

In Protestant theology, there is an important distinction between the formal and the material authority of Scripture. The Reformation slogan sola Scriptura—“by Scripture alone”—is often described as the “formal principle” of the Reformation,⁵⁴ identifying the authoritative source of Christian theology in Scripture.⁵⁵ In contrast to the formal principle, theologians also refer to the so-called “material principle,”⁵⁶ which denotes a central teaching of a religious text, such as sola fide, sola gratia, the gospel, or even Jesus Christ. This material principle often becomes the authentic center from which Scripture must be understood. In order to better understand the significance and problematic nature of this distinction, we need to briefly look to Martin Luther, who pioneered this thinking, before we turn to the Wesleyan Quadrilateral and its influence there.

While Luther affirms the inspiration of Scripture, for him the content of Scripture is Christ and, from this fact, he seems to repeatedly also derive Scripture’s authority. This means that for Luther, Christ is at once the center of Scripture and the Lord of Scripture. If Scripture is queen, Christ is King—even over Scripture itself. For Luther, it is Christ and the gospel of justification by faith alone, to which Scripture attests, that constitutes the center of Scripture and thus ultimately its final authority. Here Luther’s famous preface to the epistle of James comes to mind, where he claims that whatever does not point to Christ or draws out Christ (in German: was Christum treibet) is not apostolic, even though Peter or Paul would teach it. On the other hand, whatever “drives home” Christ is apostolic, even though it would come from Judas, Annas, Pilate, and Herod.⁵⁷ Thus, for Luther, the content of Scripture (or the material principle) is Christ, and from this fact, he seems to repeatedly derive Scripture’s authority. All Scripture revolves around Christ as its authentic center. Thus, Luther actually contended not “for the primacy of Scripture in the strict sense, but for the primacy of the gospel to which Scripture attests and hence for the primacy of Scripture as the attestation to the gospel.”⁵⁸ Luther valued the Bible “because it is the cradle that holds Christ. For this reason, the gospel of justification by grace through faith served as Luther’s hermeneutical key to Scripture.”⁵⁹ According to Luther, Scripture must be understood in favor of Christ, not against Him. One consequence of this Christological hermeneutic is that if Scripture does not refer to Christ, it must not be held to be true Scripture.⁶⁰ Thus, Luther’s understanding of the gospel became the basis for determining the relative authority of the various canonical writings⁶¹ and turned into a “gospel-centered criticism of Scripture.”⁶² Christ and Scripture can be set over against each other because Luther ultimately ranked first, the personal Word (Christ); second, the spoken Word (gospel); and third, the written Word (Scripture). According to renowned theologian Gerhard Ebeling, this distinction and ranking leads to a canon within the canon,⁶³ where Christ becomes the hermeneutical key to the proper understanding of Scripture.

This, however, compromises the strength of the Scripture principle, where Scripture is the sole source of its own exposition. For “if Scripture is interpreted either by a doctrinal center or by a tradition it is no longer Scripture that is interpreting itself—rather it is we who are interpreting Scripture by means of a doctrine or tradition, to which Scripture is, in practice, being subjected.”⁶⁴ Thus, it is not surprising that Luther’s Christological method “sharpened into a tool of theological criticism,”⁶⁵ where ultimately the interpreter becomes the judge and stands above Scripture. The irony of this theological criticism is that it is done in the name of Jesus Christ and the gospel.

In a similar manner, in the Wesleyan Quadrilateral the salvific message of Scripture is more important than the formal authority of the inspired Word of God. This leads some scholars to proclaim that even alleged errors of a scientific and historical nature⁶⁶ are not worrisome as long as the message of Scripture is heard. Rather than Scripture being an authority because of its divine inspiration, “for the Wesleyan-Quadrilateral style of theology, authority is inherent in the message. Let the message be heard and the medium will have its legitimate authority (and primacy). . . . Exposure to this message lends the Bible its confessional authority.”⁶⁷ In this way, just as with Luther, the material principle—that is, its message—becomes more powerful than the formal principle of authority, Scripture.⁶⁸ Furthermore, “the fact, that tradition, experience, and reason are sources of theological authority and reflection in dynamic conjunction with Scripture necessarily keeps religious thinking open to the creativity of the Spirit and implies that the Spirit is not limited to the here and now.”⁶⁹ This may sound attractive and open-minded, but it also opens the door to relativism and diminishes the final authority of Scripture in theological matters. The wisdom of White’s words deserves to be heeded, as she writes,

Since it was the Spirit of God that inspired the Bible, it is impossible that the teaching of the Spirit should ever be contrary to that of the word. The Spirit was not given—nor can it ever be bestowed—to supersede the Bible; for the Scriptures explicitly state the word of God is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested.⁷⁰

Conclusion

The Wesleyan Quadrilateral is a hermeneutical proposal that did not originate with John Wesley, but rather with Albert Outler in the late 1960s. Outler later regretted having used this terminology because it opened a Pandora’s box of issues that often diminished the authoritative role of Scripture in its interplay with tradition, reason, and experience. At its best, the Wesleyan Quadrilateral promotes the primacy of Scripture over against other sources of theology. But the primacy of Scripture often leads to a point where other sources are invoked to help interpret Scripture, thus diminishing Scripture’s ability to interpret itself. Another aspect that weakens the formal principle of authority of Scripture in the Wesleyan Quadrilateral is the use of the material principle of Scripture, where the message of Scripture becomes more powerful and the decisive factor for the interpretation of Scripture.

The sola Scriptura principle, which affirms that Scripture is the sole source for its own exposition, is more than upholding the primacy of Scripture. Sola Scriptura includes the sufficiency, unity, and clarity of Scripture for the task of theology. In the sola Scriptura approach, other sources in theology are not negated; sola Scriptura is not solo Scriptura. Rather, sola Scriptura indicates that Scripture is not contingent on any other source and, as the highest and final authority in theology, excludes any rivals. The words of Scripture are allowed to interpret themselves. Scripture is not dependent on other external sources for its interpretation, but stands over and above them. The Wesleyan Quadrilateral is not a way forward that should be followed and is fraught with numerous problems, ultimately diminishing the clarion role of Scripture as the ultimate authority in matters of faith and practice.