Methodist vs. Anglican

[cristianna]

Yay to Mary's story helping others!

 

[sinner/SAVED]

And that's the most significant of the 4 legs of the 4 legged stool there.

I don't think that Wesley would have thought any of them more significant than the others. Remove any and you are back to a wobbly three-legged stool.

 

[GraceSeeker]

I don't think that Wesley would have thought any of them more significant than the others. Remove any and you are back to a wobbly three-legged stool.

Sorry, I disagree. Given Wesley's view of Scripture, I do think that he consider it more important than the other three, but he did prefer a 4-legged chair to 3-legged stools.

 

[joyfulthanks]

If I have understood some things that I've heard about this correctly, the fourth leg of the Wesleyan quadrilateral was not something prescribed by Wesley as a means of determining correct doctrine or praxis, but was rather more of an observation about how people in real life actually go about working out what they believe.

If that's true, I think that this shift in focus from a means of describing what people do, to a part of the formula for ascertaining truth has hurt us. Leaning heavily on experience can lead us to a wide variety of incorrect beliefs and practices, IMO. But, heck, I feel that way about the reason leg, too!

I'll be the first to admit that I am not well-educated on this subject though, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Joykins]

I don't think that Wesley would have thought any of them more significant than the others. Remove any and you are back to a wobbly three-legged stool.

Three-legged stools are much more stable than 4-legged chair. a 3-legged stool will never wobble because 3 points define a plane.

I prefer the quadrilateral theologically; the point above is purely geometric.

 

[Texas Lynn]

I don't think that Wesley would have thought any of them more significant than the others.

I ain't him.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Leaning heavily on experience can lead us to a wide variety of incorrect beliefs and practices, IMO.

I have problems with the concept one can somehow "know" which beliefs are "incorrect" in this sort of formulation.

But, heck, I feel that way about the reason leg, too!

I don't get the distrust of reason and experience.

 

[sinner/SAVED]

If I have understood some things that I've heard about this correctly, the fourth leg of the Wesleyan quadrilateral was not something prescribed by Wesley as a means of determining correct doctrine or praxis, but was rather more of an observation about how people in real life actually go about working out what they believe.

If that's true, I think that this shift in focus from a means of describing what people do, to a part of the formula for ascertaining truth has hurt us. Leaning heavily on experience can lead us to a wide variety of incorrect beliefs and practices, IMO. But, heck, I feel that way about the reason leg, too!

I'll be the first to admit that I am not well-educated on this subject though, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

Actually, Wesley thought that experience was the only way that truth could be revealed to the illiterate, unchurched masses. He did not believe that the common man could ever grasp an understanding of theology and unless they were in church they would never learn from tradition.

 

[ContraMundum]

Wesley himself never actually taught a "Wesleyan Quadrilateral"- it's a term coined by Albert Outler, a Wesleyan theologian. So all this discussion about chairs would realistically be foreign to Wesley. It's clear he took scripture as his source of theology, but consulted other sources in determining its meaning.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Actually, Wesley thought that experience was the only way that truth could be revealed to the illiterate, unchurched masses. He did not believe that the common man could ever grasp an understanding of theology and unless they were in church they would never learn from tradition.

I think this is somewhat correct but not in the elitist sense some might think it to be. Despite the Wesleys' middle class background they were not snobs. They did not disdain the oppressed and they certainly would not be very much impressed by the Reaganite-Thatcherite "I've got mine and if you don't have yours, too bad for you" ethos.

 

[Joykins]

I think this is somewhat correct but not in the elitist sense some might think it to be. Despite the Wesleys' middle class background they were not snobs. They did not disdain the oppressed and they certainly would not be very much impressed by the Reaganite-Thatcherite "I've got mine and if you don't have yours, too bad for you" ethos.

In fact, the Wesleys had a ministry with prisoners, championed prison reform, and often went with the condemned in the cart to the gallows. Snobs they were not.

 

[Texas Lynn]

The Wesleys would not have associated themselves with such aggregations of the opponents of social change as "The Moral majority" either. They would be aghast at efforts to use churches to build political machines as well.

 

[cavell]

Seeing as Wesley bascially lifted the Methodist Articles of Religion from the Anglican Church, the differences are more with regard to form (from our frontier experience) than substance.

Absolutely. "All one in Christ Jesus" A good question but Jesus alone is the Saviour.......good to talk, but this is the important thing.

Many ways lead to Christ, but only Christ the Door...leads to God

 

[joyfulthanks]

Many ways lead to Christ, but only Christ the Door...leads to God

Interesting thought.