The [Wesleyan Quadrilateral](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesleyan_Quadrilateral) > explicates the Methodist belief of prima scriptura. This method bases its teaching on four sources as the basis of theological and doctrinal development. These four sources are chiefly scripture, along with tradition, reason, and Christian experience. > **Scripture** > Wesley insisted that scripture is the first authority and contains the only measure whereby all other truth is tested. It was delivered by authors who were divinely inspired. It is a rule sufficient of itself. It neither needs, nor is capable of, any further addition. The scripture references to justification by faith as the gateway to scriptural holiness are: Deut. 30:6; Ps. 130:8; Ezek. 36:25, 29; Matt. 5:48; 22:37; Luke 1:69; John 17:20–23; Rom. 8:3–4; II Cor. 7:1; Eph. 3:14; 5:25–27; I Thess. 5:23; Titus 2:11–14; I John 3:8; 4:17. > > **Tradition** > Wesley wrote that it is generally supposed that traditional evidence is weakened by length of time, as it must necessarily pass through so many hands in a continued succession of ages. Although other evidence is perhaps stronger, he insisted: "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". Wesley states that those of strong and clear understanding should be aware of its full force. For him it supplies a link through 1,700 years of history with Jesus and the apostles. The witness to justification and sanctification 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. > > **Reason** > Although scripture is sufficient unto itself and is the foundation of true religion, Wesley wrote: "Now, of what excellent use is reason, if we would either understand ourselves, or explain to others, those living oracles". He states quite clearly that without reason we cannot understand the essential truths of Scripture. Reason, however, is not a mere human invention. It must be assisted by the Holy Spirit if we are to understand the mysteries of God. With regard to justification by faith and sanctification Wesley said that although reason cannot produce faith, when impartial reason speaks we can understand the new birth, inward holiness, and outward holiness. > > **Experience** > Apart from scripture, experience is the strongest proof of Christianity. "What the scriptures promise, I enjoy". Again, Wesley 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 promised (considered as a doctrine) was accomplished in his soul. Furthermore, Christianity (considered as an inward principle) is the completion of all those promises. Although traditional proof is complex, experience is simple: "One thing I know; I was blind, but now I see." Although tradition establishes the evidence a long way off, experience makes it present to all persons. As for the proof of justification and sanctification 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. Regarding the experience dimension, John Wesley strongly believed in justification and sanctification, and the Christian experience of holiness, happiness, peace, and love (paraphrasing the last paragraph in the previous quote). However, I was curious about John Wesley's view on spiritual experiences specifically, and according to the article [*Wesley, the Almost Charismatic*](https://firebrandmag.com/articles/wesley-the-almost-charismatic) : > So, what are the results of our DNA test? Is Wesley a charismatic? Did he hold to the belief and practice that the gifts of the Spirit are normative in the life of the believer or at least for himself? **Wesley did not seem to espouse or teach the notion that supernatural manifestations of the Spirit are normative for the believer, which characterizes PCR Christians. Yet, in practice, the charismata clearly operated through Wesley and the early Methodists in quite a regular or normative manner. With that said, Wesley can be considered a charismatic on one of two counts, making him half a charismatic, or playing on Wesley’s “an almost Christian” – “an almost charismatic.”** The four inferences drawn from Wesley concerning the gifts of the Spirit further serve as correctives for a proper balance for Wesleyans of all stripes, who often neglect the miraculous power of God, and for today’s PCR movement, which often lacks a robust doctrine of sanctification and sound theology for its supernatural experiences. Simply put, all of the work of the Spirit should be normative in our lives, including the gifts and fruit of the Spirit. The Spirit gives gifts to and produces fruit in every true believer. No Christian should ever settle for anything less than the promises of God in scripture. Yet, in agreement with the scriptures and Wesley, the various operations of the Spirit should be prioritized and given their proper place in the scheme of salvation. We note in 1 Corinthians 13 that the fruit of love, which is eternal, is greater than the gifts of prophecy or tongues, which are temporal. Wesley’s holiness hermeneutic, resonating with scripture, also prioritizes character over charisma, fruit over gifts, and holiness over power. And regarding the apparent cessation of charismatic experiences among Christians over the course of history, John Wesley offered this explanation: > It does not appear that these extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were common in the church for more than two or three centuries We seldom hear of them after that fatal period when the Emperor Constantine called himself a Christian, and from a vain imagination of promoting the Christian cause thereby heaped riches, and power, and honour, upon the Christians in general; but in particular upon the Christian clergy. From this time they almost totally ceased; very few instances of the kind were found. The cause of this was not (as has been vulgarly supposed,) "because there was no more occasion for them," because all the world was become Christian. This is a miserable mistake; not a twentieth part of it was then nominally Christian. **The real cause was, "the love of many," almost of all Christians, so called, was "waxed cold." The Christians had no more of the Spirit of Christ than the other Heathens. The Son of Man, when he came to examine his Church, could hardly "find faith upon earth." This was the real cause why the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were no longer to be found in the Christian Church -- because the Christians were turned Heathens again, and had only a dead form left**. > > Source: [The Sermons of John Wesley - Sermon 89](https://www.whdl.org/sites/default/files/resource/book/EN_John_Wesley_089_more_excellent_way.htm) In other words, John Wesley placed high importance on scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. When it comes to the realm of experience, he particularly emphasized the pursuit of holiness and the manifestation of the fruit of the spirit. Moreover, he remained receptive to the display of charismatic gifts, attributing their decline in church history to the diminishing strength of spiritual fervor in Christians, perhaps due to an increasing reliance on institutional structures. Which denominations hold similar views? --- Additional resources: - Blog post: [John Wesley and Spiritual Gifts](https://craigladams.com/blog/john-wesley-and-spiritual-gifts/) - Journal article: [Wesley and Charisma: An Analysis of John Wesley's View of Spiritual Gifts](https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1011&context=aussj) In particular, the last article concludes: > The gifts of the Spirit combined with the doctrine of priesthood of all believers were one of the main axioms of early Reformation. However, later writings of the Lutheran and Reformed traditions neglected both the idea of the priesthood of all believers and of the perpetuity of Spiritual gifts, thus minimizing experiential aspects of the Christian religion. **Wesley’s break with cessationism is variously interpreted today. Some claim that Wesley set the stage for the practices of the modern Charismatic movement. Others argue that Wesley’s emphasis on Spiritual gifts and implication of laity in the spiritual affairs was just a marginal note in his theology of holy life. As usual, the truth is somewhere in the middle. Wesley saw the gifts of the Spirit as a natural part of Christian experience connecting it with the doctrine of sanctification. For him, the lack or rarity of manifestations of the Spirit during long centuries of Christian dispensation was due to the declining spiritual life of the Church. In essence, the love of many “grew cold”. Wesley’s focal desire was to restore the piety and love of early Christians through indwelling power of the Holy Spirit. Experience of spiritual assurance, fruits of the Spirit, gifts and even supernatural manifestations of the Spirit were for Wesley, a natural consequence of God’s power among true Christians, working for the edification of the saints and the spreading of the Gospel.** It is important to note that although Wesley saw extraordinary gifts as a legitimate Christian experience, his treatment of gifts was different in regards to the blessing of assurance and the fruits of the Spirit. While he actively sought for spiritual assurance and for the fruits of Spirit (love, peace, meekness and so on), Wesley was more passive in expecting the manifestations of gifts of the Spirit. His main argument in regards to the gifts was that “they are available for Christians today” but he never made it a matter of doctrine to receive them, as it was the case with fruits of the Spirit or the assurance of the justification.

John 6:64-65 reads: > “But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray Him. And He was saying “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father”. To me this seems as though it proves total depravity as well as unconditional election because he begins by talking about Judas betraying Jesus and Jesus knowing this from the beginning. And then it says “for this reason” and essentially talks about God choosing/granting salvation to the elect. This would also link to John 6:44: > “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I > will raise them up on the last day.” Wesleyan theology teaches that all are drawn, but only some are sent to Jesus to be raised however I don’t see any reason why the drawing, coming to Jesus, and raising would be talking about a different group of people. The text just doesn’t suggest it. But anyway, I’m not sure what other explanation we could give to this passage but if anyone has another interpretation please let me know!

> [**Proverbs 26:4-5 (NLT)**](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2026:4-5&version=NLT) > > 4 Don’t answer the foolish arguments of fools, > or you will become as foolish as they are. > > 5 Be sure to answer the foolish arguments of fools, > or they will become wise in their own estimation. > At first read, these seem to be contradicting one another. Verse 4 tells us **not** to answer fools' arguments and verse 5 tells us **do** answer fools' arguments. With such a seeming contradiction, there is certainly some sort of official material out there that resolves this issue. According to the Wesleyan denomination (or as close as possible), how is this apparent contradiction resolved?

Entire Sanctification, sometimes referred to as Christian Perfection, is a doctrine that was re-popularized by John Wesley. He rediscovered it in his readings of the Church Fathers, and through biblical reflection. My question is specific to the Wesleyan Church.

The Wesleyan Quadrilateral , also known as the Methodist Quadrilateral, is a method of theological reflection and of arriving at theological conclusions based on *scripture, tradition, reason,* and *experience.* According to the Wikipedia article linked above, it is attributed to John Wesley , founder of Methodism, though the term "the Wesleyan Quadrilateral" was coined by 20th century American Methodist scholar Albert C. Outler . My question: Is the substance of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral (drawing theological conclusions based on scripture, tradition, reason, and experience) present in Martin Luther's writings, or in any other pre-Wesley theologians in the Western Christian tradition, Protestant or Catholic? I am especially looking for clear or fairly clear formulations of this four-point system, though I would also be interested in more implicit appearances of this method in pre-Wesley Protestant or Catholic theologians.