I'm interested to find any existing critique of the epistemological models by which religions (especially the various branches of Christianity) determine their theological conclusions.
What I currently understand is that, for example, the Wesleyan Quadrilateral has four different sources in coming to theological conclusions. Various branches of Christianity place different priority on these sources. I am interested to understand how one can critique such models (understand their strengths and weaknesses).
FURTHER DETAILS REGARDING @Dave AND @PeterSmiths COMMENTS
Dave - I understand your point and I take PeterSmiths point also. William Lane Craig makes a distinction between 'knowing' your faith to be true, and being able to 'show' your faith to be true, which I think is relevant to yours and the subsequent comments.
I am concerned with epistemological models between different denominations and think that this is very relevant when it comes to the theological conclusions that they draw. This is especially relevant for contentious issues in the church (for example the roles of women, or homosexuality). For example, Catholicism places a higher emphasis on the role of tradition than Pentecostal churches, and Pentecostal churches place more of an emphasis on 'experience' that Catholic churches. What I'm looking for is a critique of the different models that different church branches use, with a view to uncover any linkages to variation in positions regarding contentious issues.
