This is following up on one of Tim’s comments. Tim was arguing that someone like Cranmer wouldn’t have understood the role of Scripture in the way that I do, and I’m wanting to get a handle on how they would have done, so because I think this way, here’s another triangle:

This one still has Christ as the highest authority, and under that Scripture, then tradition and reason etc. The latter lead into the former, but it is the former which must be accepted in order to gain access to Christ. (As I understand the RC position, the blue area is higher than the green, but still with Christ at the top).

This is different to my triangle:
…because with my triangle it is possible to gain access to Christ independently of Scripture (eg through the church community).

In my post on conscience I was arguing (in effect) that the first position was the equivalent of fundamentalism. That was question-begging, because another diagram will express how I see fundamentalism(!):

In other words, for me, by definition fundamentalism isn’t in touch with the living Christ (the yellow cross). I think that the first triangle above – call it the ‘Reformed’ model – can and does provide access to the living Christ. What I wonder is whether it’s possible to preserve a communion between those who accept the two different triangles. Because they are really quite different theologically. I may go into that in greater detail later on; for now, I’ll let the question stand.