Are you a heretic?

[bapmom]

Apparently Im Chalcedon compliant as well.....although I don't know what that means.....

 

[Brother James]

Originally posted by bapmom:
Apparently Im Chalcedon compliant as well.....although I don't know what that means.....

It means you are orthodox in your beliefs on the questions asked. You embrace historic doctrines of the faith.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Originally posted by Brother James:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by bapmom:
Apparently Im Chalcedon compliant as well.....although I don't know what that means.....

It means you are orthodox in your beliefs on the questions asked. You embrace historic doctrines of the faith. </font>[/QUOTE]To be more precise, it means that we who passed the test hold to all of the fundamental teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Of course many Roman Catholics and Baptists add superfluous trappings to those fundamental teachings.

 

[HankD]

What is one man's heresy is another man's orthodoxy (or should it be the other way around?).

HankD

 

[saturneptune]

Brother James,
I took the test and it said I was a Republican.

Just kidding. No, it was very eye opening. Thanks.

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by HankD:
What is one man's heresy is another man's orthodoxy (or should it be the other way around?).

HankD

Only if relativism were true.
(Which it can't be since relativism denies absolutes, so it can't be true).

Believers are one in the same God and same Christ -- orthodoxy is simply measured by God's word and as far as this test goes, it was testing on same basic flaws about God's and Christ's nature. It can't be orthodox for one believer that Jesus is just a man or that God and Jesus are the same person, and unorthodox for others. Those kind of views are either orthodox or not orthodox.

 

[Keith M]

Alright! I'm Chalcedon Compliant. I'm not a heretic after all, although there are some who would probably disagree with that assessment.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by bapmom:
Apparently Im Chalcedon compliant as well.....although I don't know what that means.....

The Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD addressed the doctrine of Christ, specifically the full humanity and divinity of Jesus in response to other views of Christ now considered heretical like monophysitism (Christ only has one nature). The Chalcedonian Creed articulates the statements of this council which is considered a key standard of theological orthodoxy by the RCC, EOC and many protestant groups.

It is also the council and creed where the name Theotokos ("God bearer" or "Mother of God") was formally applied to Mary to reinforce the Christological view of Jesus being both fully God and fully human.

[ February 14, 2006, 02:17 AM: Message edited by: Gold Dragon ]

 

[ccrobinson]

Petrel wrote:

As any religious debate thread continues, the probability of someone claiming spiritual superiority approaches 1.

Corollary 1: An individual can raise the odds of being the one to fulfill this law by simply claiming that those who disagree with him or her are lying (not just mistaken and certainly not having arrived at a contrary position based on evidence and rational thought).

Corollary 2: Once a person has fulfilled this law, all opponents are clearly heretics.

This is clearly an offshoot of Godwin's Law applied to the BB. I'll be the first to designate this as Petrel's Law of the BaptistBoard. What do we do to make this a law?

I am also Chalcedon compliant as well.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Petrel:
Corollary 1: An individual can raise the odds of being the one to fulfill this law by simply claiming that those who disagree with him or her are lying (not just mistaken and certainly not having arrived at a contrary position based on evidence and rational thought).

I would include spiritual guidance and biblical study in those brackets.

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by ccrobinson:
What do we do to make this a law?

You must go forth and argue with people and either provoke them into claiming they're more spiritual or beat them to it by claiming you are! It can only be a law if it successfully describes actual behavior.

Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
I would include spiritual guidance and biblical study in those brackets.

I suppose that's true. I would count biblical study as evidence, but a lot of people also base decisions on a feeling of spiritual prodding which isn't exactly described as evidence or rational thought (not saying it's necessarily irrational! ) or on consultation with another.

Shall we amend it to "evidence, rational thought, and spiritual inquiry"? That covers all the bases.

 

[ccrobinson]

You must go forth and argue with people and either provoke them into claiming they're more spiritual or beat them to it by claiming you are! It can only be a law if it successfully describes actual behavior.

We have more of that on the BB than I care to count.

As with Godwin's Law, Petrel's Law describes behavior that has already occurred innumerable times. Would this be an "ex post facto" law, or is there some other fancy law term that we can apply to it?

 

[atestring]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
I'm no heritic but I am 100% orthodox.
I am also from Oklahoma where English is
spoken without accent.

Comon down here where I'm from Ed!
We'll learn ye how to talk!!!!

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Eucharist efficacy questions were interesting. Since the Lord's Supper is only a memorial in our tradition it isn't effective in the catholic sense of becoming the transformed body and blood of Christ. But in spite of that twist I managed to test out orthodox. So that gives me the right to burn the others at the stake, yes?

 

[bobbyd]

I'm guess that Chalcedon Compliant is the title i want on this thing...right? I got 92% because some of the questions were right at the beginning and then heresy on the end...so, how do you judge those?
How well, at least there is no stake for me tonight!

 

[JackRUS]

Originally posted by StefanM:
I am Chalcedon Compliant!

Me too, but I must say that I didn't agree with all the questions concerning the sacraments. Like...

"The Eucharist is not effective if it is administered by a leader who is sinful."

What does he mean by "effective"? And I don't like the Catholic term "Eucharist" much either.

 

[JackRUS]

Originally posted by JackRUS:

Originally posted by StefanM:
[qb] I am Chalcedon Compliant!

Me too, but I must say that I didn't agree with all the questions concerning the sacraments. Like...

"The Eucharist is not effective if it is administered by a leader who is sinful."

What does he mean by "effective"? And I don't like the Catholic term "Eucharist" much either.

I would like to see Craig by the Sea take this test too since he is defending liberal theology in the "Where in the Bible..." thread.

 

[HankD]

Only if relativism were true.

It is "true" in many realms.

For instance the measure of the Intelligence Quotient (IQ)
is relative to the individual's age

HankD

 

[Craigbythesea]

Originally posted by JackRUS:
[QB

I would like to see Craig by the Sea take this test too since he is defending liberal theology in the "Where in the Bible..." thread. [/QB]

I did take the test, scored 100% Chalcedon Compliant, and posted the following on page 2 of this thread:

quote:

Originally posted by Brother James:
quote:

Originally posted by bapmom:
Apparently Im Chalcedon compliant as well.....although I don't know what that means.....

It means you are orthodox in your beliefs on the questions asked. You embrace historic doctrines of the faith.


To be more precise, it means that we who passed the test hold to all of the fundamental teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Of course many Roman Catholics and Baptists add superfluous trappings to those fundamental teachings.