Basic Theology Quiz - how did you do?

[lbaker]

Hmmmm, interesting...

What's your theological worldview?
You scored as a Emergent/Postmodern
You are Emergent/Postmodern in your theology. You feel alienated from older forms of church, you don't think they connect to modern culture very well. No one knows the whole truth about God, and we have much to learn from each other, and so learning takes place in dialogue. Evangelism should take place in relationships rather than through crusades and altar-calls. People are interested in spirituality and want to ask questions, so the church should help them to do this.
Emergent/Postmodern
61%
Neo orthodox
54%
Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan
54%
Reformed Evangelical
46%
Classical Liberal
43%
Charismatic/Pentecostal
43%
Modern Liberal
29%
Fundamentalist
29%
Roman Catholic
18%

 

[Salamander]

Um, I need some help here with the question about how many natures Jesus has?

The human nature is always sinful, yet Jesus was without sin in that he could not have ever sinned, so how is it the quiz determined that Jesus has the Divine nature which cannot sin, yet Jesus also has the human nature which IS sinful???

I never knew that taking on the form of a man made Jesus subject to sin according to human nature?

I believe we can see the subtility of the devil in the "correct" answer!

I scored 100% according to the Bible, but only 95% according to the quiz. Guess which question I "missed"?

If Jesus ever had two natures, the human nature subject to the flesh and the flesh at enmity with God and lusteth against the Spirit, then how could this quiz be theologicaly correct? It is not correct 100% in and of itsself.

 

[Salamander]

lol - you can still be a heretic and have good basic theology.

try this one, if you wanna get deep

This site is inaccessible because of "Smartfilter" due to sexual content!:laugh:

 

[JustChristian]

I scored 100% but missed one question. I don't agree with their statement that Christ was resurrected in the same body he had before.

Jhn 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and [to] my God, and your God.

I always interpreted this to mean Jesus had a different kind of body after resurrection.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Something's wrong with this quiz. This is what I scored and I don't think it matches me at all! I wonder if it values the middle choices at all?

What's your theological worldview?
You scored as a Fundamentalist
You are a fundamentalist. You take the Bible as the foundation of your faith and read it very literally, and it shapes your worldview. Non-fundamentalist Christians have watered-down the Gospel in your view, and academic study of the Bible stops us from 'taking God at his word.' Science is opposed to faith, as it contradicts basic biblical truths.
Fundamentalist
100%
Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan
82%
Reformed Evangelical
75%
Neo orthodox
64%
Roman Catholic
43%
Charismatic/Pentecostal
36%
Emergent/Postmodern
25%
Classical Liberal
14%
Modern Liberal
7%

 

[jdlongmire]

I scored 100% but missed one question. I don't agree with their statement that Christ was resurrected in the same body he had before.

Jhn 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and [to] my God, and your God.

I always interpreted this to mean Jesus had a different kind of body after resurrection.

See John 20

24Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!"
But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it." 26A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 27Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."

 

[J.D.]

Yes, it's flawed cause here's what it said about me:

You scored as a FundamentalistYou are a fundamentalist. You take the Bible as the foundation of your faith and read it very literally, and it shapes your worldview. Non-fundamentalist Christians have watered-down the Gospel in your view, and academic study of the Bible stops us from 'taking God at his word.' Science is opposed to faith, as it contradicts basic biblical truths.
Fundamentalist 79%
Neo orthodox 75%
Reformed Evangelical 75%
Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan 57%
Emergent/Postmodern 32%
Roman Catholic 21%
Classical Liberal 21%
Charismatic/Pentecostal 18%
Modern Liberal 7%

Here's my correct profile:
95% Reformed
80% Fundamental
0% any of the others

And this statement: "academic study of the Bible stops us from 'taking God at his word" IS COMPLETELY OPPOSITE OF WHAT I BELIEVE! I must have checked the wrong answer or something.

 

[Marcia]

Reformed Evangelical 86% Fundamentalist 75% Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan 71% Neo orthodox 71% Emergent/Postmodern 29% Classical Liberal 18% Charismatic/Pentecostal 18% Roman Catholic 11% Modern Liberal 4%

This is strange because I am not Reformed. However, the way they worded some questions made it difficult for me to answer -- I thought some questions were asked in such a way that you could not answer the way you wanted to.

Also, some I wasn't sure of and I just picked the middle between disagree and agree.

 

[Rippon]

Reformed Evangelical 86% Fundamentalist 75% Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan 71% Neo orthodox 71% Emergent/Postmodern 29% Classical Liberal 18% Charismatic/Pentecostal 18% Roman Catholic 11% Modern Liberal 4%

This is strange because I am not Reformed. However, the way they worded some questions made it difficult for me to answer -- I thought some questions were asked in such a way that you could not answer the way you wanted to.

Also, some I wasn't sure of and I just picked the middle between disagree and agree.

Your scoring breakdown was almost exactly mine.I am a Calvinist though.

I agree with your reservations about the set up of the questions.I was uncomfortable with the design.

I have seen some "tests" in which practically everyone comes out as Barthian in their theology. Things are skewed too much. Our real theological positions are not reflected very accurately in these little quizzes.

 

[Marcia]

.... Our real theological positions are not reflected very accurately in these little quizzes.

Boy, I'll say! I was surprised at the high percentage for "neo-orthodox" on mine and others. I am for sure not neo-orthodox!! :wavey:

 

[jdlongmire]

Thought provoking, though...

 

[J.D.]

Reformed Evangelical 86% Fundamentalist 75% Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan 71% Neo orthodox 71% Emergent/Postmodern 29% Classical Liberal 18% Charismatic/Pentecostal 18% Roman Catholic 11% Modern Liberal 4%

This is strange because I am not Reformed. However, the way they worded some questions made it difficult for me to answer -- I thought some questions were asked in such a way that you could not answer the way you wanted to.

Also, some I wasn't sure of and I just picked the middle between disagree and agree.

You may be a Calvinist and not know it. Seriously! :thumbs:

 

[J.D.]

Boy, I'll say! I was surprised at the high percentage for "neo-orthodox" on mine and others. I am for sure not neo-orthodox!! :wavey:

Even though I said earlier that I am 0% any thing else (including neo-orthodox), N-O is not that bad when compared to the outright liberalism of Schlieremacher and his followers. Barth and N-O represented a return to a high level of biblical acceptance in the upper-crust theological schools after the destructive influence of the liberals and German higher critics. But he (Barth) was definitely not a fundamentalist by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[TC]

TC,

Perhaps your proof can begin here: http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=50703

And your statement in that thread: I take it to mean general knowledge books. I read all kinds of history, math and science books. Right now it is Four laws that drive the universe by Peter Atkins.

That there is philosophy in history, math, and science is abundantly clear to everyone who reads them.

OK enlightened one. What philosophy is in the laws of thermodynamics? What philosophy is in the battle of the bulge or the taking of Iwo Jima? What philosophy is in differential equations?

 

[TC]

TC, I am taken aback by that kind of sentiment. "I am a Baptist and read only the Bible." Most Baptists of the past while putting the Bible front and center as God's Holy Word still have read books about the Bible so they could understand it better.I would hope that most Baptists of today wouldn't have your attitude.

You have no clue what the situation is that I am in - you just jump in and assume the worst. I have not said anything close to what you are saying .

 

[TomMann]

What's your theological worldview?You scored as a Reformed EvangelicalYou are a Reformed Evangelical. You take the Bible very seriously because it is God's Word. You most likely hold to TULIP and are sceptical about the possibilities of universal atonement or resistible grace. The most important thing the Church can do is make sure people hear how they can go to heaven when they die.
Reformed Evangelical 100%
Fundamentalist 79%
Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan 71%
Neo orthodox 54%
Emergent/Postmodern 36%
Classical Liberal 14%
Roman Catholic 14%
Modern Liberal 7%
Charismatic/Pentecostal 0%

Nothing of great suprise......

 

[ReformedBaptist]

OK enlightened one. What philosophy is in the laws of thermodynamics? What philosophy is in the battle of the bulge or the taking of Iwo Jima? What philosophy is in differential equations?

No need to be sarcastic. And if it was an attempt at humor, it failed.

My choice of words was poor, and I can see how my comment woud create a question. Let me elaborate:

The Laws of Thermodynamics are often discussed philosophically in respect to and explaination of order in the universe, evolutionary theory, et. It's not what philosophy is in the laws, but what philosophies surround them. You cannot read science without philosophy involved.

The same can be said of wars or mathmatics. What war is not waged on ideals? What decision in battle is not governed by the philosophy of the one making the decision? What general does not deal with Ultilitariansim? And I think if one seeks to be familiar with mathmatics at a level more then mere arithmatic, then they should become familiar with the influence of philosophy on it. Stephan Korner wrote a book called "The Philosophy of Mathmatics, and Introductory Essay" which highlights the main schools of mathmatics.

His book focuses on the relation between philosophical theses and mathmatical theories. He writes, "As the philosophy of law does not legislate, or the philosophy of science devise or test scientific hypotheses, so--we must realize from the outset--the philosophy of mathmatics does not add to the number of mathematical theorums and theories. It is not mathmatics. Is is reflection on mathmatics, giving rise to to its own particular questions and answers." He also writes, "Throughout their history mathmatics and philosophy have influenced each other."

To not know the influence of Plato, Aristotle, Leibnitz, and Kant in the field of mathmatics is to not really understand the discipline.

Please don't misunderstand that I am somehow I am an expert on the influence of philosophy in the sciences--I am not. But I am aware of their existence and recognize that when I am reading a piece of history or studying a scientific theorum that there are philosophical influences and implications.

 

[Marcia]

You may be a Calvinist and not know it. Seriously! :thumbs:

I was waiting for that one! I knew one of you Calvinists would come up with it. :laugh:

Btw, I've been gone for almost a year and a half and now I'm back but no familiar "faces" have said "Welcome back, Marcia." :tear: It's kinda sad.

Btw, JD, I'm glad to see you are still here.

 

[Marcia]

Even though I said earlier that I am 0% any thing else (including neo-orthodox), N-O is not that bad when compared to the outright liberalism of Schlieremacher and his followers. Barth and N-O represented a return to a high level of biblical acceptance in the upper-crust theological schools after the destructive influence of the liberals and German higher critics. But he (Barth) was definitely not a fundamentalist by any stretch of the imagination.

Yeah, you're right, but although Barth may have made some good points, I would not want to be aligned with him due to his other problems.

 

[Amy.G]

I was waiting for that one! I knew one of you Calvinists would come up with it. :laugh:

Btw, I've been gone for almost a year and a half and now I'm back but no familiar "faces" have said "Welcome back, Marcia." :tear: It's kinda sad.

Btw, JD, I'm glad to see you are still here.

Welcome back Marcia!

I must have joined about the time you left, so I'm glad to meet you!

:wavey:

We need more of our kind around here! (women) :laugh: