Quiz

-
Thanks to Extreme Theology for linking to a quiz. This quiz uses your responses to a few short questions to determine which theologian you most identify with. It is certainly not a perfect instrument, but I am rather proud of my results.

You scored as Martin Luther, The daddy of

the Reformation. You are opposed to any

Catholic ideas of works-salvation and

see the scriptures as being primarily

authoritative.

Martin Luther

100%

Anselm

100%

Karl Barth

87%

John Calvin

67%

Jonathan Edwards

67%

Friedrich Schleiermacher

53%

Paul Tillich

7%

Augustine

0%

Jürgen Moltmann

0%

Charles Finney

0%

Which theologian are you?
created with QuizFarm.com


I do wish I had scored higher with respect to Augustine.

I am very surprised at the percentages for Barth and Schleiermacher because I generally don’t like what those guys stand for. I guess in the case of those two the old adage fits: “Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.”

Comments

Anonymous said…
So if your theology is more inline with Luther, why are you still Southern Baptist? The reason I ask this question is not to be giving you a hard time but as one who was raised in the SBC and is now Lutheran. I have found that my understanding of the Christian faith is much more inline with the Reformation.
September 24, 2007
J. K. Jones said…
Steve,

Thanks for asking, and I am not at all insulted by your comment. Quite the contrary, actually.

Please note that there were no conservative Baptist theologians on the quiz. I would have scored differently had B. H. Carroll, Charles Spurgeon, Roger Nicole, and / or James P. Boyce been named and represented.

The 1689 London Baptist Confession is my confession of faith (see link in side bar). The New Hampshire Declaration of Faith is a relatively short summary.

The sticking point is the baptism issue, although I do not hold a view of the ordinance as a mere symbol. I think baptism is in some sense of the words a “means of grace” used by the Spirit to change a person’s life. Ephesians 2:8-9 says that we are saved by grace through faith. So if grace is imparted, then faith must be its conduit.

I also believe that baptism is a sign of the covenant in some sense as well. Hebrews 8:1-13 and 10:1-18 indicate that members of the new covenant have God’s law written on their hearts and that they will know the Lord. The passages make it quite clear to me that members of the new covenant are regenerate.

I would have differences over the Lord’s supper for basically the same reasons. I do not think that the Biblical data is so convincing as to be undeniable. The ordinances / sacraments are not as conspicuous as the heart of the gospel.

I am also still studying theology, and I have much more to learn. Where will I end up? I pray that I find the truth God has revealed in the Bible. I read through the Bible daily and study particular books each Sunday.

May God grant all His people a firm knowledge of the truth and a strong unity in the gospel.

J. K.
September 25, 2007
LPC said…
JK,

One of the reasons I wind up in Wittenberg was because of the sacraments being a calvino-baptisto-charismatic.

Baptism and the Supper are not separate from the Gospel, they are the Gospel declared in visible form. Link it with the forgiveness of sins, and you will find one day it make sense from the Wittenberg view.

Simply put we ask the question - when did Jesus your sins are forgiven? Answer: 2000 years ago. Did that have any conditions? No because he did it without asking for my approval nor my consent.

Baptism and the Supper tells you today that your sins are forgiven - it is the same thing that happened 2000 years ago, the same forgiveness that Jesus won. You receive it today in your space and time. God delivers an announces it to you today what he did for you 2000 years ago. He comes around and delivers this as a gift -- so indeed God has said to us - peace be with you.

LPC
September 27, 2007
J. K. Jones said…
LP,

Thanks for your comment.

I need to think about that one.

J. K.
September 28, 2007
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Face of Terror

-
Osama Bin laden is dead. Since the rest of the internet is buzzing with opinions on that death, I thought I would weigh in. First, this is not the end of global terrorism. Like the Hydra of old, when one head is chopped off, two more take its place. We still need diligence in our fight against global terror. U. S. and allied Armed Forces still need our prayers. We still need a strong military and intelligence community. We have not yet cut off the Hydra’s immortal head. Second, the way to get to the ‘heart of the matter’ is with Christian missionary efforts. We must reach the people who make up those societies and population segments that produce terrorists . To tell a story I have told here before : Early in the twentieth century, Baptist evangelists preached through rural Mississippi and Alabama with such effectiveness that moonshiners could no longer sell their whiskey: All their customers were getting converted! In desperation, the whiskey sellers hired two men to murder on
Read more

The Canons of Dort

-
I believe that the Canons of Dort are true. This is a statement that came out the Synod of Dort, held from 1618-1619. The Canons of Dort outline the system of theology known today as the “five points of Calvinism.” The problem I have with most “five-point Calvinists” is that the Canons of Dort contain much more than five points. Many explanations of the TULIP (total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace and the perseverance of the saints) are gross simplifications of the Canons of Dort. [This is especially true of explanations given by those who oppose Calvinism. It is easier to knock down a straw man than it is to knock down a real man, and so it is easier to criticize an oversimplified Calvinism that the more robust form.] Some of those who teach the “five points” leave out some of the quotes below: This death of God's Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than
Read more

Intelligent Design

-
The Intelligent Design (ID) movement makes much of the argument from irreducible complexity. Dr. Michael Behe has become famous for a simple example, the mousetrap. He points out that the mousetrap will not perform its function without all of its parts. The wooden base, the metal hammer, a spring, a catch and a metal bar to hold back the hammer are all necessary parts. One component by itself will not catch a mouse. Mainstream evolutionary science has a counter-argument. To paraphrase Dr. Kenneth Miller, if you disassemble the mousetrap, each component can serve as something useful on its own. If we take away the catch and metal bar, we have something left that can serve as a paper clip. The spring could make a simple two-section key chain. The wooden base makes a paperweight. Evolutionary processes like random mutation and natural selection can combine and retain the useful parts as the complicated evolves to perform the complex function. The useful parts are combined into the mousetr
Read more