Another quiz: which theologian am I?

I have been posting a lot of these quizzes recently, not so much because I am addicted to them (but perhaps I am), more because they are a quick and easy way to find something to post when, as today, I don’t have time to write anything more profound. For the link to this one I thank Paul Trathen.

Which theologian are you?
created with QuizFarm.com
You scored as Charles FinneyYou’re passionate about God and love to preach the Gospel. Your theology borders on pelagianism and it is said that if God were taken out of your theology, it would look exactly the same. 

Charles Finney
80%
Anselm
73%
Jürgen Moltmann
67%
John Calvin
67%
Karl Barth
60%
Friedrich Schleiermacher
53%
Martin Luther
47%
Augustine
40%
Paul Tillich
33%
Jonathan Edwards
27%

I’m not sure the comment about Finney is fair. But note that there is quite a lot of Calvin in my theology, although rather little Jonathan Edwards. I guess the person who wrote the comment was something of a Calvinist.

But as Tim Chesterton perceptively points out,

What a bunch! Not a decent Anabaptist among them!

0 thoughts on “Another quiz: which theologian am I?

  1. Pingback: Theologians I know nothing of… « He is Sufficient

  2. Anselm 100%
    Paul Tillich 67%
    Martin Luther 67%
    John Calvin 67%
    Karl Barth 67%
    Charles Finney 33%
    Augustine 33%
    Jürgen Moltmann 33%
    Jonathan Edwards 33%
    Friedrich Schleiermacher 0%

    Now I just need someone to tell me what it all means!

  3. Notice how no women are taking this quiz. But would men take it either if the only 10 theologians in the whole history of the world were women?

    Peter Leithart, a man a theologian a complementarian one at that, can still bring himself to write this:

    “To put it in extreme terms: Modern science developed by a human race with one half of its brain tied behind its back. Something of the same can be said for the development of Christian theology, which was also pursued for most of a millennium is a world without women. Christians, who believe in fundamental sexual difference, have even more reason than some feminists to regard this purely male theological practice with suspicion.”

    And author woman Carolyn Custis James has to report things like:

    “With the educational and professional advancement of women today, many women come to our churches and wonder why the secular workplace values what they bring to the table, but the church shows so little interest.”

    and one Lisa J. Houston (a woman no less) forwards scholarship “to encourage the reading and study of current work of women doing theology.”

    Sorry, if with these three human beings theologians, there’s a reformed tradition bias here. Blame that on google’s ordering and my thought that this is maybe a good beginning to rethink who we are theologically.

  4. Hope you visit, please, our Reformed site and listen to some of our radio shows — and comment. Below our “Mission Statement.” Thanks and God bless you all – and God does bless us when we obey Him…John Lofton, Editor, Recovering Republican.

    Mission Statement
    “For the nation and kingdom that shall not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted.” — Isaiah 60:12.

    As Christians, we are commanded by the Lord Jesus Christ to teach all nations — including ours — to observe all things He has commanded (Matthew 28:18-20). This means bringing into captivity to Christ all areas of life and thought. This means destroying arguments that are against the knowledge of God (II Corinthians 10:5). In obedience to these commands of our Lord, this Web site is established. We covet your prayers for our success in obeying Him.

    We are seriously concerned about, deeply grieved by and lament the fact that far too many of today’s so-called “Christian leaders” are a sinful embarrassment and are responsible for the cause of Christ being mocked and ridiculed. By being, first, cheerleaders for the Republican Party, they have dishonored their Lord and sold their Christian birthright for a mess of partisan political pottage. These individuals and organizations are Christian in name only, “Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.” From such, it is added, we must turn away.

    Secular, Christless conservatism — even when it is supposedly “compassionate” — will not defeat secular, Christless liberalism because to God they are two atheistic peas-in-a-pod and, thus, predestined to failure.

    More than 100 years ago, speaking of the secular, Christless conservatism of his time, the great Southern Presbyterian theologian, Robert L. Dabney, observed:

    “[Its] history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution, to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward to perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It tends to risk nothing serious for the sake of truth.”

    Amen! And what Dabney says has been proven with a vengeance in modern times, under recent Republican Administrations and Congresses who were supported enthusiastically by individuals and organizations who called themselves “Christian” but who, alas, when judged by their fruits, were not.

    To those who will accuse of us of desiring and trying to bring about “a Christian America,” we unashamedly plead guilty though the accusation is far too modest and somewhat muddled. To be sure, we desire a Christian America, and a Christian world, a Christian galaxy and a Christian universe. And, over time, by His grace, we hope to demonstrate that all these things already belong to the Lord Jesus Christ because He created them all and they are His property. This is why all knees must bow to the Lord and all tongues confess that He is the Lord — because He is!

    Jude 1:3 3

    “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” (KJV)

  5. Interesting idea for a quiz, but most of the questions were useless. Time after time I found myself thinking: I know what they are trying to say, which would make me vote one way, but given what they actually say I’ll have to vote the other. The worst was the question on infant baptism. Taken as written it would mean that unless a person was baptised while they were still an infant sin would remain undealt with in their lives. In other words adult baptism is too late! This is obviously a question that is meant to find out if you agree with Augustine, but Augustine never meant what a straight reading of the question means.

  6. Another problem is that its expression of Calvinist statements actually uses hyper-Calvinist ways of speaking. So you come out as an Arminian if you speak the way Calvin did. I came out with Luther as my highest and Calvin at fourth, with Edwards at eighth place and Augustine at ninth.

    Incomprehensibly, Karl Barth ended up tied for second with Anselm. I detest pretty much every innovation Barth brought to theology.

    Now compare my actual list of heroest, in order: Calvin, Edwards, Augustine, Luther, Anselm

    All the others I would consider theological bad guys, who contributed little or nothing of value and lots of misleading, false, and uncareful thinking (although Finney may have been used of God to do lots of good, just not theologically; I’m not sure I can say even that much of the others).

  7. Paul, I haven’t read any Finney either, but that doesn’t stop me from having his theology, or at least 80% of it!

    John, thanks for your interesting contribution, but let’s keep comments here on topic.

    Bernard and Jeremy, I think you are probably right that these questions are not all good ones. So don’t take these quizzes too seriously. Or maybe you would like to design a better one? It must be really hard work to do one well.

  8. John, thanks for your interesting contribution, but let’s keep comments here on topic.

    Peter, I think I pulled John off “topic” by apologizing that my examples for calls to consider women in theology were from the “reformed” tradition.

    So to you, and to John (if you’ll allow us to come back to “topic”) and to all:

    Has anyone read Steven Wedgeworth guest posting over at Evangelical Catholicity in “Speaking Bible: Catholicity’s Escape from Babel”?

    “This is not to say that traditional “systematic [theology]” terms are of no use, nor is it a proposal to throw them all out and retreat to Biblicism, though I must confess that I do not see any problem with a biblical Biblicism. . . One good example is the way that Lutherans and many other Protestants use the term “. . . . I could do the same thing with the TULIP. I can imagine a way in which each letter is absolutely incorrect. R L Dabney begins his treatise on “the five points” by saying, “Historically, this title is of little value or worth.” Most Calvinists would agree that the standard criticisms of “Calvinism” typically miss the point entirely, and this is because the critics generally do not attempt to understand Calvinism from within Calvinism, thus the language is taken to denote concepts that even the Calvinist agrees are false.”

    Note here the problems with any one single theology. And at his own blog “wedgewords” Wedgeworth is writing about women (and men).

    Hope that doesn’t side track the discussion here too much. The point of the quiz is to pigeonhole oneself, no? And to be proud of it, if you like the results. And never mind the consequences otherwise (i.e., to theological traditions, to women, etc.), fair enough?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Anti-spam image