Take the quiz: Are you a Heretic?

[wrdsandwrks]

Here's a "fun" little quiz I came across on the web. Anyone who can define all the terms gets a free cup of coffee at the cafe, on me.

I am proud to say that I have shed most, if not all of the TWI teachings and am no longer a heretic. Are you?

Before you take the quiz and to put it in perspective here's a link to the article where I found the quiz:

The Point: Heretics Unite

Okay, I don't want to start WW III. I realize that inquisitions have been started over such things. Try it for fun and if it leads to some useful discussion then great...

Here are my results: There's a link to the quiz at the bottom of the table, try it. You don't have to know the meanings of all the words in the results to answer the questions on the quiz.

You scored as Chalcedon compliant. You are Chalcedon compliant. Congratulations, you're not a heretic. You believe that Jesus is truly God and truly man and like us in every respect, apart from sin. Officially approved in 451. Chalcedon compliant 100% Pelagianism 67% Modalism 42% Monophysitism 42% Gnosticism 33% Nestorianism 17% Monarchianism 17% Apollanarian 8% Adoptionist 0% Arianism 0% Donatism 0% Albigensianism 0% Socinianism 0% Docetism 0% Are you a heretic? created with QuizFarm.com

[TheEvan]

Not sure what it all means, but I am thefollowing. I think.

You are Chalcedon compliant. Congratulations, you're not a heretic. You believe that Jesus is truly God and truly man and like us in every respect, apart from sin. Officially approved in 451.

Chalcedon compliant

100%

Modalism

50%

Monarchianism

42%

Arianism

33%

Adoptionist

33%

Apollanarian

33%

Monophysitism

33%

Nestorianism

33%

Socinianism

25%

Pelagianism

0%

Docetism

0%

Gnosticism

0%

Donatism

0%

Albigensianism

0%

Gosh, that's a relief. I think

[Suda]

Not sure what it means, either. Didn't understand all the questions.

You scored as Monarchianism.

You are a Monarchian. You seek to retain monotheistic belief but in doing so abandon the idea of a triune God. God exists as the Father only, though he can reveal himself in other ways in a manner similar to modalism. Jesus is a man who is adopted into the Godhead and given divine status. Jehovah's Witnesses still hold to this belief.

[JumpinJive]

"You scored as Monarchianism.

You are a Monarchian. You seek to retain monotheistic belief but in doing so abandon the idea of a triune God. God exists as the Father only, though he can reveal himself in other ways in a manner similar to modalism. Jesus is a man who is adopted into the Godhead and given divine status. Jehovah's Witnesses still hold to this belief."

I'm a little perturbed at being compared to a JW. I'm more heretical than that!

-JJ

[rhino]

I was excommunicated in 410 (or was it 451? fahrenheit 451?), so I guess I won't be seeing some of you that survived that purge.

I'm not quite sure if they will have gang bangers in hell, or if that is part of the cultural diversity that will be enjoyed in heaven.

And you thought this was a different topic.

btw, fahrenheit needs to be added to the spell check, or do they use my spell check?

Edited April 30, 2007 by rhino

[TheEvan]

I would think most ex-twiers would score as suda & jj...at least those who are still Christian. You'll note my score reflects some points of uncertaintly about some of the finer details of trinitarian dogma. Nevertheless I have no problem affirming Christ as God or his pre-existence.

I've described my post way spiritual journey as my long, slow slide into orthodoxy. Half-joking, of course.

[TheInvisibleDan]

Oh goody, do I win a prize?

You scored as Docetism. You are a Docetic. You believe that since matter is evil and corrupt, God (who is pure Spirit) could not possibly have taken human form, and so Jesus only appeared to have a physical body. Condemned by the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

Gnosticism

100%

Docetism

100%

Apollanarian

75%

Monophysitism

67%

Modalism

50%

Chalcedon compliant

42%

Adoptionist

42%

Albigensianism

33%

Monarchianism

25%

Socinianism

17%

Pelagianism

17%

Donatism

17%

Nestorianism

17%

Arianism

0%

[wrdsandwrks]

I've described my post way spiritual journey as my long, slow slide into orthodoxy. Half-joking, of course.

That would describe me too, twenty years out of TWI and God is gracious and answers every question and heals every hurt. Not that I know all the answers or understand the Trinity and its ins and outs. But I figure, God knows who He is and He reveals Himself to me through His Word and the Holy Spirit.

I once heard a preacher in a "real" church say that everyone he knows that spends all their time trying to understand the Trinity is unhappy. I don't know if that was true or not but it spoke to me at the time. I stopped trying to read and research systematic theology and just started reading the Bible again. I think it was somewhere in John 15-17 that I started getting it. I bow before Jesus in abject humility and say, with Thomas, "My Lord and My God."

I was excommunicated in 410 (or was it 451? fahrenheit 451?), so I guess I won't be seeing some of you that survived that purge.

I'm not quite sure if they will have gang bangers in hell, or if that is part of the cultural diversity that will be enjoyed in heaven.

And you thought this was a different topic.

btw, fahrenheit needs to be added to the spell check, or do they use my spell check?

Yeah well, as long as you're not racist and wouldn't mind living in South Central LA you'll be fine...

[rhino]

Yeah well, as long as you're not racist and wouldn't mind living in South Central LA you'll be fine...

Well, if I made a list of women I was most attracted to in New Orleans days, if hispanic were the top 5 would that make me racist? :)

aaaaiiiiieeeYEEEEE !!!! Hell may not be so bad ...

I have some friends in LA ... haven't spoken to them in years ... cousins somewhere around there ... are you saying Californie is the place I wanna be ... should I load up my truck and move to Bever Leee ?

[TheEvan]

So, is it now The Invisible H. Dan?

(H for heretic)

I KNEW you were fit for the stake...hahahaha.

[Lone Wolf McQuade]

You scored as Adoptionist.

You are an Adoptionist and you follow a heresy that originated in the 2nd century and was revived in the 8th. You deny Jesus' pre-existence and accept that he was only adopted as the Son of God during his earthly life. Condemned by the Council of Rome in 798.

Adoptionist

75%

Monarchianism

67%

Socinianism

58%

Pelagianism

50%

Arianism

33%

Apollanarian

33%

Donatism

33%

Docetism

0%

Monophysitism

0%

Chalcedon compliant

0%

Nestorianism

0%

Albigensianism

0%

Modalism

0%

Gnosticism

0%

Isn't it interestig that the entire test is based on whether you believe the Trinity or not. So if I don't believe in the trinity I'm a heretic? Maybe in their eyes but not God's.

[Cynic]

Chalcedon compliant

100%

Apollanarian 67% -

Nestorianism

58%

Adoptionist

33%

Monophysitism

33%

Pelagianism

33%

Arianism

0%

Socinianism

0%

Monarchianism

0%

Docetism

0%

Donatism

0%

Albigensianism

0%

Modalism

0%

Gnosticism

0%

Disclaimers:

I think the reason I scored 33% towards being a stinking Pelagian is that I blew my answer to the question about God's grace being an aid to help one come to him. I took an affirmation that God's grace is an aid in bringing men to him as an affirmation of some poorly worded description of monergism, rather than as the affirmation of synergistic view of salvation that is probably intended (i.e. saying that God graciously aids those that come to him leaves it unsaid that a man's coming to God originates with God, and is administered by God who makes willing those whom he effectually calls to himself).

I found one of the Christological questions very difficult to answer as worded (there was a question that seemed to indicate a choice between Christ having a human mind or a divine-human mind. I would cautiously opt for two minds, one utterly divine and one utterly human, united in one person who is one agent who has one self-identity, with the divine and human minds informed to different extents and in different manners).

Although some stuff at the following link goes beyond what is biblically indicated concerning the great mystery of incarnate Son of God, I am in cautious agreement with it due to doctrinal necessities that appear to rise and rest on what is biblically indicated. I expect that what is said will, at best, ultimately prove to be have been imperfectly said. Why then say it? Or, why then support it? Because of the great abysses of serious Christological errors that have assaulted the church throughout history. Hilary of Poitiers seemed to have well sensed something about both the importance and inferential nature of orthodox Christology in stating, "The heretics compel us to speak where we would far rather be silent. If anything is said, this is what must be said.”

http://entrewave.com/view/reformedonline/Incarnation.htm

[From http://entrewave.com/view/reformedonline/Incarnation.htm :]

The most difficult aspect of the incarnation to understand is the doctrine that divine Son took into union with himself a human nature (i.e., a full complex of human attributes) but not a human person. This teaching (known as anhypostasia which means “no person”) asserts that the “Logos assumed a human nature that was not personalized, that did not exist by itself;”[27] that “the Logos provided the basis for the personality of Christ.”[28] This point does not mean that we should think of Christ as an incomplete man for He had a true human body, soul and will. What it does mean is that: “Jesus was personal, as a man, by virtue of the union of his manness in the person of the Son. In other words, as a person, the Son of God gave personal identity to the human nature which he had assumed without losing or compromising his divine nature.”[29] The human nature of our Lord was never intended to exist or function by itself. From the very moment of conception the center of the Messiah’s self-identity, self-consciousness and personality belonged to the eternal second person of the Godhead.

It is important to understand that when theologians refer to Christ’s human nature as impersonal, they are only speaking hypothetically of the human nature as viewed by itself. The reality is that the human nature never had an independent existence or personal subsistence. The existence of the human nature and its subsistence or personality began the moment of the incarnation. Therefore, when theologians speak non-hypothetically of the actual incarnation they speak of the human nature as in-personal rather than impersonal (e.g., Witsius, Shedd, Berkhof). While the personality of the Mediator comes from the divine Son, theologians still refer to the God-man as a complex person by virtue of the fact that the divine Person has assumed a genuine human consciousness, intellect and will. Because our Lord’s human nature is not lacking any of the essential qualities belonging to that nature (e.g., a real body, a genuine soul) and also has its individuality and personhood in the person of the Son of God, the human nature should not be considered imperfect and incomplete.[30]

Is this doctrine very difficult to comprehend? Yes, indeed it is. Is it not excessive theological hairsplitting to insist that we adhere to such a hard teaching? No. It most certainly is not. This formulation has been the official creedal-confessional position of the Christian church among all ancient, medieval and Reformed Christians. It is the Christology of the Westminster Standards: “The Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, did take upon him man’s nature with all the essential properties thereof; so that the two whole, perfect and distinct natures, the Godhead [Godhood] and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person” (8:2). At this point in time all attempts to go beyond Chalcedon or to define the human nature as a separate individual human person have resulted in heresy and irresolvable theological and exegetical problems.

I would be very interested in seeing Mark O'Malley's comments on the Christological issues being considered.

Edited May 1, 2007 by Cynic

[Cynic]

Danny,

You possibly scored worse than Marcion himself would have scored.

[WordWolf]

Based on my cautious answers to a number where I felt there were trick questions

(I reject the first half but not the second or vice versa),

my results surprised me slightly.

I came up as both 92% Monarchian and 92% Socinian,

but Monarchian predominated because of the tiebreaker question- which I thought was a

good way to break a tie.

A faithful twi'er would have been 100% Socinian, I think.

The tiebreaker for me was that I care more about how God expresses Himself than

I care about the ubiquitous "Trinity" biting and devouring.

One of the odd things is that my attempts to understand and answer ALL the questions

on both sides of the Trinity debate, apparently, makes my position on the nature of

Christ sound, at least superficially, like the Jehovah's Witness (Watchtower Society)

position. They hold that Jesus was originally an archangel. That's distinctly different

from the twi position, but- now that I think of it- my current thinking places that

closer than the twi "orthodox" position as closer to the truth.

(Not that I think THAT's the answer, either...)

[Cynic]

Based on my cautious answers to a number where I felt there were trick questions

(I reject the first half but not the second or vice versa),

my results surprised me slightly.

I came up as both 92% Monarchian and 92% Socinian,

but Monarchian predominated because of the tiebreaker question- which I thought was a

good way to break a tie.

There are two forms of Monarchianism, one of which (“Dynamic Monarchianism”) is rather consistent with Socinianism.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9053310/Monarchianism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchianism

Edited May 1, 2007 by Cynic

[WordWolf]

Hm, that's interesting.

[dmiller]

The answer I got seemed to focus mostly on the fact that I do not believe Jesus

to be the same as the Father, and that I don't believe he (Jesus) preexisted

before he was physically born.

I think they called me an Adoptionist (or something like that).

I should have copied it to paste it.

So I don't remember if I'm a heretic, or not!

:D

(I'll take this again tomorrow --when I'm not tired!!)

[socks]

Interesting!

You are Myxolydian compliant. Congratulations, you're a 7th Step Adherent, and would likely be compatible with the post-80's Nicksolodianism movements.

100%

Myxolydian

50%

Nicksolodianism

98.4%

Locrianism

33%

WhatThePhrygianisthisism

.03%

NoshThisIsm

33%

Crasstism

143%

Lydianism

33%

StinkyDorianism

25%

NotInMyPantsYouDontism

13%

OkJustThisOnceidianism

Edited May 1, 2007 by socks

[markomalley]

Disclaimers:

I think the reason I scored 33% towards being a stinking Pelagian is that I blew my answer to the question about God's grace being an aid to help one come to him. I took an affirmation that God's grace is an aid in bringing men to him as an affirmation of some poorly worded description of monergism, rather than as the affirmation of synergistic view of salvation that is probably intended (i.e. saying that God graciously aids those that come to him leaves it unsaid that a man's coming to God originates with God, and is administered by God who makes willing those whom he effectually calls to himself).

I found one of the Christological questions very difficult to answer as worded (there was a question that seemed to indicate a choice between Christ having a human mind or a divine-human mind. I would cautiously opt for two minds, one utterly divine and one utterly human, united in one person who is one agent who has one self-identity, with the divine and human minds informed to different extents and in different manners).

Although some stuff at the following link goes beyond what is biblically indicated concerning the great mystery of incarnate Son of God, I am in cautious agreement with it due to doctrinal necessities that appear to rise and rest on what is biblically indicated. I expect that what is said will, at best, ultimately prove to be have been imperfectly said. Why then say it? Or, why then support it? Because of the great abysses of serious Christological errors that have assaulted the church throughout history. Hilary of Poitiers seemed to have well sensed something about both the importance and inferential nature of orthodox Christology in stating, "The heretics compel us to speak where we would far rather be silent. If anything is said, this is what must be said.”

http://entrewave.com/view/reformedonline/Incarnation.htm

I would be very interested in seeing Mark O'Malley's comments on the Christological issues being considered.

Cynic,

I took that quiz a long time ago when the link was posted up on Free Republic. (BTW, you might enjoy the religion forum there)

I frankly found many of the questions clumsily worded.

As to the point of your second quote, I often ponder the implications of the hypostatic union. How that fusion of the divine and the flesh must have created a constant internal conflict within the Lord, particularly as He approached His Passion. We see that revealed particularly during His agony in the garden of Gethsemane.

[T-Bone]

Interesting quiz…I'm tempted to monkey around with my belief system so I can alter the graph [which didn't show up in my post]…make an arrow pointing left, silhouette of Jesus, etc…just to make myself more interesting for the religious review board.

You scored as Chalcedon compliant.

You are Chalcedon compliant. Congratulations, you're not a heretic. You believe that Jesus is truly God and truly man and like us in every respect, apart from sin. Officially approved in 451.

83%Nestorianism

67%Apollanarian

67%Pelagianism

58%Monophysitism

58%Adoptionist

50%Modalism

42%Monarchianism

25%Donatism

17%Gnosticism

17%Arianism

8%Docetism

8%Albigensianism

0%Socinianism

That was fun, thanks WrdsandWrks! Interesting points Cynic and MarkOMalley, especially the tension in the union as you expressed MarkO:

As to the point of your second quote, I often ponder the implications of the hypostatic union. How that fusion of the divine and the flesh must have created a constant internal conflict within the Lord, particularly as He approached His Passion. We see that revealed particularly during His agony in the garden of Gethsemane.

Edited May 1, 2007 by T-Bone

[Sunesis]

Fun quiz. I also scored as a Chalcedon compliant.

I don't really know what that means, but it sounds interesting.

[T-Bone]

Fun quiz. I also scored as a Chalcedon compliant.

I don't really know what that means, but it sounds interesting.

It means we are twins .

[JumpinJive]

It means we are twins .

And heretics on someone else's list... :)

-JJ

[Oakspear]

I scored as Socinianism.

According to the quiz, I am a Socinian and therefore deny the doctrine of the Trinity because I think God exists in a simplified unity. Since this makes the Incarnation impossible, you see Christ's work as simply exemplary.

Docetism

25%

Socinianism

25%

Adoptionist

25%

Donatism

0%

Arianism

0%

Gnosticism

0%

Apollanarian

0%

Monophysitism

0%

Chalcedon compliant

0%

Monarchianism

0%

Pelagianism

0%

Nestorianism

0%

Albigensianism

0%

Modalism

0%

[Belle]

Some of those were trick questions, imo. They assume that you even consider the eucharist "effective", for one thing. Or that the only reason someone would believe Jesus was not really God was because God cannot indwell corrupted matter.

There were a few cases like that where I might agree with one part of a statement, but not the other part. :huh: I don't even agree with the one line description they give of the chalcedon compliant score they gave me.

I expected, honestly, to see Gnosticism higher on the list for me. 'Twas a fun exercise, though. And I learned more heretical terms to add to my vocabulary. I looked up the ones I didn't know and found this site, which is a hoot.

You scored as Chalcedon compliant.

You are Chalcedon compliant. Congratulations, you're not a heretic. You believe that Jesus is truly God and truly man and like us in every respect, apart from sin. Officially approved in 451.

Chalcedon compliant

67%

Monarchianism

67%

Gnosticism

33%

Nestorianism

33%

Monophysitism

33%

Pelagianism

33%

Socinianism

25%