Another Quiz

[DavidD]

http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=131773

 

I like this test. I'm sure it's flawed, but I appreciate it for coming up with a label for me I've never heard before. Now if I can only find a test that says I'm right.

 

You are a Pelagian. You reject ideas about man's fallen human nature and believe that as a result we are able to fully obey God. You are the first Briton to contribute significantly to Christian thought, but you're still excommunicated in 417.

Pelagianism

100%

Monarchianism

67%

Socinianism

58%

Adoptionist

33%

Nestorianism

33%

Gnosticism

25%

Modalism

25%

Albigensianism

25%

Chalcedon compliant

17%

Apollanarian

17%

Monophysitism

8%

Donatism

0%

Docetism

0%

Arianism

0%

[flowperson]

As I've said many times here, I don't like tests because they involve the artificial labelling of complex things. Besides, many of the questions in this one seemed more or less irrelevant to me. All that said, it looks like I'm a more or less middle of the road heretic, in at least the classic sense.

 

flow....

You scored as Pelagianism.

 

 

 

You are a Pelagian. You reject ideas about man's fallen human nature and believe that as a result we are able to fully obey God. You are the first Briton to contribute significantly to Christian thought, but you're still excommunicated in 417.

 

Pelagianism

67%

 

Gnosticism

50%

 

Apollanarian

50%

 

Monophysitism

50%

 

Chalcedon compliant

50%

 

Adoptionist

42%

 

Nestorianism

33%

 

Socinianism

33%

 

Arianism

33%

 

Docetism

33%

 

Monarchianism

25%

 

Donatism

25%

 

Modalism

25%

 

Albigensianism

17%

Edited January 25, 2006 by flowperson

[des]

Pelagianism 83%

 

I'm not sure what all the rest of these mean.

But I was excommunicated in 817. :-o

 

 

--des

[October's Autumn]

I scored: this page cannot be displayed.

 

We are getting a lot of wind here and having internet issues. Not sure if it is related or not!

[TheMeekShall]

It said I believe that Jesus had 2 personalities. Actually, I believe that saying Jesus had 1,2 or 8 personalities is theological gobedygoop. God is Love, and the more we love, the more we tap into God's creativity, and the peace of God.

[October's Autumn]

worked this time. I took issue with the way questions were worded as they presupposed certain beliefs. ie they were two parts. I may have disagreed with one part but not the other so I had to disagree with the whole thing!

 

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.

 

Monarchianism

 

67%

Pelagianism

 

58%

Socinianism

 

33%

Docetism

 

0%

Arianism

 

0%

Apollanarian

 

0%

Adoptionist

 

0%

Donatism

 

0%

Monophysitism

 

0%

Chalcedon compliant

 

0%

Nestorianism

 

0%

Albigensianism

 

0%

Modalism

 

0%

Gnosticism

 

0%

[October's Autumn]

It said I believe that Jesus had 2 personalities. Actually, I believe that saying Jesus had 1,2 or 8 personalities is theological gobedygoop. God is Love, and the more we love, the more we tap into God's creativity, and the peace of God.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I agree with you. Especially the gobedygoop part!

[DavidD]

I don't remember when I first heard that Jesus is fully man and fully God, at the same time. I remember having conflict between that and reading the gospels, where Jesus seems more human than divine to me. The thing is that there's no way to quantify such a thing, as if He's 70% human or something.

 

I think the orthodox position is more about fighting off all these heresies addressed by this test than some great truth. All these positions are so black and white, that Jesus was fully man and not God or that He wasn't a man at all. I don't even know that I'm fully man.

 

I'm just glad they don't burn heretics any more. I think I'd be very orthodox if they did.

[FredP]

I don't remember when I first heard that Jesus is fully man and fully God, at the same time. I remember having conflict between that and reading the gospels, where Jesus seems more human than divine to me. The thing is that there's no way to quantify such a thing, as if He's 70% human or something.

Well, the Orthodox position isn't that Jesus is half human and half divine, where humanity and divinity are quantifiable ingredients one mixes together in equal proportions. It's that Jesus is completely and utterly human in every essential sense of the word, and that precisely as such he participates fully in the nature of God. No tomatoes, please, I'm just stating what the Orthodox view is.

[AletheiaRivers]

You are Chalcedon compliant. Congratulations, you're not a heretic.

 

Chalcedon compliant 83%

 

Modalism 67%

 

Monophysitism 67%

 

Pelagianism 42%

 

Apollanarian 33%

 

Nestorianism 33%

 

Monarchianism 33%

 

Gnosticism 25%

 

Arianism 17%

 

Adoptionist 17%

 

Albigensianism 0%

 

Docetism 0%

 

Donatism 0%

 

Socinianism 0%

[AletheiaRivers]

The person who created the test has a fun Blog. On it he makes the following comment that had me chuckling:

 

In church today I noticed something in the reading that got my attention:

 

They will neither harm nor destroy

on all my holy mountain,

for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD

as the waters cover the sea.

 

(Isaiah 11:9)

 

Question: what does it mean for the "waters to cover the sea"? Surely, the waters are the sea, in which case how do they cover it? And if the "waters" and the "sea" are different, how do you tell them apart? Hmm.

 

It's things like that which stop me concentrating through sermons.

[AletheiaRivers]

Here are the definitions of the heresies found on the quiz, courtesy of the author of the quiz.

 

1. Docetism

-God is Spirit, not matter, so Jesus' body was spiritual and only seemed like it was physical

-God cannot co-exist with matter, Jesus only appeared to be fully human

-Created matter is fallen and corrupt, so Jesus did not take on full human nature

 

Docetism was an error with several variations concerning the nature of Christ. Generally, it taught that Jesus only appeared to have a body, that he was not really incarnate, (Greek, "dokeo" = "to seem"). This error developed out of the dualistic philosophy which viewed matter as inherently evil, that God could not be associated with matter, and that God, being perfect and infinite, could not suffer. Therefore, God as the word, could not have become flesh.

 

2. Apollinarianism

-Jesus' human nature is lesser than his divine nature.

-Jesus' mind was divine, not merely human.

-Jesus' ordinary human soul was overcome by the the divine Logos inside him

 

In other words, though Jesus was a man, He did not have a human mind. The mind of Christ was solely divine.

 

3. Arianism

-Having been the first creation of the Father, the Son then created the Holy Spirit

-The divine Logos replaced Jesus' human nature in the incarnation

-Only God the Father is eternal, and he produced the Son out of nothing

 

Arius taught that only God the Father was eternal and too pure and infinite to appear on the earth. Therefore, God produced Christ the Son out of nothing as the first and greatest creation. The Son is then the one who created the universe. Because the Son relationship of the Son to the Father is not one of nature, it is, therefore, adoptive. God adopted Christ as the Son. Though Christ was a creation, because of his great position and authority, he was to be worshipped and even looked upon as God. Some Arians even held that the Holy Spirit was the first and greatest creation of the Son.

 

4. Adoptionism

-Jesus was raised from the dead and united with God as a reward for his obedience

-Son of God' refers to Jesus' divine nature only. As man he is simply the 'firstborn'.

-Jesus was given supernatural powers and made the Son of God at his baptism

 

Adoptionism as a teaching first appeared in the second century. Those who held it denied the preexistence of Christ and, therefore, His deity. Adoptionists taught that Jesus was tested by God and after passing this test and upon His baptism, He was granted supernatural powers by God and adopted as the Son. As a reward for His great accomplishments and perfect character Jesus was raised from the dead and adopted into the Godhead.

 

5. Gnosticism

-Jesus was not really God incarnate, because God cannot indwell corrupted matter

-Salvation will ultimately involve an escape from physical reality

-God is Spirit, and so spirit is good. Matter is bad.

 

The word "gnosticism" comes from the Greek word "gnosis" which means "knowledge." There were many groups that were Gnostic and it isn't possible to easily describe the nuances of each variant of Gnostic doctrines. However, generally speaking, Gnosticism taught that salvation is achieved through special knowledge (gnosis). This knowledge usually dealt with the individual's relationship to the transcendent Being.

 

6. Monophysite

- Jesus is God and man in one person

- Jesus' humanity was absorbed to produce one new divine nature

- Jesus did not have two natures (human and divine) he had one new composite nature

 

Monophysitism is an error concerning the nature of Christ that asserts Jesus had only one nature, not two as is taught in the correct doctrine of the hypostatic union: Jesus is both God and man in one person. In monophysitism, the single nature was divine, not human. It is sometimes referred to as Eutychianism, after Eutyches 378-452, but there are slight differences. Monophysitism arose out of a reaction against Nestorianism which taught Jesus was two distinct persons instead of one. Its roots can even be traced back to Apollinarianism which taught that the divine nature of Christ overtook and replaced the human one.

 

7. Modalism

- God is one person, but exists in three forms as Father, Son and Spirit

- The Father, Son, and Spirit all exist, but never at the same time.

- On the cross, God was manifest as the Son. He is now manifest as the Holy Spirit.

 

Modalism is probably the most common theological error concerning the nature of God. It is a denial of the Trinity which states that God is a single person who, throughout biblical history, has revealed Himself in three modes, or forms. Thus, God is a single person who first manifested himself in the mode of the Father in Old Testament times. At the incarnation, the mode was the Son. After Jesus' ascension, the mode is the Holy Spirit. These modes are consecutive and never simultaneous. In other words, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit never all exist at the same time, only one after another. Modalism denies the distinctiveness of the three persons in the Trinity even though it retains the divinity of Christ.

 

8. Nestorianism

- Only Jesus' human nature died on on the cross.

- Jesus is two persons; one human and one divine

- Miracles show Jesus divinity. Hunger shows his humanity.

 

Nestorianism is the error that Jesus is two distinct persons. The heresy is named after Nestorius, who was born in Syria and died in 451 AD, who advocated this doctrine.

 

9. Pelagianism

- We have not inherited original sin from Adam.

- God's grace is an aid to help people come to him.

- We can obey the commands that God has given us. This is why some people in the OT were righteous.

 

Pelagius taught that people had the ability to fulfill the commands of God by exercising the freedom of human will apart from the grace of God. He denied original sin, the doctrine that we have inherited a sinful nature from Adam. He said that Adam only hurt himself when he fell and all of his descendents were not affected by Adam's sin. Pelagius taught that a person is born with the same purity and moral abilities as Adam was when he was first made by God. He taught that people can choose God by the exercise of their free will and rational thought. God's grace, then, is merely an aid to help individuals come to Him.

 

10. Socianism

- Jesus was not eternally pre-existent, he was rather a deified man

- God exists in singular unity, there can be no human-divine union

- God is a single person with the Holy Spirit as the power of God

 

Socianism is derived from two brothers of the surname Sozinni who lived in the 1500's in Poland. Socinianism denies the doctrine of the Trinity claiming it denies the simplicity of God's unity. Instead, God is a single person with the Holy Spirit as the power of God. Since it emphasizes the unity of God, there could be no divine and human union in a single person as Christ. Therefore, Socinianism denies the incarnation and deity of Christ as well as Christ's pre-existence. It teaches that Jesus was only a man. However, as is separate from the unitarians, it taught that Jesus was a deified man and was to be adored as such. Nevertheless, since Jesus is not divine by nature, His sacrifice was not efficacious; that is, it did not result in the redemption of people who would trust in it. Instead it was an example of self sacrifice. The followers of Socinianism also rejected infant baptism, hell, and taught the annihilation of the wicked. The Bible was authoritative but was only properly understood through rationalism.

 

11. Monarchianism

- The Holy Spirit is the presence of God the Father

- God is the Father, and Jesus is only a man

- There is one God who exists as one person

 

Monarchianism teaches that God is the Father and that Jesus is only a man, denied the personal subsistence of the Logos and taught that the Holy Spirit was a force or presence of God the Father. Present day groups in this category are the Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, and Unitarians. Modern groups in this general category are the Oneness Pentecostal groups known as the United Pentecostal and United Apostolic Churches. However, the present day modalists maintain that God's name is Jesus. They also require baptism "in Jesus' name" not "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" for salvation.

 

12. Albigensian

- Suicide is a good way to get rid of the evil of the body

- All material things were created by Satan

- The body is evil, and so will not be resurrected

 

A heresy during the middle ages that developed in the town Albi in Southern France. This error taught that there were two gods: the good god of light usually referred to as Jesus in the New Testament and the god of darkness and evil usually associated with Satan and the "God of the Old Testament." Anything material was considered evil including the body which was created by Satan. The soul, created by the good god, was imprisoned in the evil flesh and salvation was possible only through holy living and doing good works. At death, if the person has been spiritual enough, salvation comes to the believer. But, if the person has not been good enough, he is reincarnated as an animal or another human. The Albigenses denied the resurrection of the body since it was considered evil.

 

 

13. Donatism

- The efficacy of sacraments depend on the moral status of those administering them

- A baptism is invalid if performed by a minister who later renounces his faith

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

 

The problem with Donatism is that no person is morally pure. The effectiveness of the baptism or administration of the Lord's supper does not cease to be effective if the moral character of the minister is in question or even demonstrated to be faulty. Rather, the sacraments are powerful because of what they are, visible representations of spiritual realities. God is the one who works in and through them and He is not restricted by the moral state of the administrant.

 

14. Chalcedon Compliant

- Jesus is at once complete in Godhead and manhood

- Jesus divine and human natures are in no way confused or annulled by their union with each other

- Jesus is of one substance with the Father in his divine nature.

Edited January 25, 2006 by AletheiaRivers

[FredP]

...

for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD

as the waters cover the sea.

 

(Isaiah 11:9)

 

Question: what does it mean for the "waters to cover the sea"? Surely, the waters are the sea, in which case how do they cover it? And if the "waters" and the "sea" are different, how do you tell them apart? Hmm.

Since my brain is in a bit of a Zen way at the moment, it makes me say, hmm... Maybe the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD because the earth IS the knowledge of the LORD. But that would be reading too much into it. Or would it?

 

Edited January 25, 2006 by FredP

[October's Autumn]

...

for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD

as the waters cover the sea.

 

(Isaiah 11:9)

 

Question: what does it mean for the "waters to cover the sea"? Surely, the waters are the sea, in which case how do they cover it? And if the "waters" and the "sea" are different, how do you tell them apart? Hmm.

Since my brain is in a bit of a Zen way at the moment, it makes me say, hmm... Maybe the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD because the earth IS the knowledge of the LORD. But that would be reading too much into it. Or would it?

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I think there is a certain truth to what you are saying.

[DavidD]

I don't remember when I first heard that Jesus is fully man and fully God, at the same time. I remember having conflict between that and reading the gospels, where Jesus seems more human than divine to me. The thing is that there's no way to quantify such a thing, as if He's 70% human or something.

Well, the Orthodox position isn't that Jesus is half human and half divine, where humanity and divinity are quantifiable ingredients one mixes together in equal proportions. It's that Jesus is completely and utterly human in every essential sense of the word, and that precisely as such he participates fully in the nature of God. No tomatoes, please, I'm just stating what the Orthodox view is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Fred, I can’t tell if you’re denying that the orthodox position (generically, not Eastern Orthodox) is that Jesus is fully man and fully God or if you’re trying to illustrate how Jesus is fully God by saying that Jesus participates in God. “Participates” seems so vague to me that I don’t think it adds anything to “fully God”. I’m sure some would say “participates” is less than fully God, and therefore heresy, but my belief is not so exacting. I believe God is whoever and whatever God is, likewise for Jesus.

 

Perhaps you were trying to point a way past the conflict I mentioned that Jesus in the gospels doesn’t read like fully God to me. I don’t think there’s a simple way to do that. Atheists have versions of the Bible online that list objections to almost every verse. The things that contributed to my impression are in there somewhere. Apologists also have their defenses posted or published verse by verse. Anyone can decide for himself or herself whether the best apologists can do is good enough. I find that it doesn’t matter exactly what it means theologically to say that Jesus Christ is my Lord and my Savior. I am committed to God through Jesus Christ. I experience faith as a charismatic gift, something that is much more about trust and devotion than precise beliefs. I experience the trust and devotion that God has toward me. One does not have to deny conflicts in theology to have faith, even if one once did to keep from being burned.

 

As I said the first time, one can’t put a percentage on how much Jesus is like God. One could try, but whatever number one came up with wouldn’t relate to the real world, certainly not in the way ancient people saw it. Reviewing all these heresies at once made that more clear to me. There isn’t a heresy about Jesus being a 50:50 mix of God and man. It’s all or nothing, God or man. There is something about the orthodox position that to me is just a defense against all this sort of speculation, that Jesus is all man and all God, not all things to all people, but like that, a way to make Jesus everything He needs to be for other doctrines. It’s not responding to all ways one might think of Jesus, just the ways He was thought of then. It needed to be strong to fight off divisions in the church. It didn’t need to be true to do that.

 

While absolute, it’s vague as to how that relates to other things. What was Jesus biologically? Did He have cuts because He was man? Were they instantly healed because He was God, even though a man’s cuts wouldn’t heal like that? Whatever answer one gets from logic and theology is not the right answer. It’s just one answer of many possible answers from what “fully man and fully God” means to someone in position to decide. As much as I’d like to pull God or Jesus out from behind a pillar and say, “See, here’s how He really is,” there’s no way to confirm any answer as true. I do experience God for myself, but not enough to answer everything, and others experience Him differently, if at all.

 

Yet I see the appeal of “fully man and fully God”. The concept of it is clear, though it’s not clear how to relate that to the real world, where God is so abstractly defined. It is definitely concise as to who Jesus is. Anyone accepting this phrase can be as dogmatic about all these little questions as conservative Christians are. It has utility. It has stability.

 

But is it true? Does it work? Many heretics have said “no”, and modern heretics potentially have so much more ammunition behind that than their ancient predecessors did. And the possibilities for who Jesus is are so many more than just a man, just God or both. There are so many possibilities even for who God is.

 

People look at many things and say they don’t work. Some people look at science and say it doesn’t work. They’re wrong. I’ve seen how science works. People who are discouraged with it don’t understand enough of it. It could be that theology is the same way. If God, Jesus and whatever else were just as theology says, all heresy might be just ignorance and pride. I’ve looked for that a lot. Eventually I admitted defeat. I can’t master spirituality the way I did science. There’s too much hidden with the former. So I turned to God directly. God tells me orthodoxy is illusion, and science is not. It’s good enough for me.