Oh man, I am going to be in huge trouble with my church and with the presbytery. I took one of those theological quizzes and here are the results:
You scored as Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan. You are an evangelical in the Wesleyan tradition. You believe that God's grace enables you to choose to believe in him, even though you yourself are totally depraved. The gift of the Holy Spirit gives you assurance of your salvation, and he also enables you to live the life of obedience to which God has called us. You are influenced heavly by John Wesley and the Methodists.
What's your theological worldview? created with QuizFarm.com |
Help me out here people - how are the following statements distinctive of the Wesleyan tradition and not of the reformed tradition?
"You believe that God's grace enables you to choose to believe in him, even though you yourself are totally depraved."
That sounds like effectual calling and total depravity to me.
"The gift of the Holy Spirit gives you assurance of your salvation, and he also enables you to live the life of obedience to which God has called us. "
Now that's an interesting one - the Westminster Confession I.V. says that the Holy Spirit gives us the assurance that the Bible is the Word of God -
yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.
And, it is certainly in line with WCF XVIII.II on the assurance of salvation:
II. This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion grounded upon a fallible hope; but an infallible assurance of faith founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God, which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption.
That's very interesting. And by the way, in displaying my shock here I don't mean to cast aspersion on our Wesleyan/Methodist friends, it's just that being a Presbyterian minister who went to Reformed Theological Seminary, I'm not usually identified as a Wesleyan/Methodist.
Or, maybe this is just an indication that Charles Simeon got it right.
HT - manaasclerk's The Power Struggle
Technorati Tags: Religion, Theology, Christian, Christianity, Reformed, Presbyterian, Wesleyan, Methodist, Charles Simeon, John Wesley<
Assuming the test is accurate (and since it was on the internets, we know it is), far more, ahem, disturbing, is your very high neoorthodox score. And 71% emergent/postmodern? Good heavens, man, what's next? Birkenstocks and herbal bath oils?
Posted by: joel hunter | February 10, 2007 at 08:03 PM
That's true too! I've got incense burning as we speak.
The questions were interesting - one of them was something to the effect of "do you believe the Bible is a fully divine book without human influence?" or something like that. It had five buttons between agree and disagree on it so on that one I selected the button in the middle - because I believe in organic inspiration. Anyway, I'm sure that one put me straight into Barth-land on the quiz. There were some other questions asking if you believed in social justice and things like that which I answered mostly in the affirmative - go figure.
Anyway, you're right - I can't wait till someone from the presbytery sees this.
Posted by: David Wayne | February 10, 2007 at 08:48 PM
David,
I took a similar test and wound up as a Evangelical Holiness/ Weslyan too, my results are here:
http://stevebishop.blogspot.com/search?q=what%27s+your+theological+worldview
Perhaps Wesley is the new Calvin?
Posted by: stevebishop | February 11, 2007 at 06:07 AM
"Or, maybe this is just an indication that Charles Simeon got it right."
That was my thought exactly when I read your post. Looks like God prepared Adrian to comfort you in your affliction! ;)
Posted by: Travis Seitler | February 11, 2007 at 10:55 AM
I read a volume of Wesley's sermons last semester and he's a lot more Calvinist than he is often made out to be. He was certainly a strong proponent of total depravity, unmerited grace, and justification by faith.
Posted by: John | February 11, 2007 at 01:37 PM
I think it's safe to say that the creator of the quiz doesn't know much - if anything - about test construction. The questions are ambiguous and the results seemingly arbitrary.
If you're not Reformed, then Luther was Catholic. No, wait, he was Catholic . . . uh, well, you know what I mean.
Posted by: Finrod | February 11, 2007 at 09:11 PM
John and Travis - I do think that Wesley has been unfairly demonized by some in the Reformed community.
Posted by: David Wayne | February 11, 2007 at 11:12 PM
I go to a generally Reformed-leaning seminary (Beeson Divinity School), and I have a professor who is an avid Wesley scholar. He regularly chides those who take Wesley to task for being Arminian when they have never read him. Furthermore, he strongly thinks that Wesley's version of Arminianism is the flip-side of the coin of correct Calvinism (i.e., the kind that affirms both God's sovereignty and man's responsibility).
He said that Weslyan Arminianism and Reformed Calvinism, at their best, embrace the other. It sure makes me interested in reading more Wesley.
Posted by: Jacob Gerber | February 12, 2007 at 12:53 PM
Don't feel so bad, David. I got 75% Roman Catholic and only 61% Reformed/Evangelical. I think part of the problem was that the Calvinist questions were so poorly worded that I couldn't really agree to them, even though I knew what they were getting at. As an Anglican, I suppose my reverence for Church history and tradition also pushed me in the RC direction since most people don't make distinctions in that area. Perhaps we just think too much. I could have manipulated this into a more accurate reading, but I just couldn't answer some of those questions the way they obviously intended them to be answered.
Posted by: Jack of Clubs | February 12, 2007 at 09:47 PM
I'm poorly equipped to adjudicate any argument between Wesleyans and Calvinists, but I think the key word in the first sentence of the description of your true faith is that "enables."
Wesley allows us to reject grace. Grace is resistable. Without it, we have no hope of choosing God. We are depraved. God's prevenient grace brings us to the possibility of justification, but does not require it.
Calvin - if I understand it properly - had that I in TULIP which said God's grace is irresistable.
The other point on Wesley is that like St. Paul he was not always consistent with himself. Early Wesley, Middle Wesley, and Late Wesley come down different ways on differents issues. He wasn't a systematic theologian, and he was not attempting to be one.
Anyway, welcome to the club. You have to bring a hot dish to our next church potluck.
Posted by: John Meunier | February 12, 2007 at 10:12 PM
Too stinkin' funny! I took that test last week, and had the same result. One of my elders was looking for a worldview test due to our current SS series, and gave me a link to the website. I poked around and found that test.
No wonder we get along so well!
Posted by: cavman | February 12, 2007 at 11:02 PM
Finrod is quite correct. True Wesleyanism does indeed affirm depravity and salvation by faith through grace alone. The issue is over free will verses pre-determinism.
The TULIP would insist, when applied to its logical conclusion, that we never really choose to accept God's grace- God made us hard-wired either to be saved or damned and there is nothing we can do about it. Wesley and those of us in the Wesleyan tradition reject such a notion because the Scripture repeatedly puts people to a choice. Why would God go to such great lengths to encourage us to confess sin and choose grace if in fact our fate was sealed eons before we drew our first breath? Why warn us over and over not to resist grace if grace is irresistible?
Posted by: John Wilks | February 13, 2007 at 01:44 PM
Wesley never reconciled His Puritanism, his British Catholicism, and his Patristic Mysticism. His theology was like a carton of 3-colored Neapolitan ice-cream. You can claim him for nearly anything within the general Protestant tradition, depending on what sermon or paper you quote.
Posted by: Jack Brooks | February 13, 2007 at 05:58 PM
Determinism and hard-wired are not terms any self-respecting Calvinist would use: and for good reason.
We deny determinism, which is impersonal and mechanistic. We have been freely chosen by God, out of love for us, despite the fact that we are utterly unworthy (we see this as well in God's statements about why He chose Israel in Deuteronomy- not numerous/power and not righteous).
We deny hardwired as well, for we really do make a choice. But that choice is dependent upon God changing our hearts, minds & wills in regeneration. This would be seen in places like 2 Cor. 3-4. Our previously sin-blinded & hardened hearts see the beauty of God in the gospel and believe. He changes our 'wiring', and we finally get it- just like Lydia. Again, this is rooted in God's prior choice done in love (Eph. 1).
You can disagree with Calvinism... and me. But the strawmen got to go.
Posted by: cavman | February 14, 2007 at 12:43 PM
Oh, and God works thru the Word by the Spirit to regenerate. Therefore, all the warnings but especially the encouragements to repent and believe. That is how God has chosen to implement His will.
The 'system' cannot be looked at in isolation from Scripture, since its advocates (like me) believe it is derived from Scripture. So "logical conclusions" must take into account the much greater theological/biblical context in which they are true.
I've yet to meet the Arminian who boasts about his choice of Christ, as opposed to grace, because he believes his will is utterly free. He too is operating in a larger context. I say this to show that reductionistic arguments can work both ways.
Posted by: cavman | February 14, 2007 at 12:48 PM
A quibble: if "determinism" means that effects must be the result of causes, then we Calvinists are determinists. It's indeterminism that's absurd; the Arminian view of the will teaches that there is an effect (choice) with no causes behind it!
Where does it say in the Bible that an attitude or action is morally accountable only if it springs ex nihilo out of nothing? Arminians' philosophy of morality in that way also makes no sense.
Posted by: Jack Brooks | February 15, 2007 at 08:28 AM
Please remember that anyone can make the quizzes on that site. I agree that many of the questions are poorly worded or present false dichotomies. In other words, this test is about as good as the one in the National Enquirer that promises that what type of deodorant you use reveals your personality type.
Posted by: Mark Traphagen | February 18, 2007 at 06:31 PM
"You believe that God's grace enables you to choose to believe in him, even though you yourself are totally depraved."
This is expressing the idea of previent grace. That is, we are all totally depraved, but God, in His grace, allows our hearts to have the ability to respond to Him. And, He grants everyone this ability.
Posted by: DH | February 26, 2007 at 03:13 AM