Since the theological quiz went around here, I took it again to see where I stand now that I know something about the issues. The results, as compared to last year's, were:
| Then | Now |
|---|---|
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.
|
You scored as Neo orthodox. You are neo-orthodox. You reject the human-centredness and scepticism of liberal theology, but neither do you go to the other extreme and make the Bible the central issue for faith. You believe that Christ is God's most important revelation to humanity, and the Trinity is hugely important in your theology. The Bible is also important because it points us to the revelation of Christ. You are influenced by Karl Barth and P T Forsyth.
|
2 comments:
So what were the issues that are significantly responsible for the change in score? Would you consider yourself neo-orthodox? I can't buy Barth's brand of fideism. I was sympathetic with his view of scriptural authority at one time, but changed my views by the end of Historic and Greek 4. Bib Theo, etc. confirmed these opinions. While I have questions about these things now, and I agree in a very limited way with Swinburne that the original revelation cannot be the New Testament, I would still maintain that the New Testament is itself an original revelation.
I don't know that I would consider myself neo-orthodox, or any other view in particular; some of the key points on neo-orthodoxy hit close to my own theological convictions, though (centrality of Christ, importance of the trinity, and Christ as the main revelation of God, for example). Overall, the main issues for my change in score were that I've looked more at the issues and clicked more often on "strongly agree/disagree" than I did before. This can be seen in that there is a big gap now between "positions I like theologically" and "positions I don't like theologically".
I would not be as much of a fideist as Barth in that I think that general revelation can tell us about God, but at the same time I think that special revelation is necessary to tell us about things of God in the first place (thus, natural theology is properly done guided by faith, as with Anselm and Aquinas). I think that Barth's view on scripture is the best Protestant road to take if I were convinced that it was fallible, but I'm still clinging to inerrancy (sometimes more tenuously than at others; in the end, though, I have trouble going against almost the entire church tradition before the modern period).
Post a Comment