How is your theological knowledge? If you would like to find out, the:
Theological Placement Exam (click on the link)
is a useful test. I do not endorse Credo House, which produced the test, because of its new evangelical character and compromise to the point where it will produce material by “evangelicals” who are willing to entertain the possibility that the Bible contains some errors, despite the fact that God himself testifies in Scripture to his own infallible truthfulness and that the Lord Jesus Christ clearly affirmed the infallibility and inerrancy of the verbally, plenarily inspired Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16; John 10:35; Matthew 5:18; 24:35, etc.) I believe I became acquainted with their organization after finding out about a free course on the resurrection of the Lord Jesus by Gary Habermas that contained useful information despite the shortcomings of Credo House.
So please feel free to spend a handful of minutes taking the theological knowledge test. You can let me know your thoughts about the test and about how you did in the comment section below. (Don’t read the comments of other people until after you take the test yourself.) How would the men in your church, who are responsible to lead their families in the knowledge of God, do on the test? How about the ladies? How would your Sunday school teachers do? How about your Bible college graduates? (I recall a statement by a IFB seminary graduate who evidenced, in his official statement of faith at his ordination council, great Trinitarian ignorance, that would be serious heresy if he knew what he was talking about, but the false teaching was never even brought up by any of the pastors there. Many Independent Baptist schools do a poor job teaching people the Bible and consequently produce preachers who have a very shallow understanding of Biblical teaching or even of how to study the Bible.)
If taking the test motivates you to improve your theological knowledge, there are useful (and, by God’s grace, growing numbers of) resources and courses on my website and YouTube channel, courses available from Dr. Thomas Strouse, material from Dr. Qurollo, and lots of other useful ways you can improve your knowledge of theology, the queen of the sciences, in your sound Bible-believing and practicing historic Baptist church.
–TDR
I got 80%.
E. T. Chapman
I liked the question about St. Nicholas. Tricky.
27 out of 30
Tripped up at the homoiousian / homoousian distinction…
27 of 30 is quite good, you homoiousion heretic!
I got 22 right out of 30.
Though I'd never heard of it under that name, the theory under question six savors of the jumble of gnosticism. You know, Marcion who was one, practiced self mutilation, vegetarianism, and fasting as a tool of resistance against the Creator, approved of Cain's actions as righteous and wanted to fanatically resist against all things physical, including that Jesus Christ did not come in the flesh (1 John 4:3) and was actually some kind of platonic ideal from a "higher plane", which is why he also probably taught something like this theory I'd imagine. Some rot about uniting to the higher planes of existence or some such thing. Nowadays these beliefs are in fact very widespread under Lubbavitch movement and others, it's not uncommon at all.
Most of these questions though I just happened to know. By my count only about 5 or 6 of them would have been required knowledge among 1st/2nd Century Christians. I'm not even sure if there is any doctrine tied to knowing the number of books either; though I suppose if you knew that Hosea wasn't a "major prophet" but the start of the "minor prophets," then you would know that many times the prophets Hosea to Malachi were combined into a single book of the "twelve prophets." What do you think, is there any Biblical doctrine that comes to mind regarding knowing all book divisions, and consequently the specific count of 66 books?
I've heard people tie the books to the chapters of Isaiah, but we know those chapters are paratextual.
The homoiousia thing is important to know so you can avoid stuff like the Council of Ariminum. Definitely wouldn't want to say anything positive about that.
My view:
1. I like a sense of humour as much as anyone, perhaps too much, but some of theirs seems a little tacky around serious subjects.
2. I don't care if anyone in our church knows that the printing press is considered a contributing factor to the Reformation, knows about Anselm, knows the term "Sitz im Leben," knows who was present at the Council of Nicea, or knows about p52. I don't care if they know the Arminian view of depravity, or who Schleiermacher is.
3. I hope people in our church know that the Ransom to Satan theory is wrong but I don't care if they know that's what it is called. Similarly with homoiousia.
4. I would say that practically, Roman Catholic doctrine typically perverts not just the doctrine of justification, but through exaltation of Mary perverts the doctrine of the Trinity and results in a twisted view of Christology. Likewise, their Bibliology is skewed badly by their horrible ecclesiology, as is their eschatology. So question #20 is horribly problematic.
A bunch of questions on things that have no practical importance to the life of a believer (who CARES who was at Nicea?), hardly anything on Christology or Pneumatology, multiple questions on Canon and a question about a papyrus manuscript but nothing on Inspiration or Inerrancy, nothing on anthropology or hamartiology, only an obscure "we're different from Catholics" on salvation by faith, nothing really on ecclesiology or eschatology.
I'd give the test a C-, personally. It doesn't make me feel like their stuff is something I'd want to use in our church.
Doesn’t the historical Jesus appear in Revelation as well? That question threw me. I got 83%.
Do you think Job was written prior to 1500 B.C.
Dear Bro Gleason,
No I would definitely NOT use their new-evangelical stuff in church. The course I mentioned on historical evidence for the resurrection was helpful, but no, please do NOT use their stuff in one of the Lord's churches. They are far too flabby for that.
II think knowing what the earliest MSS of the NT are and some of the other information is still useful, especially for those in leadership, but if someone does not know the Bible itself well, then yes, who cares about P52. It helps if you are talking to atheists, Muslims, and others, though.
Thomas,
This test is absurd, even erroneous. The protestant reformation was mostly heretical and shouldn't be placed in a positive light. It was obviously written from a Calvinist position. Most of the questions have no bearing on anything, except the academic scholorolatry contagious among reformers. Its dangerous to endorse this, and sends a confusing message about your position on Calvinism/Reformed Theology and new evangelicalism. God's Word says mark them and avoid them (Rom 16:17), not endorse them.
Reuben
Someone asked if Job was written prior to 1500 B.C. Not very likely if Moses wrote it. If the Exodus was 1445 or thereabouts, Moses would have been 25 in 1500 B.C. Job may well have lived before then, of course. And of course, we don't know for certain that Moses wrote it.
Brother Ross, the people in our church know that modern theories of the text, which underpin the popular modern translations, are based primarily on a manuscript from the Vatican and one from a monastery in the Sinai peninsula, and that none of the churches used that text for more than 1500 years, but now according to modern scholars and publishers we are supposed to accept it is the true text.
But I haven't found it necessary to teach them ancient manuscript names / identifiers. I'm sure some of them know some things about Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, but I doubt any of them know the respective ages of the Rylands fragment, the Bodmer Papyri, or the Chester Beatty Papyri, and I don't think their spiritual life will suffer for the lack.
And that last sentence somewhat sums up my view of the whole test. Don't get me wrong, I know this stuff. I was thrown on Anselm because I'm used to Cur Deus Homo and I didn't know whether one of the modern folks might have written it, but I got it. And I knew Nicholas was a Nicea, but it was a lucky guess about the Pope. The rest I blew through.
But I don't really see that knowing the answers to a lot of these questions makes me a better pastor or a better Christian. It's all academia. I happen to have a very, very good memory, so my brain is cluttered with a lot of academic stuff that does me no good. This test pulled a lot of that stuff out. It appeals to pride of intellect. Sorry I'm not more enthusiastic.
Hi Reuben,
Not that I disagree with you, but, I wasn't particularly confused about his positions on things based on linking of the quiz. I know Dr. Ross didn't write the quiz. He specifically didn't say he endorsed it. And I think we should have the ability to examine things critically for faults. It claims to be a theology quiz so it should be held accountable to a higher standard if it does something wrong, such as you point out. If anyone's criticism on these things, such as what may be incorrect or out of place with them should be on record, why do you think we can't be the ones to talk about it? I'd be interested to hear how you defend that position.
If you believe anything at all is unclean or a stumblingblock then definitely stay away from it, of course; I just wouldn't imply someone endorsed something, when they overtly didn't if you read the opening post. I'd say that's a bigger deal and more important issue than anything else.
I'm the person who earlier got 22 out of 30, by the way, it doesn't particularly bother me that I missed those kinds of questions. The one about the tetragrammaton I even missed on purpose while knowing what the expected "correct" answer was.
I got a 93.3%. I must say that I guessed at some of the questions and got them right. The two I missed I also guessed at… homoiousia and "father of liberalism"
Thanks for posting the quiz.
I don’t think Thomas was encouraging people to take the test for any other motive than what he stated in his article which was to be challenged to know our theology. We are all big boys and we shouldn’t let a test puff us up. Nor should we jump on Thomas as if he was promoting the Reformation or encouraging us to be Calvinist. Let’s all have a little graciousness. It was actually enjoyable to me to take a test again as it has been a while since ai have taken a test.
Thanks for the test Thomas!
Thanks for all the comments.
1.) Please note that I did not say that the test was the be-all and end-all of everything.
2.) The test questions were representative for one's knowledge of various fields of theology; it is, of course, possible that one knows one particular fact of church history but is totally ignorant about the rest of it, but not likely. Knowledge about church history, the history of the Biblical text, and so on is indeed valuable.
3.) The questions were hardly absurd or erroneous (from my recollection, I didn't take the test again). Nor does their organization take a strong stand for Calvinism and Reformed theology–I don't think they take a strong stand on just about anything. The question on whether Arminians believe in total depravity is important, though, because you should be aware that if you deny the doctrine you are not just rejecting Calvinism but have a weaker doctrine on sin than Jacob Arminius. A friend of mine went for some years to a large independent Baptist church, where the pastor went all over the place speaking, and he said that he was a semi-Pelagian. It is bad that in many IFB churches people don't know what that means, and, among those that do, that someone could say he was one is, let's say, not good.
Were the the best possible questions in the world? No, but I think there is value in them. For example, knowing the influence of the father of theological liberalism helps us see how we are where we are now. What a different world we would be in were the American Baptist Convention and Southern Baptist Convention still teaching all the truth! Why did Karl Marx reject Christianity? Part of it was theological liberalism's influence.
4.) If you think that a particular question tells us nothing, that is fine; I have no skin in the game. However, if you took it and, for example, you think the difference between homoousios and homoiousios does not matter, maybe you should study Trinitarianism a bit mroe carefully. I recall a very intelligent person who took a graduate school class at a fundamental Baptist school (Trinitarianism was not an undergrad class, only a graduate school module–does that sound like a problem to you right there?) who came out of the class concluding that Nestorianism was the truth. Not good.
If the test got you to think, I'm happy. Maybe we would all do better if we spent less time, or no time, on Twitter, Facebook, etc. and instead read a big dusty volume of theology where we had to think and carefully evaluate Scripture and its necessary consequences.
Thanks again for your thoughts.
Andrew,
This is precisely the type of confusion I am referring to, mental gymnastics. If we say we don’t endorse something, but yet post something publicly, are we endorsing it? Does God’s Word have actual practical value? If it says ”mark them … and avoid them” (Rom 16:17), but we publicly post “them” in a positive light (irregardless of a disclaimer attached to it), is that marking them, i.e. exposing them or not? Is that avoiding them, i.e. separating—not endorsing, them or not? Is that obeying God’s Word? Is there disclaimers on disclaimers attached to passages such as Rom 16:17 (and there’s many more like it)? If the Bible says don’t eat with them (1 Cor 5:11) but we eat anyway with a banner attached on our forehead proclaiming why we disagree with them, are we eating with them and disobeying God’s Word or does God give allowance for this type of disobedience because it comes with a banner of rejection?
When the Bible says, “I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me” (Ps 101:3) and we set a wicked thing before our eyes while saying I don’t endorse the wicked thing, are we deceiving ourselves or walking in truth?
Can a fountain both yield salt water and fresh?
I think this is an example of the soft separation that is rampant among IB’s today and destroying the churches and the children therein.
“It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” (Matt 4:4).
Reuben
Hi Reuben, fellowship in Scripture is "partnering" for common ministry. It is not reading a book, or an article, or the pagan Greek poets Paul quoted in Acts 17 on Mars Hill–without any disclaimer, by the way. We should be careful about what we read and exercise Biblical discernment, but taking a test that asks if you know how many books are in the Bible and if you know that the Father and the Son have the identical essence is not fellowship. If you don't want to read anything that is not written by an independent Baptist, that is fine–go for it, and don't violate your conscience. But calling my offering this test "soft separatism" is not deriving your definition of fellowship and separation from Scripture.
I don't have time to get into a long discussion on this, so please don't draw unwarranted conclusions from further silence on my part.
Again, if you don't want to even take the test because of your hatred for the compromise in neo-evangelicalism, that's great. Go for it.
Hi Thomas,
Fellowship is much more than just “"partnering" for common ministry.” An intimate relationship with anyone or anything is fellowship. Fellowship with unclean things, such as the world for example, is called adultery, spiritual adultery. “Friendship of the world” (Jam 4:4) would be fellowship. Eph 5:11 commands to have “no fellowship with unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.” Books, articles and poetry most definitely falls under that heading. Separation is not ecclesiastical only, but applies personally. Your definition of fellowship and separation is not derived from scripture but from a position, which then affects your application. Where does Rom 16:17-18 indicate that its only applicable to fellowship for common ministry? You are reading something into that passage that doesn’t exist. Anyone that willfully teaches false doctrine is to be marked (exposed) and avoided (separated). When we rather publicly post them in a positive light, is that marking them and avoiding them?
Yes Paul quoted a pagan poet but did he quote his name and info? Because the pagan poet got one thing right, is that now approval to read his humanistic garbage? This is a very strange way of looking at scripture and it’s certainly not rightly dividing it. Do you honestly think Paul continued to read pagan vanity after his conversion? Of greater importance, was the pagan poet pretending to be a Christian, publicly influencing thousands of professing Christians into heresy? Paganism is far removed from the truth of God’s Word. Heretical Christianity isn’t. It’s got the subtle and deceptive fingerprint of the Deceiver all over it, darkness that masquerades as light (2 Cor 11:12-15). Thats the danger! So, you’re comparing apples with oranges. The unscriptural idiom “eat the meat and spit out the bones” doesn’t hold any weight, a philosophy not supported by scripture even one bite.
It seems perhaps Ac 17:28 is the only passage that can be quoted by people approving of quoting a false teacher/heretic or heretical ministry, which is proof-texting, while there are dozens of other passages that speak against it. Like Rom 16:17 as mentioned, and others: Deu. 13:3-4; Ps 1:1-6; 119:104, 128; Pr. 4:14-15, 25-27; 9:6; 22:5; 24:1; Ezk. 22:26; Mal 3:18; Matt 7:6, 15-20; Eph 5:6-11; 1 Cor. 10:20-22; Gal 2:4-5; Phil 3:1-2, 17-19; 2 Th 3:6; 1 Tim. 4:1; 6:3-5; 2 Tim. 2:20-21; 3:5-9; Ti. 1:9-16; 3:10-11; 1 Jn. 4:1; 2 Jn. 1:9-11; Ju. 1:3-16; etc. Paul said he didn’t subject himself to false brethren for an hour (Gal 2:4-5). Thats an entirely different attitude. He would’ve never positively posted anything from a heretical “Christian” organization. And he would’ve certainly hated neo-evangelicalism, just like God does. “Therefore I love thy commandments above gold; yea, above fine gold. Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way.” (Ps 119:127-128). Every true believer will “Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good” (Rom 12:9), for they “that love the LORD, hate evil” (Ps 97:10) and “hate every false way” (Ps 119:128). Gal 5:9 refers to error as leaven and “a little leaven, leaventh the whole lump.” What organizations like Credo House are putting out is more than just “a little leaven”!
My major issue was about the positive proclamation of the heretical organization behind the test. I never said we shouldn’t read “anything that is not written by an independent Baptist.” Thats a red herring. There is also a big difference between reading something personally and publicly promoting something. You imply that we need to read something besides the Bible. Do you have a chapter and verse for that? I’m interested in that.
God isn’t glorified when we associate with error, or positively post it like an advertisement. Life is about glorifying God, and that involves obedience to Scripture, and that requires separation, not association.
Reuben
p.s. You need not worry, I won't be drawing any unwarranted conclusions from your silence.
Well, Brother Ross, you said it is "a useful test" for those who want to find out "How is your theological knowledge?" And you asked for our thoughts about the test. My thoughts were that it is not "a useful test" for the reasons given. (Nor do I think it important that people in our church know the actual term homoiousios, though they should know the true doctrine and to reject the false.)
Unlike Reuben, I did not at all think there was any endorsement or any inappropriateness or fellowship in your post. You were very clear you weren't endorsing the authors.
To Reuben,
Hmm, interesting points. Isn't it good that we're able to have a discussion at all; as opposed to being bound to invoke social shunning manuveurs immediately upon seeing Dr. Ross posting a quiz? I'm not saying you did that, of course. That's why we're actually seeing you post. I think we're closer to agreement then, my friend, than perhaps we will allow ourselves to readily admit.
Dear Bro Gleason,
I think it is more useful than perhaps you might, but if you disagree that is fine with me. It was designed to see what areas of theology, including historical theology, a person knows something about and what not.
Hi Andrew,
Amen. I minister in an area where there is a lot of false religion and neo-evangelicalism and we get a lot of hateful resistance and social shunning. I mean a lot. But love covereth all sins. I enjoy having conversations where even if people disagree with me, they are still cordial and kind. Amongst other passages like James 3:13-18, I think of Psalm 119:65: "Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them."
The Lord knows I love brother Thomas and Kent. I really enjoy reading this site and have been and continued to be edified tremendously and have learnt much. Learning to deal with disagreements, I can say Kent, through his writings, has taught me much. Even though Thomas posted this test and I disagree with him, doesn't change my view of him one iota. Thomas's writings on Keswick theology (and others like repentance, etc) are priceless. I do encourage many people to read this site and Thomas's faithsaves.
Reuben
Thanks Reuben. I think I have understood you. It doesn't bother me that you come on strong. Do you think that you have anyone that you are completely open to a challenge, that is, seriously think you would change? Since the church is the pillar and ground of the truth, I have to be willing to submit to the church. The Bible is still final authority, but not sole authority, something called in history, nuda scriptura. There are other authorities God sets up in our lives, and we should have some trail of changing on things, influenced by more than just God. I understand people reading here don't think I change for anything, but I do. I even want to change, because I know change is necessary in this life.
Thanks, Reuben.
As always this is why I love deep thoughts here and I learn tons of things from Dr Thomas Ross and Pastor Brandenburg! Hope you and your families are doing well! I did learn soteriology from Dr Ross awesome site faithsaves.net and even though I'm the lowest scorer here at horrible 18 out of 30 or lowly 60 % I liked trying to see how I'd do, sad to hear about Darrell Bock I did find a book useful about the terrible DaVinci code when the attacks against the Bible came out he had a small book I thought was a good defense? Oh well but Dr Ross and Pastor Brandenburg if you are familiar with the Pastor Robert Sargent in Bible Baptist Church Oak Harbor Washington? He's got pretty solid Baptist publications here if you don't mind sharing it http://www.baptistpublications.org/
I does surprise me with the amount of supposed big names in the evangelical world or people in general who could even hold a view that GOD'S Preserved Words KJV and the texts that underlie them could contain errors or something like that or the acceptance of billions of years of death in attempt to reconcile the false evolutionary uniformitarianist errors of earth history etc., by the way Pastor Robert Sargent is like you guys on the Preserved Words of GOD! which is why I recommend him to you, thank you for your help in my learning process and growth as well, May GOD bless you and your families with health love joy peace always in Jesus name amen have a blessed day and week here's the way I'm trying to reach the social media masses I hope you approve!
Jesus coming soon Rapture ready to go or not, please don't be left behind get right today while you are still able to do so!
goodpersontest.com
faithsaves.net/salvation
The Book of Daniel: Proof the Bible is the Word of God
https://faithsaves.net/daniel/7th
http://www.pillarandground.org/home/?page_id=36
http://headwatersbaptistchurch.org/eternity
https://www.bbcoakharbor.org/bible-studies/gospel-video