Reader’s Clarification of an Earlier Post
A reader who had trouble posting her comment e-mailed it to me…it is a very important clarification on the earlier subject of Armenians in the courtship article I posted. I wanted to bring it to your attention to help clarify the author’s article that was in question. Thanks so much Lori!
“Ah, maybe someone else has responded to this already, but there seems to be some confusion about the terms “Arminian” versus “Armenian”. Arminians are those Christians who believe that they choose God (intellectually basically claiming their own salvation), as following the teachings of Jacobus Arminius, who was (I believe) a Dutchman. Armenians, on the other hand, are a people who pre-date Christ’s walk on Earth by a couple thousand years (and are still around, not to give the wrong impression). Coincedentally, they too are usually Christian, often of the Armenian Orthodox church. (As a matter of interest, theirs was the first offically Christian nation, before our Christ-”cult” was even legal in good ‘ol Rome. But I digress.) I am not familiar with the Armenian Orthodox stance on Grace, but the point is that one is a belief system and the other a race reference. Regarding the reference to papists and Arminians, the author concedes “it is possible for a papist or Arminian to be inconsistent with his or her own church’s teaching and still be a genuine Christian”. But the main purpose of biblical courtship is the passing on of one’s own faith for the next, and all, generations. “Parents must only consider like-minded Christians as potential mates for a son or a daughter.” One has to admit that one’s claim to salvation is a major tenet of religion. And regarding the use of the term “heresy”, it is important to remember that while a strong and even polemic word, “heresy” technically only means “opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, esp. of a church or religious system” at least according to dictionary.com
Thank you for your time and for your helpful articles. Thank you for posting the article in question regarding courtship. I found it very helpful!”
Sincerely,
Lori (or “got another on the way” as I tried to moniker myself!)
Related posts:
Uncategorized | Word Warrior | 
August 20, 2007 4:12 pm
Audio available soon!
Arminians are still Christians, and it’s possible to hold an Arminian view of salvation and still be a Christian.
Calvinists teach TULIP:
Total depravity – man is unable to save himself
Unconditional election – God chooses who will be saved; they don’t choose Him at all and have no choice in the matter
Limited atonement – Christ only died for some people
Irresistible grace – if God elects someone, they have no choice but to accept His salvation
Perseverence of the saints – once saved, always saved
Arminianism, on the other hand, teaches
Total depravity
Conditional election – God chooses all to be saved and is not willing that any should perish, but they are only saved if they choose to have and express faith in Christ’s atonement
Unlimited atonement – Christ died for all
Resistible grace – Though God does not want anyone to be unsaved, He extends His saving grace to all and they have the choice to accept or reject His salvation.
Conditional perseverence of the saints – Those who are saved will remain saved so long as they remain in Christ
It is a narrow view of Christianity indeed to postulate that only Calvinists are Christians. I sincerely hope that FAF doesn’t hold such a view, because while I find the premise of this blog fascinating, I’m afraid I can no longer read it if it excludes your fellow bloggers, for instance Anna S. (who is Catholic, a “papist” as the article you quoted so crudely put it), from Christianity and salvation altogether. I guess I just don’t feel it is my place as a Christian to judge whether other people’s various doctrines are salvation issues, and quite frankly, I don’t feel that it is your place, or the place of the author of the quoted article, either.
Whoever you are, I am glad you clarified what Arminians believe. I was going to, but haven’t had the time to really organize it so well.
Anon,
You may not have read my earlier post where I apologized for not having thoroughly read the article that I quoted…here is a short excerpt from that post:
“Let me thank Daja for bringing up some questionable issues regarding the article I referred to on courtship. Let me then say, that I embarrassingly admit that I did not read the entire piece as thoroughly as I should have before posting.
I won’t go into all the details of every point I agree and disagree with, but mainly, I strongly disagree with the author labeling “Armenians” as heretics. I have many close friends and family who are Armenian in their doctrine, and I do not question their salvation. With that said, I would agree that doctrinal differences within a marriage can definitely create problems, and it is probably wise to court a suitor with whom you agree in doctrine and theology.”
I quoted the article for the sheer purpose of defining some principles of courtship, and never intended to lead a discussion into Armenians, Arminians, or whatever else was brought up. (You’ll notice from my quote above, I wasn’t even clear about there being two different terms!)
I grew up in an Arminian church, all my family (parents, etc.) is still Arminian, (though my own family embraces Calvinism) and, like you stated, I don’t make it my business to try to decide which doctrines are issues of salvation or not…way above my head!
And I never intended the blog to go in that direction…hope that clarifies!
Word Warrior, this is the same anon from before, and I appreciate your further clarification. I was under the (apparently mistaken) impression that this post was a sort of retraction of your earlier apology, that you’d been the one confused between Armenians and Arminians, but this is apparently not the case.
Obviously you didn’t intend for your blog to become a Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate, and I know that. But I felt that by posting again on the matter, you were sort of endorsing the quoted author’s original point that since heresy only means “unorthodoxy,” it is okay to call Arminians heretics and forbid our children from marrying them (once you figured out the quoted author meant Arminians and not Armenians, when in reality you knew that, but made a spelling error
). I am very relieved to see that this isn’t the case, and I’m sorry to have bothered you.
Enjoying the blog, keep it up! God bless you and your family!
Thanks, anon!
To wrap it up, I just wanted to give everyone’s two-cents regarding “that article”, but when it’s all said and done, I’m not theologically articulate enough nor do I fully understand the tenets of the different doctrines enough to debate them. AND, my passions do not lie there; each must search his own convictions regarding this touchy issue of doctrine.
And while I know this blog will bring up discussions that cross over into that arena from time to time, I would rather leave it alone!
I appreciate everybody’s input and sensitivity to the issue. I’ll try to be more careful in the future about bringing up issues of doctrinal differences…someone else would be much better equipped to handle those discussions!