# Dating/marrying a non-Calvinist?



## Der Pilger

I hope I'm posting this in the right forum.

I'm interested in getting thoughts and advice about dating and possibly marrying a non-Reformed, non-Calvinist. There's a girl I'm currently interested in who guessed that I'm a Calvinist because of my blog and my church history, but she also told me that she is not one. She is still interested in talking more with me, though.

The church she goes to is baptistic and solidly evangelical, and of course I'm okay with that. Assuming she is really not Calvinist (some people might say they aren't Calvinist but actually mean they aren't *hyper*-Calvinist), and also assuming she holds to orthodox views and nothing heretical, would you say it is unwise to get involved with her on a romantic level? Do you foresee any major conflicts or problems in such a relationship down the road?

Or perhaps the best way I can ask the question is: If *you* were single and in my place, would *you* date her? 

Thanks for any feedback you can give, and if I need to clarify anything, just let me know.


----------



## Andres

Der Pilger said:


> If you were single and in my place, would you date her?



No way. Unless (and this is a big unless) she plans to submit to your authority and attend the church you want to, teach your kids what you say, etc, then I would think your differences would present many difficulties down the road.


----------



## Edward

It can work, but it's easier if you move post-marriage to a city well removed from the location of her church.


----------



## Der Pilger

Andres said:


> Der Pilger said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you were single and in my place, would you date her?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No way. Unless (and this is a big unless) she plans to submit to your authority and attend the church you want to, teach your kids what you say, etc, then I would think your differences would present many difficulties down the road.
Click to expand...

 
Thanks for your post, Andrew. I tend to agree with you. While she and I share the same basic beliefs (Trinity, deity of Christ, salvation by grace through faith, and so on), I'm afraid it wouldn't be as simple as that and there would be many more issues that would come up. You brought up two major ones: what church to attend and what to teach the kids.


----------



## Iconoclast

Many people have not heard an accurate presentation of the grace of God. If you have a friendship with this person have you had a chance to study together?
A wife is to be your best friend and you really need to be on the same page spiritually. Is she teachable? If there is a possibility of her visiting your church?
Unless things move in this direction it might seem to be too many obstacles involved.


----------



## jwithnell

[/COLOR]I asked myself the same question while single, and have since seen that it would not have worked. Often I think how blessed I am that my husband and I share virtually the same doctrinal beliefs. Truly his mind is an extension of my own and we can balance each others strengths and weaknesses. On the other hand, I've seen at least two families pulled away from our church by the wives. 

There may be some exceptions, especially if it's the guy who is reformed. Someone with a soft heart for really wanting to know what the Bible teaches might be very teachable by a prospective spouse -- not just to make the relationship work, but because she wants to bring her thinking in line with the scriptures.


----------



## Der Pilger

Iconoclast said:


> Many people have not heard an accurate presentation of the grace of God. If you have a friendship with this person have you had a chance to study together?



We just started communicating, so we haven't even begun a friendship yet, let alone study together.


----------



## ChariotsofFire

I thought this thread had some helpful replies for a different situation:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f32/can-there-any-hope-when-dating-arminian-47201/


----------



## Grimmson

I may take a slightly different position here then some other people on the board. I have no problem with the idea of dating a non-Calvinist, as long as she is a Christian and teachable. However I would have an issue with marrying a non-Calvinist. You would want her to understand and have the same passion over the doctrines of grace as you, so that she can transfer that understanding and passion to the children. A non-Calvinist may not necessarily understand the arguments set forth from the Calvinistic system. Plus it is always good to have a consistent belief structure between the parents for the sake of the child in any case.


----------



## steadfast7

I say, if you like her, go for it. This isn't a case of unequal yoking. She loves the Lord. At most, it might be frustrating at times and you'll have to work harder than others, but that's what relationships and marriage are all about, right?


----------



## Weston Stoler

I would be cautious. You never truly know what a person believes until their theological beliefs are challenged by suffering. She may agree to move churches, teach your children orthodox beliefs, ect.... but if she backs out as soon as the trials come then you may want to drop her. How long have you known her? I personally would not date a non-calvinist because I just love the Doctrines of Grace and would want to speak to my girlfriend/wife about them constantly (along with other doctrines).


----------



## Der Pilger

Grimmson said:


> I may take a slightly different position here then some other people on the board. I have no problem with the idea of dating a non-Calvinist, as long as she is a Christian and teachable. However I would have an issue with marrying a non-Calvinist.



I believe in marriage-minded dating, so if I am dating someone, it is with marriage in view. I wouldn't want to form any emotional bonds with someone if I had no intention of marrying them in the future.



> You would want her to understand and have the same passion over the doctrines of grace as you, so that she can transfer that understanding and passion to the children. A non-Calvinist may not necessarily understand the arguments set forth from the Calvinistic system. Plus it is always good to have a consistent belief structure between the parents for the sake of the child in any case.


 
This is a major red flag that is popping up, i.e., how it would affect raising children and having a home that is peaceful instead of filled with strife over theological differences.


----------



## BibleCyst

I'm actually dating a non-Calvinist, so I feel I can speak on this. One must take this on a case by case basis. There are things widely accepted in the theological world that are a lot worse than Arminianism. For example, charismatic doctrine, dispensationalism, universalism, women's ordination, etc. I would visit her church at least once. You might find that Arminianism is the least of your worries!

My girlfriend is not explicitly Arminian, even though she is a member of an explicitly Arminian church. I'm not sure she even knows what an "Arminian" or a "Calvinist" is. I made sure before becoming serious with her that her basic theology is sound, and it is. She essentially believes in total depravity and even unconditional election. It's surprising how well her church has taught her all these years. My point is, this is a complicated issue with quite a few things to consider. Visit her church, and ask her about her theology. If she tries to argue or comes across as very opinionated in the wrong way, move on!


----------



## SolaScriptura

Der Pilger said:


> Or perhaps the best way I can ask the question is: If you were single and in my place, would you date her?



That depends... is she friendly? Witty? Well-educated? Wealthy? Gorgeous?


----------



## TimV

Der Pilger said:


> Or perhaps the best way I can ask the question is: If you were single and in my place, would you date her?



I agree with Ben. Post a picture of her


----------



## Der Pilger

TimV said:


> Der Pilger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or perhaps the best way I can ask the question is: If you were single and in my place, would you date her?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with Ben. Post a picture of her
Click to expand...

 
Okay:


----------



## Jack K

You should get to know her. Many believers have simply been taught at some point that Calvinism is bad, but haven't really worked through it for themselves. If she's a committed Arminian, that could cause difficulties. If she's a default Arminian, there's hope.

IMPORTANT: Consider more than just what she claims her theological position to be. _Functionally_, how does she live the Christian life? Is her hope in her own goodness or in Christ's goodness? Is she insecure, trying to prove herself to God, or does she follow Christ out of gratitude and confidence in him? It's possible she's aligned herself doctrinally with Arminians but is actually a functional Calvinist, just as there are doctrinal Calvinists who're actually functional Arminians. For your life's love, you want a _functional_ Calvinist. The doctrinal alignment will follow.


----------



## LeeJUk

I would be fine dating a non-calvinist. As long as they are saved and have sound evangelical beliefs. I think we need to get away from the idea of I'm your boyfriend you sumbit your theology to me. Your potential spouse is a theologian with a relationship wth God in her own right don't bypass that. Becoming a calvinist is often a process, perhaps that spans over years. You don't force the issue. But if you were to date, over time through mutual study, conversation then perhaps she'll come to those conclusions. Though you should date her and enjoy her company, don't make calvinism a constant topic you bring up. Dating is about her learning about you, and you learning about her, not her learning about Calvin.


----------



## kodos

steadfast7 said:


> I say, if you like her, go for it. This isn't a case of unequal yoking. She loves the Lord. At most, it might be frustrating at times and you'll have to work harder than others, *but that's what relationships and marriage are all about, right*?



No. That was given to us courtesy of the Fall.


----------



## TimV

Uh, if I were in your shoes, yeah


----------



## fishingpipe

I began dating an Arminian back in 1994. She was a Calvinist and coming to church with me by the time I asked her to marry me in 1995. Like others have considered, she was very teachable. Her spiritual authority (her father) did not exert a considerable spiritual influence over her, but for the most part was fine with my doing so. I was able to converse with her early on, having been in the same circle of friends since 1986. I had only been getting deep into the reformed faith for a couple of years, myself, when we started dating. About a year after we were married her parents discovered we were actually :gasp!: reformed/Calvinistic, and, well, that's another story...

Your mileage may vary.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe

Is she a Christian? If yes, then she is dateable/marriable. The doctrinal issues may be a problem but as long as she is willing to submit and attend church with you then there is no problem. Her credo Baptist position is the only problem I see but that canm be talked about.


----------



## J. Dean

Spell out your non-negotiables ahead of time, and make clear (politely but honestly) that you don't concede on these points.


----------



## Der Pilger

Unashamed 116 said:


> Is she a Christian? If yes, then she is dateable/marriable. The doctrinal issues may be a problem but as long as she is willing to submit and attend church with you then there is no problem. Her credo Baptist position is the only problem I see but that canm be talked about.


 
I agree about nailing down the submission issue. That's a big deal, and biblical, too. The credo-baptist position doesn't bother me because I hold to the same position.


----------



## JennyG

SolaScriptura said:


> Originally Posted by Der Pilger
> Or perhaps the best way I can ask the question is: If you were single and in my place, would you date her?
> That depends... is she friendly? Witty? Well-educated? Wealthy? Gorgeous?



I'm ashamed of you (and TimV). This isn't even a members only forum.


----------



## SolaScriptura

JennyG said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by Der Pilger
> Or perhaps the best way I can ask the question is: If you were single and in my place, would you date her?
> That depends... is she friendly? Witty? Well-educated? Wealthy? Gorgeous?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm ashamed of you (and TimV). This isn't even a members only forum.
Click to expand...

 
Why are you ashamed of me?

He'd already said she is a Christian. My post was an allusion to the fact that doctrinal commitments are not the ONLY factors in deciding whether or not to pursue a relationship. Are you implying that personality, education, and yes, appearance, have absolutely no bearing?


----------



## elnwood

If she knows you're a Calvinist, and she's still fine with dating you, that's very encouraging. The important thing is that you two will be able to go to the same church and submit to the teaching.

Also, if you are considering going into leadership in the church, more doctrinal agreement will be necessary.


----------



## jwithnell

And to think my husband was worried about marrying a post-millennialist  And it only took him 12 years to move me into the a-mil camp. (Well, maybe not him, but the authors on my shelf.)


----------



## DAN-the-UK-man

Some food for thought from my own experience, you could say i married a non Calvinist/reformed Lass. When i first met my wife she was newly converted coptic Christian, she got saved in prague before returning to NY to study. When i met her she wasn't really attending any church and had a lot of Catholic doctrine, We liked each other very much yet i was not willing to marry just any christian. I went before the Lord asking if it was his will to marry her then her such so called theology needs to change, after much prayer and conversion with her (just talking and studying the bible together i saw the change of understanding and theology, what really drew me to her was your love and passion for the lord and holiness with a teachable spirit.

Perhaps you should be asking is she the right Christian for yourself, and obliviously praying about the differences you may have. wen such theological conversations come up which they will you can show and lead her to biblical truth.


----------



## dog8food

I believe it's absolutely okay to date/marry a non-Calvinist. The Bible would have mentioned otherwise  There will always be issues and challenges in relationships. Theological differences is just another to add to the heap... God can sharpen you both by means of such a conflict.


----------



## Reformed Thomist

I probably wouldn't consider entering into marriage with one, but I may be willing to date a non-Calvinist (assuming she's a converted Christian, of course).

I've heard of too many Christian marriages where one spouse came to embrace the total sovereignty of God in salvation _via_ the influence of the other _whilst dating_ to shut that door completely. 

As with everything, we must constantly be discerning God's will. Often He confounds us.


----------



## Zenas

As a general rule: No. 

That's the general rule though. It really depends on the situation. Ther are circumstances where I would consider a closer relationship in the future based on things like whether she was open to being taught differently. If she were a staunch Arminian with no interest in correction, I wouldn't pursue her as a wife at all. There are just too many problems in the future like what in the world will your children be taught. 

Further, I wouldn't date a dispensationalist either, even if she were a Calvinist. Even further, I wouldn't date a Reformed Baptist, even if she were Covenantal.


----------



## he beholds

If we are going to strict with sola scriptura, and not boarda puritana, then you can recognize that you are really at liberty to date her, if you like her, if she is a believer. I'd chill on the "Will you submit if we have kids?" thing for a bit, because A) that would've freaked me out coming from a guy I just barely knew, and B) there may not be many practically different beliefs that a "submission" would require. I'd imagine that most practical, daily things are consistent between Calvinists and non-Calvinists. (Of course the submission conversation should occur some time before she hears it in her vows...)

I think it is definitely legalism if you create this rule for yourself, especially if you are doing so b/c you think God requires it of you. Sure, you are free to also NOT date her, but I'd be more concerned with the attractedness and relatableness than how many points does she adhere to. I was not a Calvinist when my husband and I became friends and then decided to become more. And he brought me into the light before we got married, but he knew that I loved God and loved him, so he would have married me anyway.


----------



## Scott1

> Chapter XXIV
> Of Marriage and Divorce
> 
> ....
> 
> III. It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry, who are able with judgment to give their consent.[5] Yet it is the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord.[6] And therefore such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, papists, or other idolaters: neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or maintain damnable heresies.[7]
> 
> .....



There is a lot of leeway in who you can marry. Dating, serious dating at least is by derivation, related.

Practically, considering what evangelical church background, the depth of each other's spiritual maturity (even if you don't agree everything), where you go to church, your view of the church- all important things to consider but, in and of themselves, not determinative, as long as both Christians from communions which could charitably be viewed as in the church universal.

Beyond the confession,


----------



## Zenas

he beholds said:


> Sure, you are free to also NOT date her, but I'd be more concerned with the attractedness and relatableness than how many points does she adhere to.



I think this is a recipie for disaster. A nonchalant attitude toward major doctrinal differences will only cause major disagreement at later points and possibly resentment and strife. If, and that's if, she is staunch in her views and unwilling to yield, I would avoid becoming involved any further. Agreement in doctrine is vital because it will dictate what your children are taught. 

Further, I wholeheartedly disagree with your assessment that a general response in the negative to the stated question constitutes legalism. Legalism, as I understand it, is the creation of non-Scriptural burdens for other people. In practice, it is forbidding as sin things which we are free to do. *No one is proposing this.* First, it wouldn't be "legalism" for him to obey his own conscience if his conscience dictates that it would be wrong for him to date an Arminian. We are not to ignore our own consciences. Further, he wouldn't be denouncing the practice as a whole as sin, in that anyone, including himself, who does this is sinning. That would be legalism. He would merely be determining that it's a bad idea. 

Practically speaking, it is a bad idea. It's a recipie for a troubled marriage based around disagreement over some of the fundamental doctrines of the Bible, i.e. soteriology.

If she changes and becomes a Calvinist, as you did, then wonderful. If she doesn't, then problems are likely, not necessarily, to arise.


----------



## LeeJUk

It has been said that there will be conflict in terms of which church you attend. I would say however that most arminian/evangelical people I know wouldn't have any problem attending and being involved in Calvinist churches. I really think that unless she is a staunch, unteachable, fully commited Arminian then you won't run into much of a problem in this regard. Anyway it's not like you need to decide on a church to go together until later down the line. 

I think you should date, learn from the whole spectrum of who she is, what she believes and then if it looks like there are going to be serious problems that cannot be sorted out then you shouldn't progress on to a serious relationship/engagement. You cannot make a pre-emptive decision here just by discussing it with us. 

No one on this board I'm sure thinks of theology and calvinism as unimportant. The issue is whether or not there are going to be serious problems and if they can be solved. I don't think any of us, including the O.P at this point can say Yes there definetly will be problems. Therefore I would encourage wise dating .


----------



## Andres

Funny how many of the "go ahead and date her" advisors are single.


----------



## he beholds

Andres said:


> Funny how many of the "go ahead and date her" advisors are single.


 
not this one. this one's married seven years and has three children with another on the way. and a yellow lab. 
i think it's funny that people are saying don't. so there.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Andres said:


> Funny how many of the "go ahead and date her" advisors are single.


 
I'm not saying "go ahead and date her," but I will go on the record to say that I'd take it as a serious defect of personality and temperament for someone early on to have a full-blown list of doctrinal non-negotiables that you must agree to for them to deem you worth their time and interest in even the most preliminary of stages.


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace

Hey, Jeremy. 

I have been through a smiliar situation, except, I did enter into the relationship. You can read about it here: http://www.puritanboard.com/f22/introducing-reformed-theology-girlfriend-53226/

The relationship did not last. There were other things that crept up as a result of the teaching that she endured there for years. Be weary of emotions getting the best of you. And what Andres said is very important, make sure she will be willing to be under your leadership as a husband.


----------



## Andres

he beholds said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how many of the "go ahead and date her" advisors are single.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not this one. this one's married seven years and has three children with another on the way. and a yellow lab.
> i think it's funny that people are saying don't. so there.
Click to expand...

 
Yes, Jessica I knew that you were married, that's why I said many. We can respectfully agree to disagree on this matter.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe

Der Pilger said:


> Unashamed 116 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is she a Christian? If yes, then she is dateable/marriable. The doctrinal issues may be a problem but as long as she is willing to submit and attend church with you then there is no problem. Her credo Baptist position is the only problem I see but that canm be talked about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree about nailing down the submission issue. That's a big deal, and biblical, too. The credo-baptist position doesn't bother me because I hold to the same position.
Click to expand...

 
My apologies. Your subscribed confession was the WCF so I assumed you were paedo.

---------- Post added at 07:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:48 PM ----------




Andres said:


> he beholds said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andres said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how many of the "go ahead and date her" advisors are single.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not this one. this one's married seven years and has three children with another on the way. and a yellow lab.
> i think it's funny that people are saying don't. so there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Jessica I knew that you were married, that's why I said many. We can respectfully agree to disagree on this matter.
Click to expand...


With all due respect, are single people less apt to judge these matters simply because we are single? I have seen hundreds of couples walk through my office for counseling. I think I have a pretty decent idea of how relationships work. I know I am not perfect and never will be but I have seen a lot of stuff and I know a little bit. Sorry if I   and offended you, I just think your comments were out of line.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Unashamed 116 said:


> have seen hundreds of couples walk through my office for counseling.



Have you been the one counseling them? Or have they been walking _through_ your office en route to the chaplain's?


----------



## Andres

Unashamed 116 said:


> With all due respect, are single people less apt to judge these matters simply because we are single?


 
Yes.


----------



## BJClark

Der Pilger;



> Or perhaps the best way I can ask the question is: If *you* were single and in my place, would *you* date her?
> 
> Thanks for any feedback you can give, and if I need to clarify anything, just let me know.



Why not spend time talking to her, getting to know what she really believes, those things can be discussed over coffee dates, or lunch/dinner.


----------



## Grimmson

I see from some here that they would require her, while dating, for her to submit to the boyfriend. First of all that is a mistake, for she is not cleaved to him yet and is technically over her father’s authority. Therefore she needs to be submitting to her father’s wishes concerning church first before the boyfriend’s wishes, such as what church she should attend. And I think this would later reflect how she will later submit to her husband when that authority has shifted from the father. 

A second issue of consideration in considering dating a person for the purpose of marriage is the character of the person as a Christian. I have found that Calvinists have a tendency of being a bit more shy about what they believe and less practical concerning things of the world. There is less empathy towards others in need, and instead care more about books and their contents. When searching for a wife, instead of focusing on whether or not she a Calvinist, one should be looking at her character, such as her productivity, her hospitality towards others, her ability to relate to her neighbor, a desire to know the Lord as reflected by times of prayer and Bible reading (not just reading about the Bible and Theology), compassion, and ability to teach to children. I would look at her life at compare it to the fruits of the Sprit in her life. The issue if she a Calvinist at the start is really a side issue to if she a faithful Christian based on her own understanding. While dating the Calvinism should be disused, and I would recommend requiring it for marriage, but not dating. Through dating, one could be introduced to the doctrines of Grace, while at the same time being still under the care of her own father. 

In order to determine these things one must be interacting with this possible mate, which means talk to her, communicate with her, yet with clear boundaries. She needs to know what your intentions are and you need to know what hers are in a relationship. Just because she not a Calvinist does mean you shouldn’t interact with her. Calvinist are actually know in Baptistic circles as being cold, not caring about people and instead over proper theology. That is not what you want to be communicating, but instead a care for both people and theology. This may be the only time she has contact with a Calvinist, so I would warn you to be careful with your approach when dealing with her, so that the stereotype does not fit. 

There have been many people here who have said to get to know her first and find out what she really believes. I suggest doing it, you may actually be surprised where her heart is in the Lord.


----------



## elnwood

Andres said:


> Unashamed 116 said:
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect, are single people less apt to judge these matters simply because we are single?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
Click to expand...

 
I'm always amazed to find this attitude in the church when the bulk of the Biblical teaching we have on marriage is from Jesus and Paul, two unmarried men.


----------



## he beholds

elnwood said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unashamed 116 said:
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect, are single people less apt to judge these matters simply because we are single?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm always amazed to find this attitude in the church when the bulk of the Biblical teaching we have on marriage is from Jesus and Paul, two unmarried men.
Click to expand...

 Not only that, but this type of logic would mean that the married person possibly chose the wrong spouse for himself, since at the time he was single. If he could trust his single judgment in order to choose the right spouse, why can't other single people have trustworthy judgments?


----------



## SolaScriptura

Afterthought said:


> I'm just a young single guy myself who has never dated or courted anybody



Hmm.


----------



## Reformed Thomist

elnwood said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unashamed 116 said:
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect, are single people less apt to judge these matters simply because we are single?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm always amazed to find this attitude in the church when the bulk of the Biblical teaching we have on marriage is from Jesus and Paul, two unmarried men.
Click to expand...

 
Not only was Paul single; he saw the single life as higher, nobler than the married. As did Augustine. Both argue that the distractions which arise within a marriage can and do turn one away from the things of God, and toward the concerns of the spouse; and that Christians would be much better off if they could imitate their higher, more mature Christian life: Celibate singlehood. (Of course, not everyone has been gifted with this grace. The average person must settle for a second-best situation [and this, mainly in order to avoid fornication]: Marriage.)


----------



## TimV

Reformed Thomist said:


> Celibate singlehood. (Of course, not everyone has been gifted with this grace, and so the average person must settle for a second-best situation [and this, mainly in order to avoid fornication]: Marriage.)



If that was true then Paul wouldn't have ordered the younger widows to marry. And whether Natural Law is rooted in Creation or Moses, both presuppose marriage as the ideal; at Creation God Himself says flat out it's not good, i.e. bad, for man not to be married. As to Christ, He wanted a bride so badly that He was willingly tortured and murdered to bring Himself a perfect one.


----------



## JBaldwin

he beholds said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andres said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unashamed 116 said:
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect, are single people less apt to judge these matters simply because we are single?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm always amazed to find this attitude in the church when the bulk of the Biblical teaching we have on marriage is from Jesus and Paul, two unmarried men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not only that, but this type of logic would mean that the married person possibly chose the wrong spouse for himself, since at the time he was single. If he could trust his single judgment in order to choose the right spouse, why can't other single people have trustworthy judgments?
Click to expand...

 
While singles are able to give good advice on dating and marriage and married people are capable of giving bad advice about dating and marriage, people who are married or have been married speak from experience and have an insight based on experience. They have experienced or are experiencing the consequences of their choices. 

Your spouse should be your best friend, and in an ideal situation, both individuals are compatible, teachable and look to God's Word for guidance. If that is the case, submission to one another will come naturally, because both are submitting themselves to God. 

Should you date/marry a non-Calvinist who is a godly Christian? Yes, if you're willing to live with the conflicts that will inevitably arise, and both of you are willing to submit to God to learn together. If you are not willing to live with those types of conflicts, don't date/marry a non-Calvinist. 

From my experience, dating/marrying a non-Calvinist is a recipe for conflict and struggle. I was willing to go through that struggle, and after 20 years of marriage, my husband and I are much of the same mind, but our children have suffered from it (even though we raised them in the reformed faith), and it nearly destroyed our marriage.


----------



## Andres

elnwood said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unashamed 116 said:
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect, are single people less apt to judge these matters simply because we are single?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm always amazed to find this attitude in the church when the bulk of the Biblical teaching we have on marriage is from Jesus and Paul, two unmarried men.
Click to expand...

 
Jesus was/is God. Paul was an Apostle teaching under the direct unction of God, the Holy Spirit. If you're ready to equate yourself or any of the other teachers around today with our Lord and the Apostle Paul, then by all means go ahead. I however, will not buy into the comparison.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

My wife was raised in the United Methodist Church. When I met her, she was active in her liberal mainline Methodist church. I knew that in spite of her liberal upbringing she was a regenerate Christian lady with a tender and submissive spirit. She earnestly desired to be instructed in the things of God and his word and I was most willing to oblige. She has never questioned my teaching as I patiently proved my doctrine from the Holy Scriptures. She was in a theologically vacuous environment and welcomed what I had to say with open arms. 

And so we've never argued doctrine. The girl raised in an historically Arminian, paedobaptist, Liberal, egalitarian, humanistic church is today a staunch Reformed Baptist (with everything that implies!). And thank God for her. 

What you have to discern is where this young lady is theologically. She may be like my wife was - no real theological understanding with a willingness to learn. But she may not be. She may have deep convictions that are at odds with your Reformed theology. In such a case, a romantic relationship may be unwise. So (1) what (if anything) does she believe about biblical doctrine and (2) what is her temperament and disposition to your leadership and teaching? 

If she doesn't have it all figured out, but genuinely accepts Scripture's authority and demonstrates a Christ-like and submissive spirit, then I would proceed in courting this young lady with all necessary caution and propriety.

P.S. For what it's worth Idelette Calvin had been an Anabaptist prior to marrying Calvin. She was recommended to Calvin by Martin Bucer after Calvin had asked his firends to find him a woman who was "chaste, obliging, not fastidious, economical, patient, and careful for (his) health" (Philip Schaff, _History of the Christian Church_, Vol. VIII).

Calvin's description of what he was looking for is perhaps a good place for you to start.


----------



## Zenas

elnwood said:


> I'm always amazed to find this attitude in the church when the bulk of the Biblical teaching we have on marriage is from Jesus and Paul, two unmarried men.



Who were divinely inspired. You forgot that part.

---------- Post added at 10:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:11 AM ----------




Unashamed 116 said:


> With all due respect, are single people less apt to judge these matters simply because we are single? I have seen hundreds of couples walk through my office for counseling. I think I have a pretty decent idea of how relationships work. I know I am not perfect and never will be but I have seen a lot of stuff and I know a little bit. Sorry if I and offended you, I just think your comments were out of line.



I do not intend to be insulting but I fear that I may read to be so. I merely want to convey that while you no doubt have an excellent grasp on theory, I doubt your experience with application. The best family advice I've recieved have been from men with families warning me from experience. The worst family advice I've received have been from single or very newly married men with no children who are going off of what they read somewhere in some pastor's book. 

I'm not saying you are necessarily the latter, you may have practical advice based on the number of people you've helped. Merely that skepticism toward you is, in my opinion, not unwarranted.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe

SolaScriptura said:


> Unashamed 116 said:
> 
> 
> 
> have seen hundreds of couples walk through my office for counseling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you been the one counseling them? Or have they been walking _through_ your office en route to the chaplain's?
Click to expand...

 
Sometimes the luxury of having separate offices isn't always necessary. I have been around when many of the "counselings" were happening.


----------



## elnwood

Andres said:


> Jesus was/is God. Paul was an Apostle teaching under the direct unction of God, the Holy Spirit. If you're ready to equate yourself or any of the other teachers around today with our Lord and the Apostle Paul, then by all means go ahead. I however, will not buy into the comparison.



None of us are divinely inspired to the point of infallibility such as the canonical authors. Yet, the same Holy Spirit that spoke through these authors is dwelling within us, and speaks to us and gives us wisdom.

If in God's perfect wisdom, he purposed to speak to issues of marriage in Scripture almost exclusively through unmarried men, then certainly God can and does speak wisdom about marriage through unmarried saints today.

I agree that married people generally have more experience in dealing with marriage relationships. All things equal, I'd go to an older, married elder to get marriage advice. However, experience does not necessarily give wisdom. Wisdom comes though the Holy Spirit. I'm simply pleading that you do not limit the operation of the Holy Spirit to speak wisdom about marriage exclusively through married people.


----------



## Andres

elnwood said:


> I agree that married people generally have more experience in dealing with marriage relationships. All things equal, I'd go to an older, married elder to get marriage advice.



This is exactly what I was expressing in my previous posts, so I don't know why you seem to be making such a big deal out of this. I never said single people had no wisdom, couldn't be used of God, or had nothing to offer in terms in advice.


----------



## alb1

First of all we don't need a photo of her, we need a good photo of you so we can better determine your dating / marraige chances in general.  Seriously you've gotten lots of advice on the PB, some good I believe, but the best advice will come from the Holy Spirit. I met my wife in church when I was not a professing believer. My wife's friends told her to not be interested in me because I would bring her down spiritually. She believed I was the one God wanted her to spend her life with so she patiently waited on God to change me before she seriously sought a lasting relationship. 

It's funny that a few weeks ago as I was teaching a Wednesday night class at our church on apologetics, my wife had a thought about her friends warning her 28 years ago that I would bring her down. (Just to clarify she doesn't think that I have). If you feel strongly about asking her out then do it and be alert to the Spirit's leading as you proceed in the relationship.

And a little coaching here, on the first date it is best to say "SInce we first talked I could not wait to see you again". Do not say " I really wanted to ask you out, and after posting on the Puritan Board whether I should or not, and getting x number of replies from my Calvinist geek friends, some who have actually been on dates and are married, I decided to ask you out."


----------



## elnwood

Andres said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that married people generally have more experience in dealing with marriage relationships. All things equal, I'd go to an older, married elder to get marriage advice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly what I was expressing in my previous posts, so I don't know why you seem to be making such a big deal out of this. I never said single people had no wisdom, couldn't be used of God, or had nothing to offer in terms in advice.
Click to expand...

 
Andrew, I think it was because of the "Funny how many of the 'go ahead and date her' advisors are single" statement. I'm sure in some ways it was just an observation, but boy, it certainly felt like an _ad hominem_ attack on the wisdom of single Christians.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe

alb1 said:


> And a little coaching here, on the first date it is best to say "SInce we first talked I could not wait to see you again". Do not say " I really wanted to ask you out, and after posting on the Puritan Board whether I should or not, and getting x number of replies from my Calvinist geek friends, some who have actually been on dates and are married, I decided to ask you out."


 
Best advice on this subject so far.

---------- Post added at 12:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:56 PM ----------




Andres said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that married people generally have more experience in dealing with marriage relationships. All things equal, I'd go to an older, married elder to get marriage advice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly what I was expressing in my previous posts, so I don't know why you seem to be making such a big deal out of this. I never said single people had no wisdom, couldn't be used of God, or had nothing to offer in terms in advice.
Click to expand...

 
I apologize. I misread your attitude that "these pithy single people are weighing in on this. who gave them such permission". I am sorry if I offended you or anyone else here.


----------



## Zenas

alb1 said:


> First of all we don't need a photo of her, we need a good photo of you so we can better determine your dating / marraige chances in general.  Seriously you've gotten lots of advice on the PB, some good I believe, but the best advice will come from the Holy Spirit. I met my wife in church when I was not a professing believer. My wife's friends told her to not be interested in me because I would bring her down spiritually. She believed I was the one God wanted her to spend her life with so she patiently waited on God to change me before she seriously sought a lasting relationship.
> 
> It's funny that a few weeks ago as I was teaching a Wednesday night class at our church on apologetics, my wife had a thought about her friends warning her 28 years ago that I would bring her down. (Just to clarify she doesn't think that I have). If you feel strongly about asking her out then do it and be alert to the Spirit's leading as you proceed in the relationship.



I came from a similar situation. When I met my wife, I was not a believer. I went and met her father to ask her out on a date. He said to her after I left, "What are you thinking? Never in a million years will I let you end up with that boy. You're wasting your time." 

He and I went to a baseball game on Monday with his youngest son and one of our friends.  His youngest son is like my own little brother. I think I've spent more time with him than one of his own brothers has. 

I say that to say this: I am the exception to the rule. Her father's reaction was correct, maybe not in its severity, but in its substance. He was right to react skeptically because the general rule is, it's a bad idea. I would never encourage a young lady to become romantically attracted to a nonbelieving young man like my wife did. She would 100% agree. Waiting around for someone else to change is a recipie for disaster, short of divine intervention. 

In your case, we're not talking about unequally yoking, as was the issue that was relevant in my circumstance. Nonetheless, difference in doctrine can, in practice, become just as divisive. Instead of being divided regarding whether to go to church, you're divided on where you'll be a member. In my estimation, it can be just as damaging. 

Do not bank on me, the exception to the rule. Even with God changing my heart and ultimately giving my wife and I each other, it was a lot harder than it would have been if she had chosen a fellow believer from the outset. Obviously, we do not regret this and obviously, we believe the costs were worth it. Do you?


----------



## Andres

Unashamed 116 said:


> alb1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And a little coaching here, on the first date it is best to say "SInce we first talked I could not wait to see you again". Do not say " I really wanted to ask you out, and after posting on the Puritan Board whether I should or not, and getting x number of replies from my Calvinist geek friends, some who have actually been on dates and are married, I decided to ask you out."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Best advice on this subject so far.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 12:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:56 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andres said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that married people generally have more experience in dealing with marriage relationships. All things equal, I'd go to an older, married elder to get marriage advice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is exactly what I was expressing in my previous posts, so I don't know why you seem to be making such a big deal out of this. I never said single people had no wisdom, couldn't be used of God, or had nothing to offer in terms in advice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I apologize. I misread your attitude that "these pithy single people are weighing in on this. who gave them such permission". I am sorry if I offended you or anyone else here.
Click to expand...

 
No offense taken by me. It's all good brother.


----------



## Iconoclast

Alb1,


You said;


> If you feel strongly about asking her out then do it and be alert to the Spirit's leading as you proceed in the relationship.



Could you clarify how that might look to HIM? Are you suggesting something like this?


> 13Behold, I stand here by the well of water; and the daughters of the men of the city come out to draw water:
> 
> 14And let it come to pass, that the damsel to whom I shall say, Let down thy pitcher, I pray thee, that I may drink; and she shall say, Drink, and I will give thy camels drink also: let the same be she that thou hast appointed for thy servant Isaac; and thereby shall I know that thou hast shewed kindness unto my master.
> 
> 15And it came to pass, before he had done speaking, that, behold, Rebekah came out, who was born to Bethuel, son of Milcah, the wife of Nahor, Abraham's brother, with her pitcher upon her shoulder.
> 
> 16And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up.
> 
> 17And the servant ran to meet her, and said, Let me, I pray thee, drink a little water of thy pitcher.
> 
> 18And she said, Drink, my lord: and she hasted, and let down her pitcher upon her hand, and gave him drink.
> 
> 19And when she had done giving him drink, she said, I will draw water for thy camels also, until they have done drinking.


----------



## Der Pilger

Unashamed 116 said:


> Der Pilger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unashamed 116 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is she a Christian? If yes, then she is dateable/marriable. The doctrinal issues may be a problem but as long as she is willing to submit and attend church with you then there is no problem. Her credo Baptist position is the only problem I see but that canm be talked about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree about nailing down the submission issue. That's a big deal, and biblical, too. The credo-baptist position doesn't bother me because I hold to the same position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My apologies. Your subscribed confession was the WCF so I assumed you were paedo.
Click to expand...



My subscribed confession is both the WCF and the 1689 LBC.

---------- Post added at 05:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:24 PM ----------




C. M. Sheffield said:


> What you have to discern is where this young lady is theologically. She may be like my wife was - no real theological understanding with a willingness to learn. But she may not be. She may have deep convictions that are at odds with your Reformed theology. In such a case, a romantic relationship may be unwise. So (1) what (if anything) does she believe about biblical doctrine and (2) what is her temperament and disposition to your leadership and teaching?



I agree. Since I don't know her very well, I'd have to find these things out. My impression is that she is firmly entrenched in her views because she has been going to her church for many years now and even attended the school there as a child. She also wrote something in her last e-mail to me that indicated a probable misunderstanding of Calvinism (though I don't think it would be ethical to copy her words here). None of that means she'd be unwilling to change, but it doesn't look promising.

Thanks, by the way, to everyone who has responded. I think a lot of good advice has been given. At this point I think it's wiser to err on the side of caution than to ignore these doctrinal differences, which represent massive differences in belief systems--differences that could cause major waves down the road. I'd rather stay single and lonely than to be stuck in a marriage filled with strife and conflict. I realize that won't necessarily happen, but I also realize the folly in assuming that it could not happen.

---------- Post added at 05:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:46 PM ----------




Afterthought said:


> Of course, a person's holiness also stems from doctrine due to the practical nature of Christian doctrine, but a person's holiness is also important even outside of its connection to true doctrine. As a Christian, it will only grieve you to see your spouse being unfaithful to Christ, and indeed, unfaithfulness to Christ is a good reason to suspect you did not "marry in the Lord." There is also the issue of kids again, what they will see in the home. Will they grow up saying, "Mom and dad always got into fights over silly issues. And they were extreme hypocrites, not living out what they claimed to believe."? I certainly hope not! Would you be willing to withold any true, reformed doctrine from your kids in order to keep the peace in the home? What if in giving your kids that doctrine it ended up lowering their esteem of their mother? Think of the sabbath issue again. I don't know where you stand on the issue, but if you taught the kids your opinion while their mother believed the opposite, their mother would appear to be a legalist or an antinomian in their eyes, unless of course their mother hid her views from them well enough. But anyway, such holiness should be what attracts one to a wife, I would think. 1 Tim. 2, 1 Peter 3.



Good thoughts, and thanks. I agree that the potential for conflict needs to be carefully considered.



> Once again, I am not advocating perfect agreement in everything, nor am I advocating waiting to see whether you are mostly agreed in doctrines of worship and salvation before dating, but a lot of these things can be figured out before then such that you can tell whether there is a general agreement or possibility of complete agreement (especially in the areas of salvation and portions of the area of worship), and I would not suggest dating someone who clearly would not or is not mostly agreed in those areas.



Again, I agree. My communication with her has been via e-mail only, and I'm using that to sort out these issues first in order to see if I want to proceed to the next step (i.e., meeting in person).



> Also, I highly suggest you remove that picture of her unless you had permission to post it. I do not know what she is like, but the girls that I know would not be happy if they found out someone did that to any of them.


 
That's not the girl I've been talking about. That's Jennifer Lopez.


----------



## Apologist4Him

C. M. Sheffield said:


> My wife was raised in the United Methodist Church. When I met her, she was active in her liberal mainline Methodist church. I knew that in spite of her liberal upbringing she was a regenerate Christian lady with a tender and submissive spirit. She earnestly desired to be instructed in the things of God and his word and I was most willing to oblige. She has never questioned my teaching as I patiently proved my doctrine from the Holy Scriptures. She was in a theologically vacuous environment and welcomed what I had to say with open arms.
> 
> And so we've never argued doctrine. The girl raised in an historically Arminian, paedobaptist, Liberal, egalitarian, humanistic church is today a staunch Reformed Baptist (with everything that implies!). And thank God for her. .


 
Your experiences have been very similar to mine with my wife. It is amazing what God can do. I can see where there might be an advantage to marrying a partner with the exact same beliefs, but this would still be no guarantee of significant problems down the road. Even Reformed couples can and do get divorced. And while it may be preferable, and an advantage, God may have something else in mind. I think the main concern, is whether or not a partner is teachable, and whether or not you can agree to disagree. It doesn't take much effort to see, that even among us Reformed folk, there is often some disagreement, even if it is over the smallest detail. Communication is extremely important, and how we go about communicating, and patience.

To the OP, I would date her, get to know her, spend some time with her, show her you are interested, and respect her even if you disagree, and give her room to disagree. If you lived where I do, finding a Reformed wife, would be like finding a needle in a haystack. I did not become Reformed overnight myself, it took a good deal of time among other things.


----------



## alb1

Iconoclast said:


> Alb1,
> 
> 
> You said;
> 
> 
> 
> If you feel strongly about asking her out then do it and be alert to the Spirit's leading as you proceed in the relationship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you clarify how that might look to HIM? Are you suggesting something like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 13Behold, I stand here by the well of water; and the daughters of the men of the city come out to draw water:
> 
> 14And let it come to pass, that the damsel to whom I shall say, Let down thy pitcher, I pray thee, that I may drink; and she shall say, Drink, and I will give thy camels drink also: let the same be she that thou hast appointed for thy servant Isaac; and thereby shall I know that thou hast shewed kindness unto my master.
> 
> 15And it came to pass, before he had done speaking, that, behold, Rebekah came out, who was born to Bethuel, son of Milcah, the wife of Nahor, Abraham's brother, with her pitcher upon her shoulder.
> 
> 16And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up.
> 
> 17And the servant ran to meet her, and said, Let me, I pray thee, drink a little water of thy pitcher.
> 
> 18And she said, Drink, my lord: and she hasted, and let down her pitcher upon her hand, and gave him drink.
> 
> 19And when she had done giving him drink, she said, I will draw water for thy camels also, until they have done drinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

 
I was thinking something more modern like the woman who offers him a cool drink and offers to fill up his gas tank when he shows up to pick her up with no a/c and the windows down in his car because he is low on fuel. She would be the one.


----------



## Der Pilger

alb1 said:


> First of all we don't need a photo of her, we need a good photo of you so we can better determine your dating / marraige chances in general.


----------



## christiana

Continue on with this plan only if a lifetime of arguing over election and the other four points of Calvinism sound like a happy home to you!


----------



## alb1

Der Pilger said:


> alb1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all we don't need a photo of her, we need a good photo of you so we can better determine your dating / marraige chances in general.
Click to expand...

 
Jeremy you are in luck. Trade in the suit for a light colored polo and khakis to soften up your look a little and you will do fine in the dating arena.

I see you decided to pass on the non calvinist lady. I will sincerely pray for you as you seek to find a like minded companion.


----------



## Der Pilger

alb1 said:


> Der Pilger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alb1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all we don't need a photo of her, we need a good photo of you so we can better determine your dating / marraige chances in general.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jeremy you are in luck. Trade in the suit for a light colored polo and khakis to soften up your look a little and you will do fine in the dating arena.
Click to expand...


Come on, undertakers always wear black!



> I see you decided to pass on the non calvinist lady. I will sincerely pray for you as you seek to find a like minded companion.



No, but I suspect she has passed on me.  Oh well, life goes on. Thanks for your prayers.


----------



## Mushroom

> If *you* were single and in my place, would *you* date her?


Nope. Not even if she were Calvinist but didn't share my view of the sacraments and covenant. And I will not permit my daughters to be courted (what's this 'dating' garbage? men and women are either pursuing marriage, or have no business engaging in that type of activity) by any man who does not agree fully with said views. I don't have that kind of biblical authority over my son, but my counsel to him will be the same. While in PB discourse civility is the standard, one who holds to the WCF will consider credo-baptistic views to be sinful. Why would I want my children yoked with an openly sinful professor?


----------



## Der Pilger

Brad said:


> While in PB discourse civility is the standard, one who holds to the WCF will consider credo-baptistic views to be sinful. Why would I want my children yoked with an openly sinful professor?


 
Interesting. One can only conclude, then, that you consider the paedobaptistic view to be a required basis for fellowship (since you see anyone who holds to the "other" view as being openly sinful).


----------



## Mushroom

I and my confession. I do make a distinction between contumacy and ignorance, however, and extend charity accordingly.


----------



## Pilgrim

Der Pilger said:


> My subscribed confession is both the WCF and the 1689 LBC.



With regard to subscribing to both, see here: http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/can-one-hold-both-wcf-lbcf-67946/

You can hold to one or the other or neither, but you cannot hold to both. Have you read both confessions clearly, brother? You can view a side by side comparison here. If you read them both, I think you'll see that you can't hold to both.


----------



## but3leftsdo

My wife was raised Wesleyan, so it took her a little longer to come around than me. Did she love the Lord when we were dating? Youbetcha. She was raised a Wycliffe Missionary Kid, and saw first hand what God could do, and has a servant's heart. She is a Godly woman who loves God and His word, and is raising our children to do the same. I'm with *Iconoclast*, I say spend some time in the word and prayer with her first, then you will both get to know where each other are spiritually, then take it from there.


----------



## Der Pilger

Pilgrim said:


> Der Pilger said:
> 
> 
> 
> My subscribed confession is both the WCF and the 1689 LBC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With regard to subscribing to both, see here: http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/can-one-hold-both-wcf-lbcf-67946/
> 
> You can hold to one or the other or neither, but you cannot hold to both.
Click to expand...


This goes beyond the scope of this thread, but briefly: You can hold to both, but not both in their entirety. I reject the paedobaptism of the WCF, for example, but not everything it teaches. Rejecting one teaching out of an entire confession does not mean one rejects the whole document. I don't see this as an either/or issue.


----------



## matthew11v25

My Story:
My wife was not a calvinist when we married, and in hindsight I would say it worked out great and made for a great journey between the two of us. My wife is/was a very Godly woman, and eventhough she was not informed on the details of Reformed theology when we got married, I believe that her lack of understanding/acceptance of certain theological issues did not detract in the slightest from her being a wonderful wife and mother... 

She trusts me, God's Word, His Church, and Her Ministers, and now she is very comfortable with Calvinism.

All this takes time! We did not discuss the details of Calvinism until we were about five months in our relationship. There are still things that we do not agree on, but we also try to have discussions in a way that doesnt lead to "Bad" arguments (not easy). Probably the most heated issue between us currently is what constitutes a break of the 2nd Commandment. She was raised in a Roman Catholic family so they are very comfortable with pics of Jesus. The easiest issue was probably Infant Baptism 

Everyone is different, but I like it this way. A little disagreement only adds to the fun In my humble opinion.


----------



## Gavin

Hi Jeremy,
Meanwhile back at the ranch: I'm thinking of dating a Calvinist what do you all think?" To which the congregation all said "no way drop him".
But if you both have feelings (yes emotions) both sides might very well be kicking against the pricks.
Im Calvinist, my wife is halfway there exept on the point of free will, been married for almost 20years now.


----------



## ryanhamre

I am blessed with a wife who readily submits to scripture, and reformed doctrines.

With this, I greatly lucked out, since it wasn't until after we were married that God saved me.

I could not imagine having my best friend not have the same doctrinal beliefs, and be of the same mind.

I would not date a non-Calvinist for the same reason I would not marry one, for the same reasons I wouldn't go to a non-reformed church, and for the same reasons I feel closer to our church body than my own brothers, sister, and parents.


----------



## tlharvey7

the real question is... can God in His soverignty ordain a marriage with a "non-calvinist"? i would think and hope so.

don't forget.... non of us here were born 5 pointers!


----------



## J. Dean

elnwood said:


> I'm always amazed to find this attitude in the church when the bulk of the Biblical teaching we have on marriage is from Jesus and Paul, two unmarried men.


 
Well, one is the Son of God Himself, and the other was writing under direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit.


----------



## ryanhamre

tlharvey7 said:


> the real question is... can God in His soverignty ordain a marriage with a "non-calvinist"? i would think and hope so.
> 
> don't forget.... non of us here were born 5 pointers!


the real question is... can God in His soverignty ordain a marriage with an "unbeliever"? i would think and hope so.

don't forget.... non of us here were born believers!


----------



## Andres

ryanhamre said:


> the real question is... can God in His soverignty ordain a marriage with an "unbeliever"? i would think and hope so.



Since this entire discussion revolves around a Reformed Christian courting a spouse, I am going to assume that is what you are referring to above. In that case, the scriptures actually expressly forbid a Christian from marrying an unbeliever, so I'm not sure why you would hope this would be the case.


----------



## ryanhamre

Andres said:


> Since this entire discussion revolves around a Reformed Christian courting a spouse, I am going to assume that is what you are referring to above. In that case, the scriptures actually expressly forbid a Christian from marrying an unbeliever, so I'm not sure why you would hope this would be the case.



I was replying to the individual who posted the exact same message, but instead of unbeliever had "non-calvinist" and "5 pointer". The view lacked support, and it would appear that the same argument that was given could be given for marrying an unbeliever.

I do not espouse either view, and as seen in my post above-



ryanhamre said:


> I would not date a non-Calvinist for the same reason I would not marry one, for the same reasons I wouldn't go to a non-reformed church, and for the same reasons I feel closer to our church body than my own brothers, sister, and parents.


----------



## Mushroom

God in His decree has ordained the union of many believers to unbelievers, many calvinists to non-calvinists, & etc., but as Rich stated in another thread, we live not by the decree but by the things revealed. I would have claimed to be a believer, although one in grievous rebellion, when I married my then-unbelieving wife. God in His grace ordained that she would be brought to faith, and transformed into such a godly woman that she puts me to shame. But now that He has granted us a further understanding, we would never counsel another Christian to do the same, nor even a calvinist to marry a non-calvinist.

But God's grace is immeasurable.


----------



## Calvin87

I am dating a girl who is what my best friends call a "semi-Calvinist". And I have to admit...it's been hard at times. She used to be a baptist. And when we started dating, I had no idea that she felt as if the Lord and herself literally had verbal conversations. It's been difficult at times. But the longer we have dated, the more I have asserted that we have to be on the same page, that is if we wish to get married. There have been several severe arguments over doctrine and theology. Had I known that it would have been such a struggle, I might have waited until a more reformed woman came along.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Calvin87 said:


> Had I known that it would have been such a struggle, I might have waited until a more reformed woman came along.



You could always dump her.


----------



## Pilgrim

View attachment 2071


----------



## SolaScriptura

Calvin87 said:


> I am dating a girl who is what my best friends call a "semi-Calvinist". And I have to admit...it's been hard at times. She used to be a baptist. And when we started dating, I had no idea that she felt as if the Lord and herself literally had verbal conversations. It's been difficult at times. But the longer we have dated, the more I have asserted that we have to be on the same page, that is if we wish to get married. There have been several severe arguments over doctrine and theology. Had I known that it would have been such a struggle, I might have waited until a more reformed woman came along.


 
Huh? You're not married, you're dating... and you're acting like you're stuck for life? Gimme a break, man.


----------



## Andres

Chaplainintraining said:


> Calvin87 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Had I known that it would have been such a struggle, I might have waited until a more reformed woman came along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You could always dump her.
Click to expand...

 


SolaScriptura said:


> Calvin87 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am dating a girl who is what my best friends call a "semi-Calvinist". And I have to admit...it's been hard at times. She used to be a baptist. And when we started dating, I had no idea that she felt as if the Lord and herself literally had verbal conversations. It's been difficult at times. But the longer we have dated, the more I have asserted that we have to be on the same page, that is if we wish to get married. There have been several severe arguments over doctrine and theology. Had I known that it would have been such a struggle, I might have waited until a more reformed woman came along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? You're not married, you're dating... and you're acting like you're stuck for life? Gimme a break, man.
Click to expand...

 
Listen to these two men.


----------



## SolaScriptura

See, having been married for over 14 years... knowing what I do (now) about myself in relationship and what I find easier to deal with and all that, my priority wouldn't necessarily be on a woman being in total lock-step with me theologically. What is most important to me (functionally) is that 1) she be absolutely and unequivocally committed to our relationship and 2) that she be equally committed to me being the head of the family.

With those things in place, the other issues sort of take care of themselves.


----------



## JennyG

SolaScriptura said:


> Originally Posted by Calvin87
> I am dating a girl who is what my best friends call a "semi-Calvinist". And I have to admit...it's been hard at times. She used to be a baptist. And when we started dating, I had no idea that she felt as if the Lord and herself literally had verbal conversations. It's been difficult at times. But the longer we have dated, the more I have asserted that we have to be on the same page, that is if we wish to get married. There have been several severe arguments over doctrine and theology. Had I known that it would have been such a struggle, I might have waited until a more reformed woman came along.
> Huh? You're not married, you're dating... and you're acting like you're stuck for life? Gimme a break, man.



be fair - wasn't Calvin right in treating the relationship that seriously? Would it have been better to start dating on the assumption that it was probably a temporary relationship that could be broken off any time?


----------



## SolaScriptura

JennyG said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by Calvin87
> I am dating a girl who is what my best friends call a "semi-Calvinist". And I have to admit...it's been hard at times. She used to be a baptist. And when we started dating, I had no idea that she felt as if the Lord and herself literally had verbal conversations. It's been difficult at times. But the longer we have dated, the more I have asserted that we have to be on the same page, that is if we wish to get married. There have been several severe arguments over doctrine and theology. Had I known that it would have been such a struggle, I might have waited until a more reformed woman came along.
> Huh? You're not married, you're dating... and you're acting like you're stuck for life? Gimme a break, man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> be fair - wasn't Calvin right in treating the relationship that seriously? Would it have been better to start dating on the assumption that it was probably a temporary relationship that could be broken off any time?
Click to expand...

 
Jenny - the point of dating (or courting, for that matter) is to identify a suitable marriage partner. Implicit within that idea is the assumption that if during this "research and discovery" phase things about the other person come to light that give one pause... then the relationship can be called off no harm no foul. So yes, it IS a temporary relationship that can be broken off any time, for any reason. Recognizing that there is a difference between dating/courting and marriage in terms of permanence does not make one a cad. So NO. I do NOT think he is right in treating a dating relationship as seriously as he has. Proceeding in the face of these kinds of warning signs would be like proceeding down a road despite "WARNING: Bridge out!" signs and flashing lights.


----------



## Pilgrim

Andres said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calvin87 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Had I known that it would have been such a struggle, I might have waited until a more reformed woman came along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You could always dump her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calvin87 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am dating a girl who is what my best friends call a "semi-Calvinist". And I have to admit...it's been hard at times. She used to be a baptist. And when we started dating, I had no idea that she felt as if the Lord and herself literally had verbal conversations. It's been difficult at times. But the longer we have dated, the more I have asserted that we have to be on the same page, that is if we wish to get married. There have been several severe arguments over doctrine and theology. Had I known that it would have been such a struggle, I might have waited until a more reformed woman came along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh? You're not married, you're dating... and you're acting like you're stuck for life? Gimme a break, man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen to these two men.
Click to expand...


Also consider this: 

*Westminster Larger Catechism Question 139: What are the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment?*

I won't copy the whole answer, but it includes "*entangling vows of single life*" and "*undue delay of marriage*."

I'm not exactly sure what the Assembly meant by "entangling vows of single life" but I'm guessing it may apply in this case. With very little hesitation I assert that dating for 2 years apparently without even getting engaged, much less married, constitutes "undue delay of marriage." Such undue delay opens the door for temptation to commit other sins prohibited by the seventh commandment. 

The Westminster Standards are not scripture and as a Baptist, I don't subscribe to them. But in the case of what I posted above, I think it's very good advice.

If the delay has to do with waiting before one or the other of you finishes school, that isn't a good reason to delay marriage, in my opinion. 

It sounds like the bigger issue is that you are still not on the same page doctrinally. That being the case, after this amount of time it appears that what you are doing is a form of evangelistic dating. It's not the same as dating a non-Christian, but waiting until you are likeminded doctrinally really isn't that different. 

I've been in your shoes as well, and I made the hurdle out to be much higher than it actually was. My wife is from a charismatic background. We broke off our relationship at one point because I decided our differences were irreconcilable in the short term, even though she had come to realize some of the problems with the teaching and practice she had been under while growing up. But later I realized that I hadn't spent enough time explaining why I believed what I believed. Once I did that about a year later, I realized that she was much more amenable to following my lead than I had first imagined. 

Is your girlfriend teachable? Is she willing to follow your lead? After this amount of time, if that's not the case, you should think seriously about breaking off the relationship even though it will cause some pain after all this time. But that's better than severe arguments after getting married over doctrinal issues, where to go to church, how to raise the children, etc. It's difficult to give advice over a message board since we can't know all the facts. But based on what you've posted so far, if you are still liable to having "severe arguments" over doctrinal and theological issues, breaking things off is probably the the best thing to do at this point. If the differences still appear to be irreconcilable at this point, you are not honoring her by remaining entangled in this way. 

If the hang-up at this point is baptism, Of course I think you ought to be a Baptist, but I'm guessing you don't agree.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Pilgrim said:


> I'm not exactly sure what the Assembly meant by "entangling vows of single life" but I'm guessing it may apply in this case. With very little hesitation I assert that dating for 2 years apparently without even getting engaged, much less married, constitutes "undue delay of marriage." Such undue delay opens the door for temptation to commit other sins prohibited by the seventh commandment.



Not necessarily. My wife and I dated for six years because I was in school and unable to properly provide for her. I am not advocating that everyone should date for multiple years, but showing that a delay may not be "undue."


----------



## Pilgrim

Chaplainintraining said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not exactly sure what the Assembly meant by "entangling vows of single life" but I'm guessing it may apply in this case. With very little hesitation I assert that dating for 2 years apparently without even getting engaged, much less married, constitutes "undue delay of marriage." Such undue delay opens the door for temptation to commit other sins prohibited by the seventh commandment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily. My wife and I dated for six years because I was in school and unable to properly provide for her. I am not advocating that everyone should date for multiple years, but showing that a delay may not be "undue."
Click to expand...


I am glad it has worked out in your case. In my case I do think there was an undue delay. We were out of school. We were both basically flat broke, but in retrospect we probably would have been a little less broke had we gotten married than remaining single. That consideration was one reason why I didn't more thoroughly discuss doctrinal issues. 

I also should have been proactive in getting her father involved, as was discussed in another thread. Approaching the father and letting him know of your intentions provides a level of accountability if he cares for his daughter in the slightest, whether or not he favors courtship. Getting the pastor or elders involved is a good idea as well. Good ones will take notice and will say something whether you approach them or not. It was the "Reformed-Charismatic" pastor of the EPC church we attended is who pointed out the "undue delay of marriage" clause to me. 

I'd think that at the time of the Westminster Assembly and for a good while afterwards that courtship typically would not have been countenanced had the suitor been judged incapable of providing for a wife and children. It appears that the modern practice of dating may have largely originated with the advent of the automobile. That's not to say that dating is necessarily sinful, but that it is a recent phenomenon that would likely have been considered to be an appearance of impropriety prior to the 20th Century.


----------



## Edward

Pilgrim said:


> I'm not exactly sure what the Assembly meant by "entangling vows of single life"



My recollection is that they had Popish priestly vows of celibacy in view here.


----------



## Esther W.

*
*

*Seriously this is the best most succinct and refreshing book on dating and even good for renewing your marriage. As a reformed Christian myself, I highly recommend it.
*

*
*

*Holding Hands, Holding Hearts: Recovering a Biblical View of Christian Dating*

*Richard D. Phillips and Sharon L. Phillips 
*

*Description*: What does the Bible say about dating? Nothing. And Everything! This book offers a biblical view of relationships and provides insight on issues of commitment, attraction, and more.

When you date someone, you’re more than just holding another’s hands; you’re holding that person’s heart. "Rick and Sharon Phillips first set forth a careful biblical theology of dating and relationships, and then offer their mature wisdom on how to put the biblical principles into practice. The result is required reading for every single adult, for which the entire church can be deeply grateful." 
*Justin Taylor
* _"Finally, someone has provided biblically based, theologically sound, and practical guidelines on dating for singles. Rick and Sharon Phillips provide clear thinking which is realistic, encouraging, and hopeful while including appropriate cautions. They address the significant questions on the minds of singles, giving answers that flow from biblical principles."_ 
​ *Dan Zink, Covenant Theological Seminary
* _"Many single adults today are confused, disoriented and frustrated with the dating scene. This terrific book brings clarity, a biblical orientation, and lots of hope." 
_


*John Yenchko, Co-author, Pre-Engagement: 5 Questions to Ask Yourselves
* _"As a biblical marriage counselor I have often been involved in helping married people resolve many distressing and difficult that they encounter in their relationship. As I’ve done this counseling, I have frequently thought that many of the problems these couples were facing after the wedding could have been prevented if they had acted more wisely prior to the wedding. If singles will read and apply the biblical counsel of this book, many of the painful problems that couples might face after the wedding will be prevented." _
​ *Wayne A. Mack, author, Strengthening Your Marriage
* _"This book is for people who want to take relationships as seriously as God takes them. Rick and Sharon Phillips have a passion for redeeming romance and preparing both singles and couples for lives that glorify God. In this no-nonsense guide they take a marriage-based approach that honors the divinely-designed differences between women and men. In biblical, practical, down-to-earth ways the Phillips’s show how relationships go wrong and how, by grace, love is really supposed to work." _
*
Phil and Lisa Ryken, Tenth Presbyterian Church
* _"Rick and Sharon Phillips met at a church singles group and were married twenty months later. After answering God’s call to enter the ministry, Rick served as the pastor to the singles ministry in which they had met. Through their shared ministry to singles, they perceived a great need for clear biblical teaching on dating and singleness. The fruit of their ministry and of their love for singles is found in the pages of this book. They are now the parents of five children and live in South Florida, where Rick is senior minister of First Presbyterian Church of Coral Springs/Margate, FL. He is co-editor of the Reformed Expository Commentary and is the author of numerous books on the Bible and Christian living, several of which feature discussion questions written by Sharon."_​


----------



## athanatos

Der Pilger said:


> Thanks, by the way, to everyone who has responded. I think a lot of good advice has been given. At this point I think it's wiser to err on the side of caution than to ignore these doctrinal differences, which represent massive differences in belief systems--differences that could cause major waves down the road. I'd rather stay single and lonely than to be stuck in a marriage filled with strife and conflict. I realize that won't necessarily happen, but I also realize the folly in assuming that it could not happen.



It depends on how strongly you both feel about it. If it is something where you can't attend the same church, problem. If it is where you can happily serve God in obedience, love, unity and faith, then awesome. Sometimes these things don't matter provided you live redeemed and in humility. If you really feel the need to pass over her, I'm sorry it isn't reconcilable. That takes maturity to say no, rather than fall into lust and idolatry (she saving you from loneliness). It could also take maturity to work through her tough theological struggles and care for her along the way, rather than cop out and take the easy way out.

As Jack K said, it is more important that she will live_ functionally_ as a Calvinist, even if her subscriptions and attendance would suggest otherwise.

I would also echo what others have said about teachability. My girlfriend was a Dispensational (for lack of examination) and through our conversations, she's now Classical Pre-Mil and investigating Covenantal theology with me.


----------



## kvanlaan

> See, having been married for over 14 years... knowing what I do (now) about myself in relationship and what I find easier to deal with and all that, my priority wouldn't necessarily be on a woman being in total lock-step with me theologically. What is most important to me (functionally) is that 1) she be absolutely and unequivocally committed to our relationship and 2) that she be equally committed to me being the head of the family.
> 
> With those things in place, the other issues sort of take care of themselves.



Yep, yep, yep. My wife and I were both a little off the reservation when we got married, and I had been raised CRC while she had been raised non-denom/charismatic/baptist BUT she was committed to a biblical family model and her own family was structured in the same way. It has worked by God's grace, and only that.


----------



## ryanhamre

W.c.f. 24.3-



> it is lawful for all sorts of people to marry, who are able with judgment to give their consent. Yet it is the duty of christians to marry only in the lord. And therefore such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, papists, or other idolaters: Neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or maintain damnable heresies.


----------

