Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If these are the only three things you don't have the same understanding of, you indeed have something rare.
While I would not want to dissuade any convictions on these, they ought not be "deal breakers" for relationship. Not that God might not provide someone will all three of these convictions, but it would be, realistically, very rare.
The idea is to not "scare off" the woman, but to still be clear about the positions that are taken. And to be clear how the future/potential family will be led.
Also, again not trying to dissuade conviction, but there are a whole lot of things before these kinds of things to look for in a spouse; nor would I condition marriage on these sorts of things.
But then I ask, where did you meet this woman and why would you be courting her?
Knowing the "type" of man who would have these views... and the ethos that typically surrounds such a fellow... I find it hard to believe that such a man would serious consider marrying a woman who didn't hold to those views. Unless, of course, he was just desperate.
Let me add that when I speak of the "ethos" that often accompanies adherance to at least the first two items on this list - particularly when these things are held at the same time - I mean that negatively.
I would strongly discourage my daughter from getting involved with such a man... or my sons from being with such a woman.
Sorry I was thinking I was replying to Tim in the last one
So Tim is this totally hypothetical or are you using us here to help you get prepared??
Anyone in mind?
2.)Are you a Democrate
Tim if the woman is not hardened but merely ignorant of these beliefs, then this is an opportunity to teach her and strengthen her in the faith.
(And let me tell you this... one thing you will need to find a way to 'celebrate' is your wedding anniversary and her birthday).
Holidays, headcoverings and EP are issues that are minor, but as has been said, they are a matter of practice, but they do affect who a husband and wife live and raise children together. If these issues are that important to you, then I would not get involved with a woman who does not agree with you already, and I wouldn't spend a lot of time trying to persuade her to think like you do.
Getting someone to change their beliefs for your sake is a recipe for disaster. I'd look for someone who already agrees with you.
Holidays, headcoverings and EP are issues that are minor, but as has been said, they are a matter of practice, but they do affect who a husband and wife live and raise children together. If these issues are that important to you, then I would not get involved with a woman who does not agree with you already, and I wouldn't spend a lot of time trying to persuade her to think like you do.
Getting someone to change their beliefs for your sake is a recipe for disaster. I'd look for someone who already agrees with you.
You're correct. But I think we have to be careful to not measure our spouses or future potential spouses by "our standard", that is Me-ism. No one can be you but yourself. Sure they are non negotiables i.e Calvinism/Doctrines of Grace etc. I would say that if a girl is solidly Reformed and willing to submit to the headship of a Christian man, things such as EP and Head coverings can be worked out. And usually when push comes to good Christian folks are willing to drop the frivolous traditions of Christmas, Easter etc.Tim if the woman is not hardened but merely ignorant of these beliefs, then this is an opportunity to teach her and strengthen her in the faith.
I think we would all agree that this would usually be the case today. It's more likely that people on this board would have taken a good hard look at EP or headcoverings or holy-days, but I would think that most people in reformed churches have not.
Knowing the "type" of man who would have these views... and the ethos that typically surrounds such a fellow... I find it hard to believe that such a man would serious consider marrying a woman who didn't hold to those views. Unless, of course, he was just desperate.
Let me add that when I speak of the "ethos" that often accompanies adherance to at least the first two items on this list - particularly when these things are held at the same time - I mean that negatively.
I would strongly discourage my daughter from getting involved with such a man... or my sons from being with such a woman.
I disagree that holidays, headcoverings, and ep are minor issues though. Certainly some people may see them as "minor," but I think you'd find a lot of people who find them very important (myself included). Even if the issues themselves might seem small, often the underlying thought and reasoning for holding to those practices is a big issue. For me, for instance, even though I disagree with the practice of headcovering, the bigger issue is the line of thought that gets a person to practice headcovering. That, I think, is where I would have the bigger problem. - I hope that makes sense... I'm having trouble verbalizing it...
I disagree that holidays, headcoverings, and ep are minor issues though. Certainly some people may see them as "minor," but I think you'd find a lot of people who find them very important (myself included). Even if the issues themselves might seem small, often the underlying thought and reasoning for holding to those practices is a big issue. For me, for instance, even though I disagree with the practice of headcovering, the bigger issue is the line of thought that gets a person to practice headcovering. That, I think, is where I would have the bigger problem. - I hope that makes sense... I'm having trouble verbalizing it...
I appreciate your clarification, and I do understand what you mean. Perhaps a better way to express it would be that they are not matters of salvation. If a person does not hold to head coverings or EP or celebrating Christmas and Easter, they will not go to hell. And you are right, they are major issues in the lives of those who hold them.
I hope none of us are implying it is odd or very unimportant to believe in:
1) exclusive psalmody
2) women headcoverings
3) non-marking of holy-days
While some of these seem new to us in this generation, they all have, at least arguably, a biblical foundation and were practiced by at least some of the Puritans.
Blessings and charity to all, especially those of the household of faith
Umm, yes. That is, more-or-less, what I was trying to convey.
Not one of these views has anywhere near a 10% minority within conservative reformed & presbyterian denominations. Now they may be the correct view. Not my point to argue that here, but by any meaningfull standard they are "odd" & "minor". QED.
I hope none of us are implying it is odd or very unimportant to believe in:
1) exclusive psalmody
2) women headcoverings
3) non-marking of holy-days
While some of these seem new to us in this generation, they all have, at least arguably, a biblical foundation and were practiced by at least some of the Puritans.
Blessings and charity to all, especially those of the household of faith
Umm, yes. That is, more-or-less, what I was trying to convey.
Not one of these views has anywhere near a 10% minority within conservative reformed & presbyterian denominations. Now they may be the correct view. Not my point to argue that here, but by any meaningfull standard they are "odd" & "minor". QED.
I hope none of us are implying it is odd or very unimportant to believe in:
1) exclusive psalmody
2) women headcoverings
3) non-marking of holy-days
While some of these seem new to us in this generation, they all have, at least arguably, a biblical foundation and were practiced by at least some of the Puritans.
Blessings and charity to all, especially those of the household of faith
Umm, yes. That is, more-or-less, what I was trying to convey.
Not one of these views has anywhere near a 10% minority within conservative reformed & presbyterian denominations. Now they may be the correct view. Not my point to argue that here, but by any meaningfull standard they are "odd" & "minor". QED.
And again I state that if the man is that determined to hold these beliefs, he is best off finding a wife who agrees with them.
I agree as well. A man holding to these views would be wise to attend a church that teaches this so he could meet women there who already have those beliefs. I'll have to say that I've never met anyone who held to these beliefs in the three PCA and ARP churches we've attended. I thought churches that used the red Trinity Hymnal were the most conservative around here because many use contemporary music!
So if you had met your husband and he held to any of these things would that have been a deal breaker and you would have dropped him, rather than submit to it until he could explain it to you so it made sense?
You wouldn't have married anyone if you were born 2 00 years ago when almost all held this?
Jus hypotheticing here
I agree as well. A man holding to these views would be wise to attend a church that teaches this so he could meet women there who already have those beliefs. I'll have to say that I've never met anyone who held to these beliefs in the three PCA and ARP churches we've attended. I thought churches that used the red Trinity Hymnal were the most conservative around here because many use contemporary music!
So if you had met your husband and he held to any of these things would that have been a deal breaker and you would have dropped him, rather than submit to it until he could explain it to you so it made sense?
You wouldn't have married anyone if you were born 2 00 years ago when almost all held this?
Jus hypotheticing here
I think that Presbyterians celebrating Christmas was a relatively late practice, not until the waning days of the 19th century: Eldrbarry's Reformation Class: Father Christmas and Mr. Grinch
Likewise, it appears that the headcovering issue has been around for *awhile* -- The Sisters' Prayer Covering. It was certainly not unknown among the early Reformers.
Just my worth; carry on...
Margaret
2. A wife who is willing to submit;
3. The wife will probably have to move toward the husband, rather than the husband toward the wife, since it is the husband who must lead;*KEY FOR THIS DISCUSSION
satz
As I tried to explain in my first post, these issues reflect how a person interprets the bible. Even if physical compliance is a small thing for a wife, there will be a distance between them because they read the bible - the basis of all truth - differently. A wife only knows she has to submit to her husband in the first place because of the bible. How can two walk together unless they are agreed?
2. A wife who is willing to submit;
3. The wife will probably have to move toward the husband, rather than the husband toward the wife, since it is the husband who must lead;*KEY FOR THIS DISCUSSION
I don't know if I agree.
To use one of the examples - whether or not EP is scriptural is a matter of fact that has been set by God. Hence, a wife's submission has nothing to do with her beliefs. Her beliefs should be determined by what God has revealed in the bible. She cannot, and should not, change what she believes in -whatever that position maybe- to accommodate her husband.
Now, if she does not believe in EP, she can physically submit to the practice of her husband, after all even if you are not EP, to practice EP is not sin (of course if she is already married she must submit). However, this to me is still far from an ideal situation.
As I tried to explain in my first post, these issues reflect how a person interprets the bible. Even if physical compliance is a small thing for a wife, there will be a distance between them because they read the bible - the basis of all truth - differently. A wife only knows she has to submit to her husband in the first place because of the bible. How can two walk together unless they are agreed?
I am not saying it cannot work, and I am sure it people have made it work. But I still believe the solution is to be upfront about such differences and work them out prior to marriage, or even courtship. I don't believe that the wife's submission is the answer to this dilemma.