Dating/marrying a non-Calvinist?

[Andres]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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?

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]

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.

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.

Listen to these two men.

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]

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]

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."

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]

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]

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.