Dating/marrying a non-Calvinist?

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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 ----------

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.

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

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]

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]

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]

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

Yes.

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]

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

Yes.

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.

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]

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

Hmm.

 

[Reformed Thomist]

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

Yes.

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.

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]

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]

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

Yes.

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.

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?

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]

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

Yes.

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.

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]

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 ----------

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]

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?

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

 

[elnwood]

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]

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]

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.

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.