Should a Christian Date A Non-Christian?

[DTate98]

Somebody here just gave you the advice (without scriptural justification) to "follow your heart".

i would plead that you DO NOT take that advice.

Here's what the scriptures say about your heart and mine...

9)The heart is deceitfull and wicked aboue all things, who can knowe it?
10)I the Lord search the heart, and try ye reines, euen to giue euery man according to his wayes, and according to the fruite of his workes.
Jeremiah 17:9 1599 Geneva Bible.​

God through His word has already spoken on this subject. He tells us to not be unequally yoked.

14)Be not vnequally yoked with the infidels: for what fellowship hath righteousnesse with vnrighteousnesse? and what communion hath light with darkenesse?

15)And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath the beleeuer with the infidell?

16)And what agreement hath the Temple of God with idols? for ye are the Temple of the liuing God: as God hath said, I will dwell among them, and walke there: and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

17)Wherefore come out from among them, and separate your selues, saith the Lord, and touch none vncleane thing, and I wil receiue you.

18)And I will be a Father vnto you, and ye shalbe my sonnes and daughters, saith the Lord almightie.
II Corinthians 6:14-18 1599 Geneva Bible
​

Dating is for the intention of marriage, which is a covenant relationship with another persons (see Ephesians 5). Being in covenant relationship with an unbeliever is the last thing you want to do with yourself. Mankind is by nature covenant breakers. That is the testimony of Scripture.

Thanks. I would have said that instead of listening to my heart, rather, I should listen to God. Also, I'm not familiar with the 1599 Geneva Bible. Is it the version Presbyterian churches use, or just a personal preference?

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

Thanks. I would have said that instead of listening to my heart, rather, I should listen to God. Also, I'm not familiar with the 1599 Geneva Bible. Is it the version Presbyterian churches use, or just a personal preference?

The 1599 Geneva Bible was the first English Translation to use verse numbers. It is the version that was first carried to the shores of this Continent, and the version that the Puritans used. It is the version that Jonathan Edwards preached from. There are spelling differences as is apparent from my citation. The King James Version was translated later from roughly the same Greek Manuscripts. However, the English was selected so as to confound the Puritan influence in Britain. So the King James uses a lot of terms that would be more familiar to somebody from the Church of England.

Yes, lots of Calvinists used it in the early days. Now we seem to favour the English Standard Version. To be certain though, the 1599 Geneva is enjoying a bit of a resurgence. Granted it is more difficult to read and uses archaic terms. If one is going to use it, i would recommend that he or she has a copy of the Oxford English Dictionary on hand.

 

[The Cadet]

There are plenty of other ways to understand the world besides empirical science.

There are plenty of faculties to be harnessed besides critical thinking.

Really? You mean there are reliable epistemologies other than empiricism? Let's hear about them!

To decide for a child that one particular way of functioning and understanding the world is a must and to therefore purposefully make it central in his/her upbringing is a form of indoctrination, in my view.

Why shouldn't we privilege scientific empiricism and critical thinking? This is the epistemology that has built our modern world, and there is no way of viewing the world that is more inherently useful.

What would making children aware of intuition be called? If making them aware of intuition is also education, why is critical thinking being emphasized?

What would teaching children to understand aesthetics be called? If teaching them to understand aesthetics is also education, why the emphasis on science?

Intuition is very often wrong. Going by your gut can very often lead to serious errors in judgment, and as such really should not be encouraged, so much as trying to understand the situation and reach reasoned conclusions based on the evidence. There is simply no reason to privilege intuition like that. Aesthetics is nice to have to easily something one can develop on their own with no need for instruction, and it's important to remember that what is beautiful is not necessarily right.

Postmodernism is fundamentally a terrible way of assessing the truth. Science works. Intuition and aestheticism don't.

Also, the bible has relationship advice. It's basically the right and wrongs of a Christian relationship.

It contains advice on what to do to do right by God, but from my experience, it isn't always the greatest advice when it comes to being a good spouse and having good interpersonal relationships. Then again, I'm horribly sexually immoral, so...

 

[dysert]

Follow your heart.

Bad advice...
Jer 17:9-> "The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?"

 

[Dave-W]

Good grief! In 2016??

What does that have to do with anything? Biblical standards are the same no matter what year you live in.

 

[Dave-W]

"critical thinking" is not a doctrine.

A doctrine is something that is TAUGHT. Since there are college courses on that subject, it certainly IS a doctrine.

 

[SteveB28]

What does that have to do with anything? Biblical standards are the same no matter what year you live in.

And whenever it has been expedient for Christians, those "biblical standards" have been shown the door!

I have lived through an era in which, if a Protestant wished to marry a Catholic, the Catholic Church would refuse to do the marriage in front of the altar - it would only be done 'at the side', due to "biblical standards".

It used to be against the law for blacks and whites to marry, due to "biblical standards".

 

[dysert]

And whenever it has been expedient for Christians, those "biblical standards" have been shown the door!

I have lived through an era in which, if a Protestant wished to marry a Catholic, the Catholic Church would refuse to do the marriage in front of the altar - it would only be done 'at the side', due to "biblical standards".

It used to be against the law for blacks and whites to marry, due to "biblical standards".

These examples are not "biblical standards", but man's standards. Biblical standards come from the Bible, not a denomination's tradition.

 

[dysert]

I am kind of confused on this. I've been told that dating a non-Christian is unbiblical with the conflicting belief systems, but I have also heard that as long as the person isn't anti-Christianity then it's okay, and you can do missionary dating, as in convince them to convert while dating. Which is really true?

Please provide biblical support for any answers.

Well you've been shown biblical support that you should not be unequally yoked, believer with unbeliever. However, that doesn't mean you can't date an unbeliever. However, what's your purpose in dating? If it's to find a mate, then you're probably in for heartache if you end up wanting to marry this girl and she's not a Christian. If you're dating just to have fun, then be sure you limit it to that. If you fall in love, it's heartache again.

 

[ecco]

I am kind of confused on this. I've been told that dating a non-Christian is unbiblical with the conflicting belief systems, but I have also heard that as long as the person isn't anti-Christianity then it's okay, and you can do missionary dating, as in convince them to convert while dating. Which is really true?

Please provide biblical support for any answers.

That there is such a thing, among Baptists at least, as "missionary dating", is truly disgusting.

Biblical passages provided as requested:

Psalm 101:7 ESV
No one who practices deceit shall dwell in my house; no one who utters lies shall continue before my eyes.
Proverbs 20:17 ESV
Bread gained by deceit is sweet to a man, but afterward his mouth will be full of gravel.​

-and-

Thank you for your response. I understand that maybe missionary dating isn't the best way to go about it, and perhaps if the situation came about, I should probably attempt to convert them before I date them.

You, and Baptists by extension, seem to be obsessed with converting people. Are there not enough people of your own faith and belief system from which to choose?

 

[DogmaHunter]

A doctrine is something that is TAUGHT. Since there are college courses on that subject, it certainly IS a doctrine.

Doctrine:
noun
1.
a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government:
Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
2.
something that is taught; teachings collectively:
religious doctrine.
3.
a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject:
the doctrine of the Catholic Church.


"critical thinking" is an approach on how to evaluate data, a method. It is not a "doctrine" in which certain specific things are to be believed.

To learn how to employ a method of critical thinking in order to evaluate claims and data is not at all the same as "indoctrination".

Indoctrination:
noun
1.
the act of indoctrinating, or teaching or inculcating a doctrine, principle, or ideology, especially one with a specific point of view:
religious indoctrination.

To indoctinate someone is to have that person buy into a specific ideology, to buy into specific claims.

 

[Dave-W]

Dogma - you just made my case that critical thinking is a doctrine.

 

[Dave-W]

YOU don't see such things in the bible. Other people, reading the bible with other denominational goggles, read the same text as you, but interpret them differently. Which seems to be exactly what defines their specific denomination: the way the interpret the book. No?

That is a symptom of the problem of interpreting an ancient Mideastern text using a western linear language system and logic system. Neither Hebrew language or the Logic system used by the Jewish sages are "linear."

 

[Hospes]

I am kind of confused on this. I've been told that dating a non-Christian is unbiblical with the conflicting belief systems, but I have also heard that as long as the person isn't anti-Christianity then it's okay, and you can do missionary dating, as in convince them to convert while dating. Which is really true?

Please provide biblical support for any answers.

I think you need to first spell out clearly what you are trying to accomplish by dating.

So for what Biblical purpose do you want to date? (Based on your answer, you can define for yourself what dating entails.)

 

[The Cadet]

There's a train coming towards you, and it's loaded with all those other gods you've decided to dismiss. You're bound for all kinds of hells.

You see the problem?

Personally, I see it as a sign of either a complete lack of empathy or a sign that their beliefs are not as deep-seated as they seem to think. It really doesn't matter whether it's true or not - they believe it to be true, ergo they should act as though it's true. And if my response to my belief of someone potentially being brutally tortured forever is "Eh, they made their choice," then there is something wrong.

 

[Resha Caner]

Should we be dating in the first place?

 

[ecco]

​

I thought the bible contained OBJECTIVE truths.

It does. So?

If the bible contains objective truths, then why can you not point to indisputable passages to help the OP with his problem:

I am kind of confused on this. I've been told that dating a non-Christian is unbiblical with the conflicting belief systems, but I have also heard that as long as the person isn't anti-Christianity then it's okay, and you can do missionary dating, as in convince them to convert while dating. Which is really true?​

 

[dysert]

​

If the bible contains objective truths, then why can you not point to indisputable passages to help the OP with his problem:

I am kind of confused on this. I've been told that dating a non-Christian is unbiblical with the conflicting belief systems, but I have also heard that as long as the person isn't anti-Christianity then it's okay, and you can do missionary dating, as in convince them to convert while dating. Which is really true?​

That was done in post 25.

 

[The Cadet]

Should we be dating in the first place?

Well... Yeah? I mean, I wouldn't want to enter into a lifelong commitment with someone who I don't know very well. That seems like a really easy way to end up essentially permanently stuck with someone you don't want to spend another minute with.

 

[High Fidelity]

What if the person has Christian morals, but not a Christian faith? Or if the person is willing to participate in activities such as going to church, etc? Would I have to make sure they convert before I date them?

Christian morals won't give you everything you need in a partner and Christian morals without the affirmation of Christ as Lord and Saviour is going to see them saved. Just saying that for perspective. There are no half measures(despite there being so many lukewarm Christians). You're either in or you're out.

You're male which means responsibility for her is on you. You're the spiritual head in that relationship and any family you may have together and so that's your responsibility to nourish them spiritually and guide them and keep them on course with Christ.

Missionary dating, as someone else said, almost always ends in disaster and/or the Christian being the one to make concessions.

Light and darkness do not mix and I'm sorry to say this, but a non-Christian in this context is darkness.