Would I Marry An Arminian?
This question has been asked of me a few times recently, and I feel it worthwhile to look at this issue and the ramifications of my decision on this issue. Some of the various questions that have been posed to me are: Would I marry someone who varied on a soteriological stance? What would be done when it comes time to teach the children about the Bible? And what impact would this have upon a relationship?
I will present my stance that not only is it absurd to abstain from a relationship/marriage on the basis of TULIP, but taking such a stance directly violates Biblical instruction for what a marriage should consist of.
Would I marry someone who varied on a soteriological stance?
One of the tenants of Hyper-Calvinism, and I feel I am not stretching this issue, is that those who do not hold strongly to Reformed Theology should not be fellowshipped with. And the best example of this is Marc Carpenter and his Hyper-Calvinistic page entitled: "Are We To Fellowship With Arminians?." I have spoken with many of my reformed brethren who adamantly oppose such a doctrine, but they then turn around and make reformed theology a contingent factor for a relationship.
Reformed Theology has completely changed my life and how I operate in every aspect of my life, but to say that a Biblical relationship is contingent on complete doctrinal agreement between a man and a woman is un-Biblical. The Biblical mandate is to not marry a non-believer (2 Cor 6:14), and to say that an Arminian is not worthy of marrying seems to imply the belief that regeneration is contingent on a belief on Reformed Theology, and my friends who would deny this belief also hold that a Calvinist shouldn't marry an Arminian.
I am walking a fine line between legalism and doctrinal relativism. A few things need to be asserted. Monergism explains who God is, what God is doing, and what He continues to do; but I do not see how a lack of understanding of soteriological principles is a formula for an edifying and God-glorifying relationship. In all honesty, I love doctrine and the pursuit of, but if a doctrinal stance gets in the way of glorifying God in your relationship, then chances are you shouldn't be married.
Second, compare areas of personal conviction [before getting married], beginning with one's major theological understanding. A person with liberal leanings will not make a good marriage with someone of conservative beliefs. A Calvinist won't match well with an Arminian, nor will a Reformed with a Dispensationalist. In today's "evolving" spiritual climate, one must even be sure of their potential spouse's view on creationism (the traditional literal six-day view versus theistic evolution, progressive creationism or framework hypothesis).1
So, from the above advice, I need to make sure my future wife is a covenant, reformed, Baptist, NASV-reading, historic pre-mil (maybe A-mil, but that's only if I'm having a good day), and heaven forbid they be infralapsarian (I also am more moderate politically, so I need to ensure that is in line too)! In a time where finding a partner that is completely devoted to the Lordship of Christ is hard enough, adding conditional factors will only add to the frustration (but I'm not saying we should set our standards low by any means).
I've watched several of my friends including Aaron & Stacia Shafovaloff, Nick & Brittany Nye, and Chris & Dana Davis put their desire for God above doctrinal compatibility. What is interesting is that, as a result, they did find doctrinal unity in the end. (This is the Biblical view of marriage I spoke on in the introduction (Matthew 6:33-34).)
What would be done when it comes time to teach the children about the Bible?
This is a very pertinent question. After all, if a Calvinistic husband marries and Arminian and little Johnny asks: "Mommy, what are the soteriological ramifications of Paul's declaration in Ephesians 1" (as if Johnny would ask that); it could pose a potential for conflict. But again, if we follow the Scriptural model of marriage and submission then we find the answer to this question.
For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.
Ephesians 5:23-24Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
Colossians 3:18For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands; just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear.
1 Peter 3:5-6A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.
1 Timothy 2:11-12
If the wife has the inability to submit to the husband's instruction, then that is another issue apart from a soteriological stance. There is no doubt, on the basis of pure Scripture, that the man is to instruct and the wife is to submit in these matters (as well as the relationship as large), but again I have to play a balancing act. Just because she is to submit does not mean men are not to edify and exhort her. It's one of the attributes of a Godly marriage.
What impact would this have upon a relationship?
I am of the persuasion that if soteriology hinders your ability to marry someone, then issues beyond Calvinism/Arminiansm are preventing your marriage. I can't imagine what it would be like to marry a "flaming" five-point Arminian--it would be great! How edifying that would be! I can't imagine having a wife who cared that deeply about a separate theological system to engage in debate with me; that is exciting!
To sum up, I would rather marry a passionate and convicted Arminian than a passive Calvinist.
An excellent wife, who can find? For her worth is far above jewels.
Proverbs 31:10
I am sure to be blasted by my reformed brothers and sisters (I can already hear them yelling "straw man"). I'm ready...
May 5th 2005 
16 Comments 
May 5th 2005
There are two things that people are going to tell you:
1) You are a weak calvinist who is not fully committed to seeking the true nature of God and, in a
sense, willing to comprimise your belief in God for a relationship of the flesh (thereby diminishing
your relationship with God).
2) You have actually taken the time to read the bible and see what the scriptures teach about marriage.
Truly, it is important to seek out the things of God in all parts of our lives. This is espically true in our relationships (both plutonic, non-plutonic, & same sex). I would say, though, that it would be difficult to glorify God in your relationship if you are focused too heavily on doctrine. I know armanians who live according to Lordship salvation by setting Christ on the throne in all parts of their lives (note: please see Bill
Bright's chair diagram *sarcasm*) and I have known Calvinists who adhere to the TRUE doctrine but don't glorify God in their lives. Of course, the inverse of this can, and is, true in many cases.
The point is this, our relationships should first are foremost be based upon two people who are devoted to God who are living their lives and the course of their marriage in a fashion that exemplifies God's glory. Next to this, doctrinal differences are insignifigant. This is something that I too have been putting a lot of thought into recently with my own marriage that is fast approaching. Thank you for presenting this discussion.
May 5th 2005
Calvinsim is more than a soteriological stance, as J.I. Packers said in his introduction to "The Death of Death" by John Owen, "Calvinism is a worldview, stemming from a clear vision of God as the whole world's Maker and King....Calvinism is a theocentric way of thinking about all life under the direction and control of God's will."
If we saw marriage as the Puritans saw it, as companionship and service with another person for a lifetime dedicated to the Lord, we would think a lot more about this and other issues before we chose to marry someone other than the main reason being that we love them.
May 5th 2005
(Thanks Perry!)
Leslie, you are remarking to a very belligerent Calvinist. I believed in the Doctrines of Grace before even seeing the Lordship of Christ, and it was instrumental in my shedding of all my wordly philosophies. I in know way declared simply an emotional bond is the critical instrument in the formulation in a successful relationship; my only goal in this article was to deal with the barrier of instituting "doctrinal boundaries" on relationships to a devastating point.
May 5th 2005
Good post, this is a good topic.
This assumes everyone regenerated is "worthy" of marrying, which is obviously not the case. It's not wise or helpful to marry some Christ-loving Christians. Example: If I was heavily struggling with pornography, and still coming back to Christ for grace (and thus was a Christian), I wouldn't think it wise for Stacia to marry me. I'd want her to have me demonstrate more reliability and truthworthiness and fidelity (and that can apply to behavior or doctrine).
Regarding the importance of sharing doctrinal convictions, I can tell you that, as someone who aspires to be a pastor/elder/evangelist/etc., doctrine has a lot to do with my path in life and where my wife and I feel our family should go. It would be a lot harder to deal with if Stacia, say, didn't want me to go to a conservative seminary, but somewhere like Fuller. Oh, there'd be a lot of conflict! It'd be harder for Stacia to support me in the day-to-day stuff, and that would surely add some misery to our marriage.
Regarding the submission of wives, which you mentioned. Yeah, the more I think about it, doctrinal incompatibility seems like more of a risky issue for women than for men who have submissive wives. Good issue to point out.
A few practical outworkings:
- There are certain things that, if Stacia were an Arminian, I wouldn't want her teaching to the ladies in her Bible-study. "In my house I do not want that kind of doctrine promoted in our house."
- Coherency or conflict over where you as a couple go to church can either cause a lot of harmony or erupt into a lot of heartache. Where you go to church is a huge issue in marriage!
- You mentioned this but I'd like to say it myself: I'm going to make sure my children are well-versed in Romans (as a whole), and when I teach them about the very first section (where all those loved are those who have faith, thus implying a particular love that isn't for non-believers), I want to put a love in them for sovereign grace. My wife will likely homeschool our tentative children at least in their younger years. Bible-training will be a hu-uge part of that. Having an Arminian framework does quite a lot to the Bible, even when it is clear and explicit as day. There would be a lot of conflict regarding what my children are taught! But like you pointed out, having a submissive wife helps a lot.
Ohhh what a beautiful outworking of grace! :-D :-D My wife is a gem in so many respects.
I can't help but agree! And smile.... and laugh: We know what to pray for now!!!!!
May 6th 2005
I don’t think it is a matter of hindrance. I think it is a matter of making a wise decision for a one flesh, supporting, loving, God glorifying, life lasting, eternity benefiting, and congregation edifying relationship that takes the kingdom of God into serious consideration.
I think there is a more positive way to look at it. I would not say I should not or can’t marry an Arminian. Rather I look for a woman who believes in the reformed view because I believe it will strengthen the relationship and benefit those around us.
May 6th 2005
Chris, this is quite a divergence from our talk about whether we'd marry four-pointers. When I asked my friend Haddon about that, he responded: "Hmmm, maybe if she were as devoted to God's sovereignty as Bruce Ware." (I must note, I think Haddon knows more about God's sovereignty than I do, but I don't think I would completely agree with him, though he is quite the stud).
I think Leslie, John, and Aaron make great points. Leslie is correct that marriage is about someone with whom you can serve the Kingdom. John is correct that this is an unique-union--these two are now one. And Aaron is right in saying that, as an elder (which I aspire to be), you need a wife who will edify you and back you in what you say (and Aaron is correct, Stacia is a real gem!) It's extremely hard now, when I am single, to stand when I face great doctrinal opposition and slander. It's emotionally, spiritually, mentally, and even physically draining. To have a wife who disagrees and even seeks to promote divergent doctrine which I know is incorrect would be a great hinderance. I personally need someone who is going to back up what I say on main issues (unless it is incorrect) (she can disagree with me on eschatology or something, as I'm not even completely convinced as of yet), and who is going to be able to encourage me when I am down and discouraged. It is far more difficult and draining when it is a close friend who diverges and teaches differently on important issues (about the God whom I love so dearly); how much more difficult and discouraging would it be if that person is the closest human that I will ever know?
As a pastor I will be teaching things from Scripture with which people do not agree--and disagree veheminently. I need a wife, who will be a better conflict resolver and better mediator than I (for I assume her to have a more gentle spirit than I), to speak with people and help them see the truth in the Scripture.
Perhaps the Bible does not speak of Calvinistic and Arminian divergences and marriage because it does not speak of these divergences, but assumes good doctrine.
Now Chris, you know that I know you are serious about the doctrines of grace, and that you believe very seriously in the propagation of them--so please take my responses as coming from a loving brother. I respect you, and I do not fall into either of Perry's categories, but would call you a man who is seeking to do the will of the Lord, not compromising your beliefs, but searching the Scriptures for what is correct--but yet I believe you are wrong. While 2 Cor. 6:14 only speaks of being unequally yoked with unbelievers, I think we must remember that being unequally yoked, even with a believer (if too unequally yoked) will be a hinderance. What if I were to yoke myself in an unique-union with a very young, immature believer? While it may serve to sharpen me in my dealings with such people (and perhaps both of us would grow), I would not be able to talk of the mature things of the faith with her, or to engage in deep prayer and convictions without harming our relationship. Such a breach in our relationship would cause our ministries to faulter, would perhaps stunt both of our walks (she might be confused), and may lead to much strife (perhaps I am wrong, as I am merely thinking out loud).
But here are my multi-paragraphed thoughts. Grace and peace.
May 6th 2005
Sorry,
I doubt that I said everything that I wanted to, and this may not have made much sense. This internet at Panera is running slowly, and so all of my thoughts were becoming jumbled and backed-up as I wrote. Best of luck.
May 6th 2005
Some friends of mine (including Leslie!) had this very discussion at a dinner a few weeeks ago. Our friend Jay who is reformed and is married to an amazing Calvinist, said that we, as women, would be crazy to marry a non-Calvinist. I see all your points, and agree that assuming the Calvinist husband is married to a godly and submissive wife, it could still be a Christ-edifying marriage. As a girl, I think it would be VERY hard to marry someone who isn't reformed. Not un-biblical, but I for one cannot imagine that. I believe that seeing the Lord in His completeness and total Sovereignty is life changing. Second only to my salvation. A "flaming" Arminian? Do those exist?! ;)
May 6th 2005
Kristen,
I've met a few. The disagreements we had were sometimes vehemenent (this is like, my word of the day). Often I had to walk away from conversations because they grew far too emotional and unbiblical (I do not mean to sound self-righteous, but I was usually not the one who brought the topic up, nor was I the one to grow overly and harmfully emotional or unbiblical--and so I've felt the burn). Our relationships were hindered and even severed because of this (which I believe is unfortunate, because I have met some Arminians with whom I have spoken about this issue, and we remain friends and have even grown in fellowship dispite this issue).
May 6th 2005
I agree with Kristen, but you already knew that.
May 8th 2005
I noticed that out of all the people included in this conversation only one of us is married. I think it is important to get some imput from someone who has been married for a while and has a lot of wisdom. I know some people might not like Dr. Mohler but we should seriously take his advice into consideration. He seems to agree that it is important to have an agreement on some deep theological issues before we allow for physical attraction and feelings to get in the way. He admits that we might not agree on everything but that there are some really important doctrines that need to be thought out first. I don't think any of us would say that the doctrines of grace are not one of those doctrines. http://www.albertmohler.com/radio_show.php?cdate=2005-05-06
May 12th 2005
I would.
May 27th 2005
One's view of God's soverignty in salvation is not just a soteriological belief, but goes back to how one views the nature and character of God.
I do not dispute that Armineans are saved. However, I do firmly believe that Armineans have 1) a diminished view of God, 2) an unwillingness to let their thinking be guided by the whole of scripture. These are dangerous trends, that have much farther-reaching implications for a life or a marriage.
Jun 6th 2008
I realize this conversation happened a few years ago, but I can't help myself. I think I would have difficulty submitting to my husband in spiritual matters if he were Arminean because of the logical consequences of that belief system. One's entire theology is effected (which has already been mentioned several times (but that was several years ago, so I'm refreshing your memory :) )). However, whenever I read Mere Christianity or The Screwtape Letters I think of what a lucky lady Joy was. But he also had an English accent. So, ya know... that doesn't hurt.
Jun 6th 2008
@Gina: Are you single? :)
Jun 7th 2008
Why? Do you have an English accent? : )