I am dating a non-Christian guy

Written by M. Larson

datenonchristian1I am 21 and currently dating a 22-year-old non-Christian guy. We’ve been going out for eight months now and I’m struggling with the decision of whether or not to continue this relationship. He is unwilling to accept Christianity and for that reason, I feel that I should stop seeing him. However, I also think that there might be a chance that God might change his heart in the future. Should I continue this relationship with him?

Advice: Since the Bible tells Christians that they are not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers, it’s probably not a good idea for you to be dating an unbeliever — for often dating leads to marriage. The Bible says, “What fellowship can light have with darkness? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?”

When a Christian woman marries a non-Christian man, she gives her future children a non-Christian father. Think about it!

Proverbs 3:5-6 says, “Trust in the Lord with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will direct your paths.”

I’m praying for you. Look to Jesus! Dr. Muriel

116 Responses to “I am dating a non-Christian guy”

  • Tom Tom says:

    Richard–
    I object to women in the clergy because Jesus does. Likewise the offices of elders and deacons.

    1 Timothy 2:12-15 Paul says, “But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.” Notice that Paul gives the reason for women not to teach or have authority over men in the church; they are more easily deceived than men. (Please remember that all scripture, including whatever Paul wrote, is written by the inspiration of God.)

    In 1 Timothy 3, Paul gives the qualifications of overseers (pastors, elders) as well as deacons. “It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?), and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain, but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. These men must also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach. Women (this is most commonly considered to be a reference to ‘wives of elder/deacons’, not women in general) must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things. Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households.”

    The word “deacon” in the Greek means “servant.” Therefore, there are instances of women being called deaconesses because they were serving in the church. However, this is outside the specific church office of deacon or elder described by Paul. There are dozens of servant opportunities for women in the church body, but not as designated pastors, elders, deacons, or teachers over men.

    If people would just follow the Bible instead of their own desires, it would eliminate a great deal of trouble and confusion.

  • Richard says:

    Tom,

    Do you object to women in the clergy?

    It was massive issue in the Anglican Church, I think we’ve had women vicars (our equivalent of pastor or priest) since the 80s.

    A more recent debate is having women bishops.

  • Tom Tom says:

    Richard—
    I was raised Roman Catholic, but thankfully my mother quit taking my sister and me there when I was about 8 years old, or who knows how heretical I’d be today. Before I came to know the Lord, I attended an Episcopalian service with a friend. The pastor was a woman—and possibly a lesbian, not sure—so they were biblicaly way off base. The entire Episcopal Church in the U.S. is very liberal and no longer biblical on many accounts. What’s more, like the Catholics, there is too much weight given to liturgy and too little given to Jesus Christ and biblical truth.

    I, too, have enjoyed our discussion. (I’ve always loved the British sit-coms by-the-way!) Of course, I’d like our conversation to continue because ultimately, everyone has to make a decision about Jesus Christ—either for or against; and since no one is promised tomorrow, time is of the essence. I’d like to continue to help you in your search for truth—the one truth that will get you out of this world alive so-to-speak.

  • Richard says:

    Tom,

    Many thanks.

    On a side note, I have attended services in Baptist, Methodist and Pentecostal Churches around the UK. The last one being something of a rarity; it hasn’t got a great deal of followers here at the moment. I have also seen quite a lot of the Roman Catholic faith and its ways. Again, this is a more minor denomination for us, but one with more historic grounding.

    Are there any Episcopal churches near to you? It is, I believe, the American branch of Anglicanism. Have you ever attended a service in one? If so how did you find it? Or, would you consider ever doing so?

    I am just curious, as we’ve been having a bit of a back-and-forth for a weeks now, and I think perhaps learned some things from each other.

    Special relationship over the Atlantic, and all that!

    Regards

  • Tom Tom says:

    Richard—
    Never any offense taken. I’m happy for your thoughtful questions and comments.

    The great difference between the Bible and the traditions, synods, councils, etc., is that the Bible actually proclaims itself to be the revealed word of God. There is no reason to believe that mere church leaders, elected or appointed by other mere church people, are initiating and following God’s desires. In fact, the case is easily made that many of the church institutions/traditions are there solely to benefit the church and its leaders, not the average individual or those who are lost.

    There is a great deal of evidence that the Bible is, in fact, a supernaturally generated book and God’s word to us. I mention just a few and without great detail:
    –The Bible is not one book but 66 books, written by at least 40 authors, over a 1600 year period, in three different original languages, and from three different continents. The authors were people from kings to fishermen. And yet, there are no contradictions, no historical, archeological, or scientific inaccuracies, and one seamless story told from Genesis to Exodus.
    –There are thousands of pr0phecies , the majority of which have already been fulfilled, even down to the name of an unborn king doing certain things. No pr0phecy in the Bible has ever been proven incorrect, although many are as yet to happen.
    –There are nearly 100 Old Testament pr0phecies about the coming Messiah, most of which were perfectly fulfilled at the first coming of Jesus Christ. The statistical experts say that having even 8 pr0phecies come to pass in one person are something like 1 x 10 to the 54th power; and yet there are dozens which have already occurred in Jesus.
    –The Bible is the only book that actually states it is from God. 2 Peter 1:20 states, “ . . .knowing this first of all, that no pr0phecy (words) of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no p0ophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”
    –The 66 books of the Bible can often be used to authenticate each other. Jesus quoted much from the Old Testament. The four gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—were all written with a couple of decades of Jesus’ life and ministry and could easily have been refuted by those still living who were also witnesses if the accounts were anything less than accurate.
    –Finally, the Bible never changes, while church traditions and teachings do. That’s why it’s imperative to look to the scriptures, the Bible, for the unerring word of God and to base one’s faith on what it says.

    You are correct that bishops in the Episcopal or Anglican churches would have similar responsibilities and authorities as a pastor or minister in a Baptist, Methodist, or Presbyterian church. However, the bottom line for each is whether they are believing and proclaiming the words of truth in the Bible or whether they are skewing scripture to fit their own beliefs. Many denominations do just that, and some such as Roman Catholicism, do many things that are directly opposed to, or even specifically forbidden by scripture, all in the name of “religion” and pushing their own agenda.

  • Richard says:

    Tom,

    Hello again.

    I have read a little about the Baptist denomination. I realise that are different types of Baptist churches, but a recurring idea I am seeing is the Bible being the final authority, rejection of Church Councils, Synods,Bishops etc which other denominations such as the Orthodox, RC and Anglican denominations rely so integrally on. Also a rejection of hierarchy and tradition.

    Is a fundamental approach to the wording of the Bible not essentially doing this same thing in another way? A Baptist may, for instance, suggest that a Roman or Anglo Catholic, by listening to the dictate of the Vatican or the General Synod at Lambeth (C of E eqivalent) is placing his/her trust and salvation in the words and interpretation of other men.

    Is referring direct to the Bible not doing the same? You and I never knew the men who wrote the Bible. Great trust is being placed in their works.

    Could the same principle of a pastor or minister’s authority and responsibility to care for a flock not be re envisaged as that of, say, a bishop in the Episcopal Church?

    This is not in any way intended to be antagonistic, I just wondered what your opinion was.

    Thanks

  • Tom Tom says:

    Richard–
    You already believe in absolute truths. How much is 2+2? Is it always 4? That’s an absolute truth.

    If you respond to whatever light God gives you, he will give you more. If you honestly want to know him, to seek him, he will not hide from you.

    Re-read the gospel of John. Ask me questions that come to your mind. Also read the gospel of Luke, written by a doctor who wanted to make sure the facts about Jesus were correct.

    And I’ll be praying for your heart and mind to be opened to the truths of scripture–the absolute truths!

  • Richard says:

    Tom,

    Sorry for a long time with no reply.

    I have read as you advised. I am reflecting on the things I have seen.I think it will take me some time before I can accept anything as an absolute truth. I also have to say that a fundamentalist or literalist is something I’ll never be, nor will I be able to accept the other extreme, ie authoritarianism purveyed by Rome.

    On a side note, I have been to Church today. You may or may not be aware that Queen Elizabeth’s official 90th birthday was 2 days ago, and the service in most Church of England parishes today has been regarding this. There has been a large study of how her faith has influenced much of the work she has done in her 60+ years as Queen. You may also be aware that she is the official head of the Anglican Church, though most of the leadership in particle is taken by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

    Regards

  • Tom Tom says:

    Richard—
    Thanks for the info Richard.
    Yes, I’m married—for over 40 years. My wife was a Christian when we married (she wasn’t taught the danger of marrying an unbeliever) and we suffered together for 23 years. After I trusted in Christ, things began to improve dramatically.

    As you know, God created man (Adam) first and then woman to be a help-meet/companion to Adam. She was to complete Adam if you will. God created the hierarchy similar to a chain of command. God first, then man, then woman, then children. Woman is in no way inferior to man, but she has a distinctly different role to play.

    In the Christian home, the man is the spiritual head of household. As he lives in obedience to the Lord, he is responsible for teaching his wife (and children if any) in spiritual matters. The man will be held responsible by God for how his wife deals with spiritual matters. The man is also responsible for the physical protection of the woman (the weaker vessel as scripture puts it). If the man is holding up his end of the spiritual responsibilities, then the woman is to be in obedience to the man (spiritually) for she knows the husband will protect her even as the Lord protects the man. Man is the breadwinner, while woman is the child-bearer and nurturer. God set it up that way. Each person has their role to play.

    The problems start when this chain of command is broken. If man wants to do his own thing apart from God, then chaos ensues. If woman wants to be “equal” to man and perform his role, then the system breaks down. Using my country as an example, and taking a small time frame, things in the 50’s worked really well when the man held down the job and the woman stayed at home to take care of the children and make the home a pleasant place. About the time God started to be eliminated from American life in the early 60’s, the “free love” movement began. The resultant unwanted pregnancies led to open abortion by 1973, at the same time women declared they wanted “equal rights.” As the women started taking jobs from men, the road to male emasculation began. The family unit began to suffer as strangers (day-care) took care of the kids. Women and men were now complete “equals” and there was no longer a head of household. Meanwhile, everyone simply drew farther and farther away from God. Now we’re faced with a total mess as God is out of the picture and the family unit has disintegrated.

    As for my own experience, my wife was brought up during those 60’s and believed in “equal rights” in every respect. That included being the spiritual head of our family. Simply put, that just didn’t work. It was only when she attended a Bible study called “The Excellent Wife” which put men’s and women’s roles in the biblical perspective that things began to get really good in our marriage. I love and cherish her “as Christ loves the church” (the Bible says.) She honors me by (mostly, lol) following my spiritual lead while offering assistance and help to me in the matters of everyday living. I worked to pay the bills while she worked to help to encourage me and keep a nice house. It works because we’re doing it God’s designed way. The bottom line problem is that men don’t want to be responsible to God and women don’t want to be responsible to their husbands. So we reap what we’ve sown. And that’s why this blog is about the dangers of dating a non-Christian.

    Apart from this discussion, I can’t leave our conversation without encouraging you to read the gospel of John, the 4th book of the New Testament. Read it slowly and with an open heart to God. John was written specifically so that a person could come to understanding and faith in Jesus Christ. Jesus says in John chapter 14 and verse 6, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me.” I believe God has used this blog and our discussion to help get your attention and to give you some light to follow which will lead to him.

  • Richard says:

    Tom,

    There are liberals and modernists within Anglicanism. To a certain extent this has even helped to form it.

    However, there are some biblical fundamentalists. On the other hand, there are High Church Anglo-Catholics too. Neither side particularly liberal.

    I can’t think of much else at this particular moment, although thanks for the offer, and I will contact you again when I do. Did you mention being married yourself? If so, how receptive is your wife of the concept of a man being head of the house? That isn’t meant to sound sarcastic in any way, I am genuinely curious. Such an idea is almost untenable in the UK these days.

  • Tom Tom says:

    Richard–
    Thanks for the info. I did a little web investigation and see that the C of E is every bit as liberal now as the Episcopal church in this country. But nothing that wasn’t predicted in the New Testament–the great apostasy, or falling away from sound biblical doctrine. Unfortunately, even born again believers are being deceived by so much false teaching.

    I’d like to talk with you more about biblical Christianity and the truth of scripture. What other things in scripture might you have questions about?

  • Richard says:

    Tom,

    The Church of England has existed since St Augustine brought Christianity to Britain in the 1st Century A.D.

    It is the mother Church of the worldwide Anglican Church (or sometimes called the Anglican Communion), which has some presence in just about every country, and which also includes the Episcopal Church in your own America.

    You are right to an extent. Although independent from The Roman Catholic Church, the C of E still considers itself within and part of the original Apostolic Line (along with the RC, Coptic and Orthodox denominations) however it has elements and teachings strongly influenced by the Reformation, in particular the concept of Sola Fide (faith alone salvation). As per the Elizabethan Settlement of the 16th Century, the C of E is both Catholic and Reformed (many adherents refer to themselves as Anglo-Catholic as opposed to Roman Catholic).

    In answer to what you said, the C of England is very varied in its practices. There is a huge spectrum, everything from quite plain churches with less emphasis on sacraments and more on the Bible, evangelical ethos and generally a more Protestant theme.This is what we call the more Low Church. On the other extreme, there are Churches which are hardly distinguishable from roman Catholic Churches; high emphasis on Communion, Sacraments, Vestments, Liturgy, figures of Saints and Mary, less emphasis on wording of the Bible and to some extent rejection of Sola Fide, you get my drift. This is what is called The High Church, or The Anglo-Catholic Church.

    In between these two poles, you get what is termed the Broad Church, which provides middle ground. No two parishes are exactly the same, but as long as they conform to a bare minimum (or maximum, so as not to veer too near Rome) they can be classed as Church of England/Anglican.

    Sorry for the information overload but it’s the best way to answer your question. I know some things about the Baptist faiths as I have experienced that denomination at times also.

    And you’ve probably gathered that I’m English ?

  • Richard says:

    Tom,

    The Church of England has existed since St Augustine brought Christianity to Britain in the 1st Century A.D.

    It is the mother Church of the worldwide Anglican Church (or sometimes called the Anglican Communion), which has some presence in just about every country, and which also includes the Episcopal Church in your own America.

    You are right to an extent. Although independent from The Roman Catholic Church, the C of E still considers itself within and part of the original Apostolic Line (along with the RC, Coptic and Orthodox denominations) however it has elements and teachings strongly influenced by the Reformation, in particular the concept of Sola Fide (faith alone salvation). As per the Elizabethan Settlement of the 16th Century, the C of E is both Catholic and Reformed (many adherents refer to themselves as Anglo-Catholic as opposed to Roman Catholic).

    In answer to what you said, the C of England is very varied in its practices. There is a huge spectrum, everything from quite plain churches with less emphasis on sacraments and more on the Bible, evangelical ethos and generally a more Protestant theme.This is what we close the more Low Church. On the other extreme, there are Churches which are hardly distinguishable from roman Catholic Churches; high emphasis on Communion, Sacraments, Vestments, Liturgy, figures of Saints and Mary, less emphasis on wording of the Bible and to some extent rejection of Sola Fide, you get my drift. This is what is called The High Church, or The Anglo-Catholic Church.

    In between these two poles, you get what is termed the Broad Church, which provides middle ground. No two parishes are exactly the same, but as long as they conform to a bare minimum (or maximum, so as not to veer too near Rome) they can be classed as Church of England/Anglican.

    Sorry for the information overload but it’s the best way to answer your question. I know some things about the Baptist faiths as I have experienced that denomination at times also.

    And you’ve probably gathered that I’m English ?

  • Elkay says:

    To finish off the “hell” question, here is a quote from the late, great Dallas Willard:

    “God did not create hell because He’s mad, He wants to see people suffer, and He enjoys torturing them for eternity. The only reason there is a hell is because God makes provision for what people want, and hell is simply the best God can do for some people.”

Leave a Reply