"But its just lunch?"

Romans 14:16 is irrelevant. When Paul speaks of acting out of love for the weaker brother in Rom. 14, he is speaking of those who for some reason will be spiritually harmed by your liberty. When evil is spoken of good, it is because it has caused someone to sin against his conscience.

Paul is not talking about people who might get upset, or indignant, or start spreading malicious rumours.

 

I may flub up when I try to explain this to the readers but here goes---

When a man and woman get married, there becomes instilled and engrained inside this couple a "Godly" jealously for each other!---I am "jealous FOR" my wife---I am not jealous "of" my wife---get it??

That jealousy is there in order to protect and preserve the husband/wife relationship.

Here's a scenerio:

Now, if my wife begins to "go to lunch" with another man at the office---even though I know that its harmless and "just co-worker innocense"---that "Godly jealousy" built inside of me is provoked to the protection stage! Now, I know ain't nothin' goin' on between my wife and her co-worker---both are Christian---but---I'm still going to rise up and defend my relationship with my wife--first, by telling her that the "co-worker" luncheons are taboo---and then by telling him---"Buzz off!"---in a Godly Jealousy sort of way!

Now, IF my wife is one who is spiritual enough to where I can tell her, "You don't need to be going to lunch with that man anymore!"---she will understand my reasoning and submit to my request. IOW---she should be of the same spiritual level as her husband that when he makes that kind of request---she is just as "jealous" for her husband as he is for her!! True!

Dare any of us to study this God supplying "Jealousy" for our spouses---its the same kind of Jealous love God has for His Son, Jesus Christ!

 

Let me be more specific. What is righteous about a man eating with another man's wife in the manner implied by the original question? The answer is obvious--nothing. At best it is vanity, because there is nothing conducive to building God's kingdom in this activity. At the worst it is adultery. (Adultery incorporates much, much more than sex, people.) For a man to have a close friendship with a woman other than his own wife means that he is seeking fulfillment for needs which should be wholly and completely met by the woman that God gave him, and her alone.

No doubt I stomped on some toes with that one.

Therefore, Ransom, you demonstrate your utter ignorance and worldly thinking by even daring to suggest that a righteous outcome of a married man or woman engaging in recreational outings without their respective spouses would be "camaraderie."


blackbird:
Excellent post. Those of us who know God, and know Him to be a jealous God, understand completely what you said.

 

Is not that spiritual harm?

 

Aaron, in the nicest terms possible, you need to BACK OFF with your contumely. It is one thing to discuss topics as this and dissent in a civil manner, but it is yet another to start making specific conclusions about one's behavior, attitudes, spirituality in this forum.

 

Hello Timothy: it is good to see you back in the proverbial saddle. I hope that you and your family are doing well.

Is this "spiritual harm" or is it simply "sin?" If someone is spreading malicious rumors, does that automatically make the subject of the rumor a sin?

 

>>For a man to have a close friendship with a woman other than his own wife means that he is seeking fulfillment for needs which should be wholly and completely met by the woman that God gave him, and her alone.<<

I think I missed something here.
I had close male friends in highschool, as my husband had close female friends in highschool. So by your statement are we to abandon all friendships once we get married?

This, as with other things debated, seems to be a gray area. And in my opinion the Bible is very clear on it. The Bible says that IF a man/woman lusts in her heart it is as if it was actually done. I can have lunch with a male co-worker and NEVER have lust in my heart for him or him for me. So again, to me it comes down to someone else's judgement on a situation that they may "see" and assume the worst.

To me, I see it as, if I see someone I know who is married, having lunch with someone of the opposite sex who is not their spouse, it is wrong for me to jump to conclusions, and assume the worst. It could be any number of innocent situations, and without knowing the facts around it, it would be wrong of me to make any sort of judgements.

 

Amen Dina...

This "appearance of evil" stuff gets REALLY tedious.

 

Aaron said:

What is righteous about a man eating with another man's wife in the manner implied by the original question? The answer is obvious--nothing. At best it is vanity, because there is nothing conducive to building God's kingdom in this activity.

I could say the same thing about two men having lunch at the same time in the same restaurant. So your point is irrelevant.

Therefore, Ransom, you demonstrate your utter ignorance and worldly thinking

Coming from you, Aaron, that is a compliment. Thank you.

 

timothy 1769 said:

Is not that spiritual harm?

No, having your feelings hurt is not spiritual harm.

 

Forget what other's think.... WHY play with fire?

• Within the last decade, incidents of adultery have risen to this alarming rate of 50-70 percent in America. (2003) TURN THESE NUMBERS AROUND.... 30-50% of spouses haven't cheated in the last decade.

• 50-75 percent of extramarital affairs take place with someone from the workplace. (2003) TURN THESE AROUND.... 25-50% of affairs happened with someone outside of the workplace.

Knowing these numbers, would you STILL want your spouse to go out to lunch with someone of the opposite sex from work? The 25 year old secretary? The successful business man with a big car and money to burn? Not me!

So, 50% - 70% of us have been affected by adultery!


Diane

 

But if another christian brother or sister is spreading rumors about you that are not true, great spiritual harm can be done.

 

As for the original question, it all depends on the circumstance. And in each one, we are responsible to follow the Holy Spirit's leadings. I can't decide for you and you can't decide for me. Just as I am not responsible for you and you are not responsible for me. Everything we do should be for the glory of God.

 

You'll have to forgive Aaron. He's been spanked silly by EricB in the music forum, and feels the need to lash out elsewhere since being rendered impotent there. Come on back Aaron, you're like a fish out of water here

 

HMMM< this is interesting...

Found it on the "Should Christians Celebrate Christmas" thread on page 2. I am pretty sure the credit for this goes to IFBReformer-If I am incorrect on who the credit for this goes to I apologize now.

But since this thread is also using "abstaining from the appearance of evil", I thought this was relevant to this thread as well.

>>>>>>>In 1611, people understood what the KJV translators meant by "appearance". You can tell what they meant by "appearance" from how they translated that same Greek word 'eidos' in these passages along with the one you stated:

Luke 3:22(KJV)
"And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape[eidos] like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased."

Luke 9:29(KJV)
"And as he prayed, the fashion[eidos] of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistering."

John 5:37
"And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape[eidos]."

2 Corinthians 5:7(KJV)
(For we walk by faith, not by sight[eidos]

1 Thessalonians:5:22(KJV)
"Abstain from all appearance[eidos] of evil."

So now do you understand that 'appearance' here is not how we use it in our modern english? Much bad theology has been made over the years from a misunderstanding of the old English. The NIV and NASB translate in our modern english correctly when they render it as:

1 Thessalonians 5:22(NASB)
"abstain from every form[eidos] of evil."

1 Thessalonians 5:22(NIV)
"Avoid every kind[eidos] of evil."<<<<<<<

Thoughts???

 

What is it the Bible says? Avoid the appearance of evil?

A married person having lunch/dinner with someone who is not their spouse is not wrong outright, but it's often a stupid, and sometimes disrespectful, thing to do (disrespectful to another person's spouse).

If you need to wonder about it, ask yourself, would I be okay with my spouse doing this? Will my spouse be okay with me doing this? If the answer to aither of these is anything other than a clear "yes", we,ll, need any more be said?

The best thing to do is to let your spouse know where you're going and what you're doing, and with whom you're doing it. As long as you've got 100% APPROVAL from your spouse beforehand, then you're in the clear.

[ December 09, 2003, 05:55 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

I'm sorry: are you equating your jealousy as a husband with the Jealousy of Almighty God? Are you saying that jealousy over your wife having lunch with someone is synonymous with the Jealousy of the Lord God of Abraham?

Do you really want to go there?

An honest question, by the way.......

 

God told the Israelites not to have lunch with the Canaanites, nor the Hittites, nor the Sinnites!

My wife(nor myself) will not be having lunch with another woman's husband---nor I with another man's wife!

But suppose I did?? Suppose I was your Pastor---and your wife was over at the church doing something---lets just say she was one of my SS teachers and she was paintin' and fixin' up her SS room! You were out of town and I knew she was all alone---

And suppose I asked your wife---"Let me take you out to lunch! You've been working hard and the church appreciates you and your faithfulness!"

Now, I'm not gonna ask any woman that---I doubt if I would ask say, two or more women workers---and I'm the only male---I'm not gonna get in the car with two women and me being the only man and none of the women is my wife---I'm not gonna do it!!

Now, I see a woman on side the highway--and she's broke down---flat tire or the hood is up and the engine is belchin' steam---I'm gonna help----but if she's out of gas---here's what I'll tell her---"M'am!! You stay with your car and I'm gonna ease up the road there to the service station and buy you 5 gallons of gas!!! I'll be right back!!

Or if the same woman is broke down and I know I'm gonna be there for a lengthly period of time---I'm gonna call my wife some sort of way--tell her to come on over to where I'm at and bring my tool box ASAP---PRONTO!

But if the lady is at church---and say, she comes by to visit me in the office----the door stays open---never, no ever behind closed doors---if anything---I'll ease on out into the hallway and talk with her there.

Now, you can critize me all you want---you can be ever so trustful of yourselves all you want---but this preacher CARES what folks say(or will---or can) behind his back or even in front of him!

To be the most trusted man in the church---that's what I would do! And still, no matter how careful I can be---there's always room to be MORE careful than that!

 

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
Hello Timothy: it is good to see you back in the proverbial saddle. I hope that you and your family are doing well.

Thanks Baptist, I shouldn't be around much longer, but I'll enjoy it while it lasts!

Is this "spiritual harm" or is it simply "sin?" If someone is spreading malicious rumors, does that automatically make the subject of the rumor a sin?

If one knew that doing something optional and harmless would cause a brother to likely sin in some way, one should surely abstain out of love for him. Failure to do so would be sin. I'm sure I fail at this quite often, and what's worse this principle most often doesn't even come to mind. We're all too caught up in our rights and freedoms with no real thought or love for our brothers.

 

TC said:

But if another christian brother or sister is spreading rumors about you that are not true, great spiritual harm can be done.

Then it is on the hands of the so-called "brother or sister," not the persons eating lunch. The gossip should mind his own business.

[ December 10, 2003, 01:24 AM: Message edited by: Ransom ]