-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
"But its just lunch?"
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
I agree with you for the most part, but this statement obviously follows from your legalistic views of music.</font>[/QUOTE]No it doesn't. It follows from the clear admonitions of Scripture. It would be superfluous to prohibit eating with an excommunicated member unless my eating with him is more than food. Eating with someone implies intimacy or fellowship. God doesn't deny him food, but He does deny him intimacy with Christians in good standing.
My sister and I are mistaken for a couple just about every time we go out. I can assure you there is nothing in our body language or demeanor that communicates something of an illicit nature.
This has nothing to do with any argument I have made in this thread. I'm not sure why you even brought this up. I'm not sure you know either.
Your argument here is unscriptural and silly.
Now I'm sure you don't know what you're talking about. I'm sure you don't know the Scriptures, either.
All about Grace
New Member
When Paul says "Flee sexual immorality" I take him serious. Again, it goes back to margin.
Anyone here would include me. My husband is an engineer, goes to refineries all over the world,literally, for a number of years now.
Sometimes on an individual job, the site engineer is female, and they discuss job plans over a quick lunch or dinner. Refinery jobs can go around the clock for days. And they hardly know whether they are eating lunch or dinner as long as it is food. It simply has not been an automatic slippery slope for us. When he is on the road, we talk daily, at least, and he tells me what he is doing. I am always able to contact him. And he has witnessed directly to many of the people that he has worked with.
The slippery slope comes down to "It depends".
Lesser things than the above could be a slippery slope for some people. And some people might never go to lunch with others and still fall into temptation and sin. We all have to take heed to our ways, but no, I would not say that lunch with a co-worker is automatically a problem.
Karen
Aaron said:
This has been adequately explained
It has been nothing of the kind. You have made one vague and so far unproven assertion (that this mutual lunch is a violation of the marriage covenant), and the only thing that you have even ATTEMPTED to "explain" it with is another vague and so far unproven assertion that this mutual lunch does nothing to advance God's kingdom.
you're just being obstinate.
Yes, I tend to be obstinate with the obtuse.
And again it is not simply "a man and a woman," it is a married man with another man's wife having a lunch alone. That is what we are talking about. And in your quotes I will reflect that so that you are kept on track and that the absurdity of your postulation is in clear view.
I have a perfectly good understanding of the question posed at the beginning of this thread, thankyouverymuch. Repeating it Dick and Jane style every sentence is merely redundant.
You're not saying anything here, you're merely avoiding the primary reason two people meet for lunch. It's not for food. It's as you first suggested, "camaraderie." It's for relationship.
Thank you, Aaron, that makes four virtuous benefits for this lunch: food, camaraderie, good company, and building a relationship.
(Notwithstanding your vague and as yet unproven assertion(s) that every relationship between men and women other than their respective spouses is a violation of the marriage covenant.)
In even in business lunches there is the hope of mutual benefit other than being fed.
Thank you, Aaron, that makes five virtuous benefits for this lunch: food, camaraderie, good company, building relationships, and mutual business benefit.
And here you obstinately disregard (again) the paradigm of a married man meeting another man's wife for lunch and the grave warnings offered by the more wise and mature who see the danger and hide themselves (Proverbs 22:3).
Only if I accept your vague and so far unproven assertion that it is a violation of the marriage covenant.
(Let's also add two more vague and so far unproven assertions to the list: 1) Aaron is more wise than me; 2) Aaron is more mature than me.)
Why do you cling to your simplicity by relucantly admitting that it only "probably" isn't?
God uses the simple to confound the wise.
I'm not in any trouble at all
Your heightened rhetoric suggests otherwise, as does your conspiracy theory concerning my alleged "goon squad."
and my goal is not to convince you.
In that case, you have succeeded in your goal.
This has been adequately explained
It has been nothing of the kind. You have made one vague and so far unproven assertion (that this mutual lunch is a violation of the marriage covenant), and the only thing that you have even ATTEMPTED to "explain" it with is another vague and so far unproven assertion that this mutual lunch does nothing to advance God's kingdom.
you're just being obstinate.
Yes, I tend to be obstinate with the obtuse.
And again it is not simply "a man and a woman," it is a married man with another man's wife having a lunch alone. That is what we are talking about. And in your quotes I will reflect that so that you are kept on track and that the absurdity of your postulation is in clear view.
I have a perfectly good understanding of the question posed at the beginning of this thread, thankyouverymuch. Repeating it Dick and Jane style every sentence is merely redundant.
You're not saying anything here, you're merely avoiding the primary reason two people meet for lunch. It's not for food. It's as you first suggested, "camaraderie." It's for relationship.
Thank you, Aaron, that makes four virtuous benefits for this lunch: food, camaraderie, good company, and building a relationship.
(Notwithstanding your vague and as yet unproven assertion(s) that every relationship between men and women other than their respective spouses is a violation of the marriage covenant.)
In even in business lunches there is the hope of mutual benefit other than being fed.
Thank you, Aaron, that makes five virtuous benefits for this lunch: food, camaraderie, good company, building relationships, and mutual business benefit.
And here you obstinately disregard (again) the paradigm of a married man meeting another man's wife for lunch and the grave warnings offered by the more wise and mature who see the danger and hide themselves (Proverbs 22:3).
Only if I accept your vague and so far unproven assertion that it is a violation of the marriage covenant.
(Let's also add two more vague and so far unproven assertions to the list: 1) Aaron is more wise than me; 2) Aaron is more mature than me.)
Why do you cling to your simplicity by relucantly admitting that it only "probably" isn't?
God uses the simple to confound the wise.
I'm not in any trouble at all
Your heightened rhetoric suggests otherwise, as does your conspiracy theory concerning my alleged "goon squad."
and my goal is not to convince you.
In that case, you have succeeded in your goal.
Aaron said:
Might I clarify that dishonoring the marriage covenant is the very definition of adultery?
Might I clarify that this oft-made assertion by you has yet to be shown to have anything to do with a platonic lunch between two married persons not married to one another?
Vague and so far unproven assertions are not proof, no matter how many times you repeat them.
Scripture matters. Aaronic pietism does not.
Might I clarify that dishonoring the marriage covenant is the very definition of adultery?
Might I clarify that this oft-made assertion by you has yet to be shown to have anything to do with a platonic lunch between two married persons not married to one another?
Aaron said:
No it doesn't. It follows from the clear admonitions of Scripture. It would be superfluous to prohibit eating with an excommunicated member unless my eating with him is more than food. Eating with someone implies intimacy or fellowship. God doesn't deny him food, but He does deny him intimacy with Christians in good standing.
---HILARITY ALERT---
Finally, Aaron attempts some specific Scriptural application . . . and immediately commits a major categorical error by applying the consequences of disfellowship to a situation where the parties involved are not disfellowshipped.
Now I'm sure you don't know what you're talking about. I'm sure you don't know the Scriptures, either.
Keep it up, Aaron. What a hoot!
Anyone here who would not say that Baptist in Richmond is on a slippery slope into infidelity?
I wouldn't.
No it doesn't. It follows from the clear admonitions of Scripture. It would be superfluous to prohibit eating with an excommunicated member unless my eating with him is more than food. Eating with someone implies intimacy or fellowship. God doesn't deny him food, but He does deny him intimacy with Christians in good standing.
Finally, Aaron attempts some specific Scriptural application . . . and immediately commits a major categorical error by applying the consequences of disfellowship to a situation where the parties involved are not disfellowshipped.
Now I'm sure you don't know what you're talking about. I'm sure you don't know the Scriptures, either.
Keep it up, Aaron. What a hoot!
Anyone here who would not say that Baptist in Richmond is on a slippery slope into infidelity?
I wouldn't.
And thus you condemn yourself as a blind simpleton, for a prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself; but the simple pass on, and are punished.
And not only in this, but also in the childish demands you make of the Scriptures. You insist that for something to be judged as a moral wrong, they must express a specific prohibition. That is far from the truth not only because it is an arbitrary stipulation dreamed up in your own head, but also because the Scriptures abound with admonitions and examples to the contrary. You want to restrict the scope of God's commandments despite the testimony of the Spirit that His commandments are exceeding broad, Psalm 119:96. Scoff all you want at "Aaronic" piety (your words, not mine). I have seen the end of all perfection, but there is no end in the perfection and piety demanded of us by God, and embodied in the person of Christ. As Spurgeon so eloquently put it:
(Sort of wipes out the "Margin" idea.)
The commandment not to eat of the forbidden fruit always meant not to touch it, as the perfect and pious and sinless Eve (at that point in history, anyway) expressed it, Gen.3:3. Thou shalt not kill always prohibited anger. Thou shalt not forswear thyself always meant "let your communication be Yea, yea; Nay, nay." An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth never gave place for retaliation.
But more than that, Thou shalt not kill always meant to love your enemy, and to forgive your brother 70 times 7 times. Thou shalt not commit adultery always prohibited inordinate affection, but more than that, it always meant "Husbands, love your wives," and "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands." There is nothing demanded of us in the New Testament that is ever more or greater than what the law demands, but it teaches us the true fulfillment of these things and gives us a glimpse of what the Spirit of Christ said in David, "Thy commandment is exceeding broad."
So how does one love his wife? We're told by Paul as Christ loved the church. That in and of itself tells us that no man ever truly did love his wife in the fulness that the Law demands. No one even came close. There is none that can approach that love. We all fall short--far short.
But the man who loves his wife is not concerned about how far he can go with another woman before it is wrong. He is constantly thinking of how in his day to day actions he can fulfill the commandment to love his wife, and sets aside any weight that hinders his course. He knows that Christ set the church apart for Himself, therefore he cleaves only to his wife and forsakes all others. He also shuns any appearance or interaction that would appear to others that someone else is enjoying the familial intimacy reserved for the one to whom he is committed. And even in all this I have not begun to describe what it means for a man to love his wife.
And so, how does a married man having "just lunch" with another woman aid him in his fulfillment of the divine requirement? It doesn't. First, because there is no such thing as "just lunch," so the premise is invalid, and second, despite the lofty opinions some may have of their own moral fortitude, it is no help to righteous living.
The carnal mind says, "What's wrong with it?" The spiritual mind asks, "What's right?"
Which one of these examples would better aid a couple in fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church?
Diane's would be.
Go thou and do likewise.
Baptist in Richmond
Active Member
That is hardly a "whopping?" Once again, you simply claim some sort of victory. It doesn't work that way. Furthermore, I am trying to find in the Bible where we are encouraged to administer a "whopping" to Fellow Believers, especially when no sin has been committed.
[QUOTEAnyone here who would not say that Baptist in Richmond is on a slippery slope into infidelity? My advice to you is to run. In fact, I'm beseeching you. [/QUOTE]
ARE YOU IMPLYING THAT ANYTHING IMPROPER HAPPENED??? I certainly hope that you are not.
That requires an answer, by the way. Let me ask you again: are you accusing me of doing something improper? I would "beseech" you to proceed cautiously as there are Biblical Passages concerning this..........
Baptist in Richmond
Active Member
And thus you condemn yourself as a blind simpleton, for a prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself; but the simple pass on, and are punished.</font>[/QUOTE]Aaron, the implication is that something improper happened. Let me try this again: are you implying that something inproper happened?
Baptist in Richmond
Active Member
Stop the name calling and answer the question.....
Baptist in Richmond
Active Member
Answer the question, Aaron.
I can go down the list of church members of my church---and I can honestly say there is not a solitary woman--married or single--who would even remotely think about having "lunch" with their pastor--alone!
Here is the only ethical way I see it---
Her, Her husband and I
Her, Her husband, my wife and I
Her, my wife, and I
But never Her and I!!! Bad code of ethical conduct!
If I go into a resterant---McDonald's, Cracker Barrell or wherever---and I notice she's alone---I acknowledge her presence--but she remains alone---I eat at another table alone!! I do not ask foolish questions like---"Join me here!" or "Can I join you--keep you company??"---and another thing---I do not even remotely offer to pick up her check!!!
Brother David
Here is the only ethical way I see it---
Her, Her husband and I
Her, Her husband, my wife and I
Her, my wife, and I
But never Her and I!!! Bad code of ethical conduct!
If I go into a resterant---McDonald's, Cracker Barrell or wherever---and I notice she's alone---I acknowledge her presence--but she remains alone---I eat at another table alone!! I do not ask foolish questions like---"Join me here!" or "Can I join you--keep you company??"---and another thing---I do not even remotely offer to pick up her check!!!
Brother David
Aaron said:
And thus you condemn yourself as a blind simpleton, for a prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself; but the simple pass on, and are punished.
And thus Aaron loseth the argument, for a man with no substance attacketh the person and calleth names.
And not only in this, but also in the childish demands you make of the Scriptures. You insist that for something to be judged as a moral wrong, they must express a specific prohibition.
No, I simply insist that if you are going to apply the Scriptures, you must do it in a relevant and responsible way.
That is far from the truth not only because it is an arbitrary stipulation
Speaking of "arbitrary," how about that so-called application of 2 Cor. 5:11 you attempted earlier?
You want to restrict the scope of God's commandments
. . . to what they were intended for. You, on the other hand, appear to want to arbitrarily allow any commandment to apply to any situation you feel it ought to, such as applying a rule against fellowshipping with those under church discipline to situations where the parties are not under church discipline.
I don't look forward to the day that you try to argue that red is green and get creamed crossing a busy intersection.
Scoff all you want at "Aaronic" piety (your words, not mine).
Why, thank you.
The commandment not to eat of the forbidden fruit always meant not to touch it, as the perfect and pious and sinless Eve (at that point in history, anyway) expressed it, Gen.3:3.
(yawn)
The major weakness of your so-called argument is that for it to wash I have to swallow a boatload of unproven assertions like the above.
Eve was sinless, not infallible.
And thus you condemn yourself as a blind simpleton, for a prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself; but the simple pass on, and are punished.
And thus Aaron loseth the argument, for a man with no substance attacketh the person and calleth names.
And not only in this, but also in the childish demands you make of the Scriptures. You insist that for something to be judged as a moral wrong, they must express a specific prohibition.
No, I simply insist that if you are going to apply the Scriptures, you must do it in a relevant and responsible way.
That is far from the truth not only because it is an arbitrary stipulation
Speaking of "arbitrary," how about that so-called application of 2 Cor. 5:11 you attempted earlier?
You want to restrict the scope of God's commandments
. . . to what they were intended for. You, on the other hand, appear to want to arbitrarily allow any commandment to apply to any situation you feel it ought to, such as applying a rule against fellowshipping with those under church discipline to situations where the parties are not under church discipline.
I don't look forward to the day that you try to argue that red is green and get creamed crossing a busy intersection.
Scoff all you want at "Aaronic" piety (your words, not mine).
Why, thank you.
The commandment not to eat of the forbidden fruit always meant not to touch it, as the perfect and pious and sinless Eve (at that point in history, anyway) expressed it, Gen.3:3.
(yawn)
The major weakness of your so-called argument is that for it to wash I have to swallow a boatload of unproven assertions like the above.
Eve was sinless, not infallible.
T
Travelsong
Guest
Aaron, you originally said:
I agree with you for the most part, but this statement obviously follows from your legalistic views of music.
My sister and I are mistaken for a couple just about every time we go out. I can assure you there is nothing in our body language or demeanor that communicates something of an illicit nature.
Now if you are merely stating that eating with someone communicates a sense of friendship alone, then we are in agreement. But I believe you are suggesting more than just friendship is being communicated, and if that is the fact, you are wrong. That is my point, and I can provide a hundred more examples of how others might mistake the nature of a couple's relationship.
I mentioned earlier that I tutored a married woman in math to help her pass her college math practice. She's old enough to be my mother and in many respects she has been like a mother to me for as far back as I can remember. When she passed her test we decided to celebrate and have dinner. Although her husband came too, there would have never been a problem if he couldn't make it and we went alone together.
Ultimately the point is, when you try to issue blanket moral laws as though you know the hearts and intents of all men in every situation, you will always end up adding to Scripture and twisting the spirit of God's commandments.
To which I replied with an example:
I agree with you for the most part, but this statement obviously follows from your legalistic views of music.
My sister and I are mistaken for a couple just about every time we go out. I can assure you there is nothing in our body language or demeanor that communicates something of an illicit nature.
Now if you are merely stating that eating with someone communicates a sense of friendship alone, then we are in agreement. But I believe you are suggesting more than just friendship is being communicated, and if that is the fact, you are wrong. That is my point, and I can provide a hundred more examples of how others might mistake the nature of a couple's relationship.
Simple. To demonstrate that there is no explicit communication being generated and broadcast to everyone in the vicinity when a man and a woman sit down to eat.
I mentioned earlier that I tutored a married woman in math to help her pass her college math practice. She's old enough to be my mother and in many respects she has been like a mother to me for as far back as I can remember. When she passed her test we decided to celebrate and have dinner. Although her husband came too, there would have never been a problem if he couldn't make it and we went alone together.
Ultimately the point is, when you try to issue blanket moral laws as though you know the hearts and intents of all men in every situation, you will always end up adding to Scripture and twisting the spirit of God's commandments.
Well it's a good thing God speaks directly to and through you my message board warrior friend, otherwise cyberspace would be in real trouble.
Baptist in Richmond
Active Member
Brother David:
You never answered my question from the other day, so I will try again: are you equating your jealousy as a husband with the Jealousy of Almighty God?
Let me expound upon that: are you saying that your jealousy, that is rooted in human insecurity, over something that can potentially arise out of temptation, is the same thing as the Righteous Jealousy of God? That is quite a statement.
Remember: we are talking about the Lord God of Abraham. IMHO, we need to be very careful when we liken our behavior with that of God the Father. This is True Holiness.
That is an honest question, by the way.