Unmarried Couples Going Camping

You can't say that sharing a tent is sin in God's eyes, especially if you are attempting to support such a claim using that verse.

 

That is an interesting story. I am from up north. Years ago when a young man came courting and the weather turned bad (lot's of snow and cold and on horse back) he would stay over at the girls parents place. The two were put into the same bed at night, (no heat at night back then and 30 below was very cold) but a board would be put between them to separate them to save her reputation. I am not sure if it always saved her purity, but the board was to save her reputation.

 

Two can share a tent w/o lusting. It is unwise to do so as it can easily lead to sin in the heart or sin in the act, but that is a far cry from it actually being a sin to share a tent. Such a conclusion is neither sound, reasonable, nor, more importantly, Scriptural.

Refer to Baptist Believer's post for a sound refutation of this idea.

Lust is a sin, fornication is a sin, sharing a tent w/o lust or fornication is not. One might quibble over whether it is possible to share a tent w/o either, but thats just another way of say that doing so is unwise. Saying that sharing a tent is a sin w/o any qualification is legalism, pure and simple. Its creating a sin where Scripture does not speak.

 

This "appearance of evil" text has nothing to do with the situation. It's talking about the use of tongues in church.

I'm personally not going to say that this is right or wrong. It's clearly an issue of conscience.

 

You may want to go back and read the Pauline epistles again. Tongues in Church is in the epistle to the Church at Corinth, and 'abstain from all appearance of evil' is in the epistle to the Church at Thessalonica.

The epistle to the Church at Thessalonica was not addressing tongues in Church.

 

IMO it is not a yes or no answer, it would depend on the spiritual maturity of each of them. For some people it would be unwise, for others it would be fine.

 

As to the discussion of 1Th 5:22


I like how the NASB translates this verse. I think it does a better job at conveying the real meaning of the verse.


"Abstain from ever form of evil." 1 Th 5:22


Basically whenever evil appears, in any form we should flee from it. This is the real meassage of that verse.

.

 

People judge (and misjudge) by what they see and hear. I agree that an unmarried couple should avoid situations where the "appearance" of inappropriate behavior can be misinterpreted--just as we all should do. If I were to be seen going into a bar, anyone seeing me go in there would assume I'm going in there to drink. I've gone into a bar just for a meal, because they had GREAT hamburgers. I did NOT drink any alcohol--especially since I was working and it was my lunch break.

I see nothing wrong with social drinking, but I can't have the sugar anyway. However, many Christians DO believe that drinking is a sin and would condemn other Christians for doing it. Also, many non-Christians have a very clear-cut belief on what Christians should and shouldn't be doing. Seeing a professing Christian go into a bar would not help his testimony.

Is it possible for those two couples to camp together without giving into lust and desire? I suppose it is but highly unlikely. Maybe they're hoping that with two couples, it would be easier to avoid temptation. That is illogical thinking and can lead to sin if one couple doesn't care what the other couple thinks and starts "making out". The second couple will be left to try to resist temptation on their own with sexual activity going on a few feet away, which would make resisting even more difficult.

 

You must not know many mature Christians if you think it highly unlikely that they wouldn't give in to lust and desire.

I can think of many people I have known throughout my life that could handle being in that situation and simple enjoy the outdoors, the activities, and each others company, without having to lose control as you suggest.

 

(Repeating an argument made quite well earlier but worth repeating...)

You point out that many Christians believe that X is a sin and would condemn others for doing it. However, this is *not* a valid reason to argue that others refrain. Christ, after all, did many things which the religious condemned. So if Christ did not see other's condemnation as reason for refraining, why would we?

The command to refrain for the sake of the brother is not because the brother might condemn your act but to avoid causing the brother to stumble - to violate their own conscience. So, if a believer firmly believes X is wrong but is in no way tempted to do X due to your example, then the command to refrain for the sake of the brother does not apply. Instead, the teaching on Christians seeking to bind other's consciences would apply.

 

Ephesians 4:27 Neither give place to the devil.

When unmarried couples share a tent for the purpose of sleeping together while camping, are they not "giving place to the devil"? Does this not open the door for temptation? Did Jesus not say, in the "model prayer" (Matthew 6), "lead us not into temptation"? In James 1:13-16:

James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

James 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

James 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

James 1:16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.

If you play with fire, sooner or later you will get burned.

 

A few thoughts on that- Since drinking in moderation is not a sin, should we use other peoples' erroneous views to determine our conduct in that regard? Furthermore, does it not help propagate incorrect views by abstaining out of fear of causing unintended offense? Of course, I would not support intentional or reckless causation of offense. I'm also not saying anyone should or shouldn't drink- that's a personal decision and there are legitimate reasons to do so or not to do so.

 

So much nicer when a phrase is quoted in context:
Eph 4:26"In your anger do not sin"[d]: Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, 27and do not give the devil a foothold.

1. The verse is about anger. To quote it assuming it universally applies to every thing is twisting Scripture.
2. But lets say that it does have universal applicability. Notice the logic: Anger is not forbidden, dwelling on it is. It is the dwelling which gives a foothold to the devil. So, rather than give the command "Don't be angry because anger can give the devil a foothold.", nor does it say "avoid all temptation to anger". It simply says that when angry, don't give into the anger - deal with it properly so that Satan doesn't have a foothold. Even if universally applicable, this verse is clearly about dealing with temptation properly, not avoiding it altogether as you would have it.

Nope, not necessarily. If they are mature and not given to dwelling on the temptation to fornicate, then sharing a tent may simply be sharing a tent. But if one or both know in advance that they will sorely be tempted, then yes, going ahead with the plans could be considered "giving the devil a foothold". The problem arises when you create universal rules over things which can be innocent activities.

Not necessarily. No more than eating a candy bar opens the door to temptation for a person not given to gluttony. If a person has a problem with gluttony then any time they eat anything other than the blandest food they are opening themselves to temptation. But for the person who doesn't seek unrighteous satisfaction in food, eating is simply eating.

Yep. So if they know they will be tempted then they probably shouldn't do it.

And if you eat food sooner or later you will be a glutton....errr, wait...

 

What ever happened to just plain old "common sense"? Did God not give us all a brain?

BTW, eating is not sin, so how is eating playing with fire?

 

I assume we are talking about young adults in this thread. I want to clarify because to read some of the opinions it sounds as they are describing teenagers.

 

Walking a 6 inch beam 10 ft above the ground may not be common sense for the typical person. But what about for the person who regularly walks a tightrope 50 ft in the air? Even he will walk the 10 ft high beam with some caution but walking it for him couldn't be said to be against common sense.

Common sense is a relative to the person and situation.

On the other side of the fence...I came out of a cult which would argue that its against common sense for single guys and gals to interact except when absolutely necessary. What would be considered normal social interaction (even by your I am sure) was strongly discouraged as being an open invitation to defrauding one another and thus sin.

The problem is taking "commons sense" to its logical conclusion and then creating a universal principle from it. It easily leads to absurdities. Scripture is the guide for sin and guilt, not "common sense".

 

You Are Right... they are wrong

You need to prayerfully approach her and tell how you feel. If you can't stop her, that is her problem, not yours. It is more common than you would imagine.

 

I would agree with you if you were talking about staying over at the others apartment or home, but going camping is a wholesome activity. Most people spend the day being active outdoors and then go to sleep clothed in separate sleeping bags. I guess I am having trouble seeing the automatic losing of one's control everyone is talking about. And lets face it if a couple is in their mid twenty's, have been dating for a while, I doubt camping is going to be the determining factor whether or not they are conducting themselves properly or not.

 

Doing that probably should first depend on her relationship with this person.