Strong Drink -The Baptist Truth

[Diggin in da Word]

and we should to our best not to overeat, over drink. When we do we are over lusting, and over coveting.

Don't over lust? don't over covet?

God says Thou shalt not covet at all.

Romans 7:7 (KJV) What shall we say then? [Is] the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. {lust: or, concupiscence}

1 Corinthians 10:6 (KJV) Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. {our...: Gr. our figures}

Galatians 5:16 (KJV) [This] I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. {ye...: or, fulfil not}

1 Thessalonians 4:5 (KJV) Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God:

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

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

2 Peter 1:4 (KJV) Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

1 John 2:16 (KJV) For all that [is] in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

So you teach your children to walk contrary to God's will? You did say they are not to overlust, did you not? Yey God's Word says

Thou shalt not covet.

 

[ituttut]

Originally Posted by ituttut to mes228
Nice post. However if one does it in the privacy of their own home, they can enjoy this gift from God. But there are some devious among us that will "spy" and then even "gossip" about it.

What makes you think that God cannot see you?

If we are in the Body of Christ does the Father see His only begotten Son, my Lord, or does He see me? Some will make themselves righteous on their own, and others are joined together in Christ.

Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me. (Psalms 139:7-10)

I am justified through faith, and not as David who was justified by faith. David was not in the Body of Christ. Those that are justified by faith must wait until they have endured until the end to come through the faith of Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit has already sealed me, so I know I can't hide.

Fermented wine is NOT a gift from God. The unfermented "fruit of the vine" (which Jesus gave to His disciples to drink at the Last Supper) is what makes the heart glad. Go back and rightly divide. The word "wine" is generic--it can mean "unfermented" or "fermented" when taken into context--of what comes before and what comes after. For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.

Romans 14:17-23. "For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. 18. For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. 19. Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. 20. For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. 21. It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. 22. Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. 23. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin."

Are there "babes" here? I think not, but just some that refuse to believe what the Word says. I made bold in verse 21 the words "nor to drink wine". If this is "grape juice" I hope in your faith you don't make some brother's or sister's to stumble as you make your heart glad as you imbibe.

Originally Posted by mes228
Christians can drink, BUT SHOULD NOT, FOR THE SAKE OF OTHERS AND CONCIENCE.

Well, that is a double-minded statement if I ever heard one. Either Christians can drink--or they can't--there are NO gray areas. Why be conformed to the world in this one area (drinking) and "be not conformed to this world" in all other areas? Isn't that being a bit hypocritical? You can't please the world and please God.

This looks to be addressed to both Mes228, and me. Mes228 is more or less quoting Paul. Jesus on earth told us not to judge, and then He told Paul the same thing, so we know we shouldn't unjustly judge.

Why do you accuse mes228 of serving mammon in Matthew 6:24?

Why do you accuse mes228 of adultery in James 4:4?

Are you one of those that refuse to eat meat? God said He caused the grass to grow for our benefit, if we wish to partake of this gift, just as He caused the food and the wine (Psalms 104:14-15). In this world God provides for us, but we are not to be of the world of the unbeliever.

Does food or drink make us one with this world (Romans 14:17)? You again unfairly judge mes228 with your Romans 12:1-2 out of place reference.

But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord. A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.(James 1:6-8)

You need to address this one to God, and not mes228. If it is the will of God, He will allow you to see what mes228 has been shown. Try reading the Epistles of Paul to see what Christ Jesus in heaven revealed to Him. He didn't begin to reveal a secret in the mysteries of God until Damascus Road.

 

[mes228]

Drink

Just for the record I believe that producing a schism in the Baptist church among members is perhaps a greater wrong than excessive drinking. I really don't wish to overthrow anyones faith. It is quite clear that some here hold their personal wills quite high. If the Baptist church doctrine says a Christian can drink - but for concience sake, and real world problems, should not. Thats pretty much the end of it for Baptist. For a schizmatic that puts their will/opinion higher than church doctrine, thats another story. Perhaps that is something that ought to be looked at carefully. This discussion is proof that Preachers ought to be very careful what is preached from the pulpit. Many believe that posititions, beliefs, etc. of a good motivational speaker is "doctrine, or truth". When in reality it is a schism being taught by a schismatic. At best a lot of "personal opinion" is taught this way. The Baptist doctrine really differs on several subjects from what is commonly believed and preached on any given Sunday. It's a shame that Baptist don't really know what the Baptist church believes in some areas. I agree 100% with Baptist doctrine on the subject of Christians and alcohol.

As an aside, I don't drink and many, many years ago my father did make wine and I helped him. Thus the familiarity with fermentation. I never heard him curse or ever saw him drunk or even tipsy in his entire life. Best regards and have a great day.

 

[Isaiah40:28]

'not given to wine' means just what it says. He is not to drink alcoholic beverage.

But I thought you said that it meant, "ready to quarrel", which is not the same as "not to drink alcoholic beverage"?

Originally Posted by His Blood Spoke My Name
Paul could not see in the future to our grape juice of today. But he did have knowledge of preserved grape juice. We know this because historians recorded preserved grape juice from before Christ and up into the second century A.D.

And this preserved grape juice is what you believe the OT means is "making the heart glad" or "life merry"?

I'd really like to see this question addressed by those who promote total abstinence in drinking.

 

[Jerome]

If the Baptist church doctrine says a Christian can drink - but for concience sake, and real world problems, should not. Thats pretty much the end of it for Baptist. For a schizmatic that puts their will/opinion higher than church doctrine, thats another story. Perhaps that is something that ought to be looked at carefully. This discussion is proof that Preachers ought to be very careful what is preached from the pulpit. Many believe that posititions, beliefs, etc. of a good motivational speaker is "doctrine, or truth". When in reality it is a schism being taught by a schismatic. At best a lot of "personal opinion" is taught this way. The Baptist doctrine really differs on several subjects from what is commonly believed and preached on any given Sunday. It's a shame that Baptist don't really know what the Baptist church believes in some areas. I agree 100% with Baptist doctrine on the subject of Christians and alcohol.

There is no such "Baptist church doctrine" on alcohol. No Baptist confession of faith or "official" doctrinal statement says Christians can drink alcohol but should not.
According to your OP the "Baptist church doctrine" on alcohol is to be found a website of a Washington lobbyist. The article expresses the views of one man, Jim Richards, who on his own website prefixed his article with the admission: "I am no linguist, theologian or expert on the subject."

 

[Allan]

Just for the record I believe that producing a schism in the Baptist church among members is perhaps a greater wrong than excessive drinking. I really don't wish to overthrow anyones faith. It is quite clear that some here hold their personal wills quite high. If the Baptist church doctrine says a Christian can drink - but for concience sake, and real world problems, should not. Thats pretty much the end of it for Baptist. For a schizmatic that puts their will/opinion higher than church doctrine, thats another story. Perhaps that is something that ought to be looked at carefully. This discussion is proof that Preachers ought to be very careful what is preached from the pulpit. Many believe that posititions, beliefs, etc. of a good motivational speaker is "doctrine, or truth". When in reality it is a schism being taught by a schismatic. At best a lot of "personal opinion" is taught this way. The Baptist doctrine really differs on several subjects from what is commonly believed and preached on any given Sunday. It's a shame that Baptist don't really know what the Baptist church believes in some areas. I agree 100% with Baptist doctrine on the subject of Christians and alcohol.

As an aside, I don't drink and many, many years ago my father did make wine and I helped him. Thus the familiarity with fermentation. I never heard him curse or ever saw him drunk or even tipsy in his entire life. Best regards and have a great day.

And it is those who are just as divisive from the other side by putting others down and calling them unbiblical who do not share their understanding. Paul never told those people who don't drink or eat meat, they were lacking in understanding and tried to make THEM change. Paul told of his liberty but said it was HIM who would change for THEIR benifit. You wield a two edged sword but cut with only one side, that you must be careful of as well. I personally abstain from liquor as a beverage but know that scripture does not declare total abstinence, and yet at the same time encourages the abstinence of it.

It is a shame of the lack of christian love and desire to live lives by which others are exorted and edified through our self denial and holy living. Yes some go to far on both ends of the spectrum.

As for me and my house we will serve the Lord and not baptists (though baptist I am and hold to the same biblical doctrines it acknowledges), but it is unto God we live and die not man or denominations.

 

[Allan]

But then again I read the New Interesting Version... and it says, "not given to drunkeness".

What say ye?

Well you have a very inaccurrate, and poorly translated piece of scripture.

If we take that rendering, then you have one messed up possition on the qualifications of a Deacon. For if the Bishop (Pastor) is 'not to be given to drunkeness", then the Deacon according to Titus 3 is 'not to be given to much drunkeness'.

So we have the Pastor not being allowed to be drunk.
But the Deacon can't be drunk to often.
That leaves the church being able to parrrrrtaaaaaaay! Because they would be under no such obligations as the extreme examples of Godliness that must be upheld by the Pastor/bishop.
Nor are they constrained as the Deacon to be drunk only occassionally.

 

[EdSutton]

So you're not going to answer my question about the scientific data and the biblical phrase?

**
But then again I read the New Interesting Version... and it says, "not given to drunkeness".

What say ye?

**edited for translation error.

You should have "edited" for a 'slam' at a Bible version. And FTR, I am not a particular fan of the NIV, as well as several others, but find it less than called for, to appropriate some only slightly-veiled, subtle 'digs' at any version.

Just so you will know that I am not on some supposed 'spiritual' or theological 'high-horse', I'd also add that at one time, I made some similar comments regarding the GNB and the RSV. Hopefully I have matured a bit, at least in this area, and don't still practice that. Satan, and the world will do enough to attack the Scriptures. I have merely decided, as I hope all Christians do, not to "aid and abet" in the process.

Ed

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

Just for the record I believe that producing a schism in the Baptist church among members is perhaps a greater wrong than excessive drinking. I really don't wish to overthrow anyones faith. It is quite clear that some here hold their personal wills quite high. If the Baptist church doctrine says a Christian can drink - but for concience sake, and real world problems, should not. Thats pretty much the end of it for Baptist. For a schizmatic that puts their will/opinion higher than church doctrine, thats another story. Perhaps that is something that ought to be looked at carefully. This discussion is proof that Preachers ought to be very careful what is preached from the pulpit. Many believe that posititions, beliefs, etc. of a good motivational speaker is "doctrine, or truth". When in reality it is a schism being taught by a schismatic. At best a lot of "personal opinion" is taught this way. The Baptist doctrine really differs on several subjects from what is commonly believed and preached on any given Sunday. It's a shame that Baptist don't really know what the Baptist church believes in some areas. I agree 100% with Baptist doctrine on the subject of Christians and alcohol.

As an aside, I don't drink and many, many years ago my father did make wine and I helped him. Thus the familiarity with fermentation. I never heard him curse or ever saw him drunk or even tipsy in his entire life. Best regards and have a great day.

mes,

YOUR BAPTIST CHURCH may have and follow its doctine that alcohol is permitted, but my Baptist Church follows the Bible Doctrine and abstains as the Word of God commands.

 

[Allan]

You should have "edited" for a 'slam' at a Bible version. And FTR, I am not a particular fan of the NIV, as well as several others, but find it less than called for, to appropriate some only slightly-veiled, subtle 'digs' at any version.

Just so you will know that I am not on some supposed 'spiritual' or theological 'high-horse', I'd also add that at one time, I made some similar comments regarding the GNB and the RSV. Hopefully I have matured a bit, at least in this area, and don't still practice that. Satan, and the world will do enough to attack the Scriptures. I have merely decided, as I hope all Christians do, not to "aid and abet" in the process.

Ed

LOL... I didn't even notice the "Interesting" for NIV. That I guess would explain somewhat, huh.

 

[Isaiah40:28]

Well you have a very inaccurrate, and poorly translated piece of scripture.

If we take that rendering, then you have one messed up possition on the qualifications of a Deacon. For if the Bishop (Pastor) is 'not to be given to drunkeness", then the Deacon according to Titus 3 is 'not to be given to much drunkeness'.

So we have the Pastor not being allowed to be drunk.
But the Deacon can't be drunk to often.
That leaves the church being able to parrrrrtaaaaaaay! Because they would be under no such obligations as the extreme examples of Godliness that must be upheld by the Pastor/bishop.
Nor are they constrained as the Deacon to be drunk only occassionally.

well for deacons it says, "not indulging in much wine".
I think the limitations on drinking are the same for both offices as well as every other Christian: don't drink in excess.

 

[Isaiah40:28]

You should have "edited" for a 'slam' at a Bible version. And FTR, I am not a particular fan of the NIV, as well as several others, but find it less than called for, to appropriate some only slightly-veiled, subtle 'digs' at any version.

Just so you will know that I am not on some supposed 'spiritual' or theological 'high-horse', I'd also add that at one time, I made some similar comments regarding the GNB and the RSV. Hopefully I have matured a bit, at least in this area, and don't still practice that. Satan, and the world will do enough to attack the Scriptures. I have merely decided, as I hope all Christians do, not to "aid and abet" in the process.

Ed

Actually I was using the label for the NIV that its detractors have employed in previous years.
So in essence, I was using their "punchline".

I exclusively use the NIV in daily reading and studying and enjoy it's contemporary language.

 

[mes228]

Drink

Jerome, Please forgive me if I've offended you. It was my understanding that "The Baptist Faith and Message" was the official spokesman for the Southern Baptist.
Perhaps I'm wrong. I don't suspect that sowing discord among the Brethren is a Godly thing to do. I defer to you and will remain quiet. Honestly though, I feel the positition of the Baptist Faith and Message is well founded. If a total abstinence doctrine/positition was put in writting, and the attempt was made to justify it Bibilicaly. The Baptist church would be a laughing stock of most other legitimate scholars. You can preach and teach total abstinance on a local level (and it is being done) and use only portions of scripture. However I'd say 99.999% (just a guess) of Scholars/Teachers of any persuasion would find it blatently wrong. And would cast doubt on the sincerity, honesty, and accuracy of Baptist theology. You simply cannot reach a total abstinance positition based on the totality of scripture. It has to be a discipline not a doctrine. I don't think I'll post on this topic any more. Wishing you the best, and have a Blessed day.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

You can preach and teach total abstinance on a local level (and it is being done) and use only portions of scripture. However I'd say 99.999% (just a guess) of Scholars/Teachers of any persuasion would find it blatently wrong.

1 Corinthians 1:27 (KJV) But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

Even the greatest of scholars make mistakes... Ken Jennings, for example.

 

[ituttut]

ituttut:
It is funny how it is a 'supposed' gift to all men, but it is forbidden (those who are seperated unto God or serving God) to some and to others it states they also should not touch the stuff (Kings, princes, and Pastors).

In Psalms 31, I take notice of who is giving this advice. I also notice Princes' may drink wine in this Psalms. I see nothing about Pastor's not drinking wine in scripture. I don't know who this King Lemuel is, and if this is Bathsheba speaking, Solomon did not pay too much attention to her. We also see this is "prophecy", and I see in it that which applies to God's personal nation that He spread His skirt over. Good advice indeed for His people, but I cannot see that it we today are bound by this Psalms.

It works just as the other side of the coin. Jesus Christ died for all, but do all partake of the gift of salvation? Some do not partake of the free gift. Some saved refuse in their freedom "wine to make their heart glad". Do we all not make choices?

Wow, a gift to some and not others. You sound Calvinistic.

Does the above sound Calvinistic?

 

[ituttut]

Please show me in scripture where it EVER says a person who knows it is a stumbling block or offence to another, where they can go home and privately do it.

However, I can show you scripturally where Paul says if it cause one to stumble, he will NEVER partake as long as the earth standeth.
I can also show you scripturally where Paul states to mimic him (as in follow his example), for he mimics Christ.

Just let me know if you need to see them, ituttut.

I do appreciate your offer to help Allen, but I know the scriptures you speak of.
May I show you a couple that you may not be aware of? I see in Galatians 2:4 that we are due our privacy.

I have faith before God in public, and privately. I can do things with Him, and also with Him and others that I can't do in the presences of certain one's that do not understand - Romans 14:22.

I am not, and will not put my self on the same plane as Jesus, or those Jesus Christ personally, and verbally spoke to and heard by the human ear. There should not be any today that still adhere to being offended by meat or drink offered to Idols.

We are also to use common sense and pay attention to other scripture. In Colossians 2:16 we are not to let any judge us, as it becomes their sin.

 

[ituttut]

Don't over lust? don't over covet?

God says Thou shalt not covet at all.

So you teach your children to walk contrary to God's will? You did say they are not to overlust, did you not? Yey God's Word says

Thou shalt not covet.

Hi Diggin in da Word.

The Bible tells what we are not to covet, just as it tells what is sin. We also know what we are not to lust after.

Are we not to seek and desire what is good and acceptable to God? Don't know about you but I "lust" after my wife. Am I'm sinning? Are all men and women married to each other sinning in their lust that God approves of, He that instigated marriage as the two become one? Do you teach your children that marriage is a sin because of acceptable lust? How else can we obey His prime directive "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it……."? Genesis 1:28.

It is the same of what we are allowed to "covet". We don't have all the gifts that were in the days of Apostles, but we now have words Christ revealed to man. As we read I Corinthians 12:31, "But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way" We keep reading on into chapter 13, of the "more excellent way" which I covet.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

Acceptable lust? I cannot find that term in the Word of God.

that word 'covet' in 1 Corinthians 12:31 does not mean lust, as you imply.

Strong's Greek Dictionary
2206. zeloo
[SIZE=-1]Search for G2206 in KJVSL[/SIZE] zhlow zeloo dzay-lo'-o from 2205; to have warmth of feeling for or against:--affect, covet (earnestly), (have) desire, (move with) envy, be jealous over, (be) zealous(-ly affect).
See Greek 2205

 

[Allan]

I do appreciate your offer to help Allen, but I know the scriptures you speak of.
May I show you a couple that you may not be aware of? I see in Galatians 2:4 that we are due our privacy.

If that is the rendering you obtain from that passage, then (no offence) you need to go back and look it over in the proper context.

Gal 2:4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
Gal 2:5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you

First - those false brethren or false christians came to Paul and the gentile church in an underhanded manner.
Second - It was not that Paul and the gentiles did ANYTHING privately but this reference is specific to the stealth (due to their true intentions) of those false christians.
Third - To spy out (as foes in the guise of friends) our 'liberty' directly concerns the non-circumcision of Titus (and in general including other geniles by implication) in verse 3. Their liberty in Christ was that they was not compelled to obey the cerimonial Law of Moses and so the false brethren came to try to bring them under the Law FOR righteousness. We saw/see a portion of this group in Acts contending the same point.

Act 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command [them] to keep the law of Moses.

This was not about being able to do or not do as one wishes, but the truth of the Gospel at the very heart of the matter and at stake.

Jamison-Faust
Greek, "To whom not even for an hour did we yield by subjection." ALFORD renders the Greek article, "with THE subjection required of us." The sense rather is, We would willingly have yielded for love [BENGEL] (if no principle was at issue), but not in the way of subjection, where "the truth of the Gospel" ( Gal 2:14 Col 1:5 ) was at stake (namely, the fundamental truth of justification by faith only, without the works of the law, contrasted with another Gospel, Gal 1:6 ). Truth precise, unaccommodating, abandons nothing that belongs to itself, admits nothing that is inconsistent with it [BENGEL].

There is nothing here to support your contention of doing something privately that you KNOW is a stumbling block to other brethren.

I have faith before God in public, and privately. I can do things with Him, and also with Him and others that I can't do in the presences of certain one's that do not understand - Romans 14:22.

You contention here is also incorrect regarding us doing what we please privately.
Let us look at it in context: Here is your verse (even out of context it holds no water.

Rom 14:22 Hast thou faith? have [it] to thyself before God. Happy [is] he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.

Have that faith to thyself before God. Not do it privately but keep it to yourself (your understanding of that knowledge) But it isn't finished, It states that "Happy is he that does not condemn himself by doing that which he can do.' How can you condemn yourself doing that which you understand you can do biblically. We find that in the context of the preceding verses:

Rom 14:12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
Rom 14:13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in [his] brother's way.
Rom 14:14 ¶ I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that [there is] nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him [it is] unclean.
Rom 14:15 But if thy brother be grieved with [thy] meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
Rom 14:16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
Rom 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
Rom 14:18 For he that in these things serveth Christ [is] acceptable to God, and approved of men.
Rom 14:19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
Rom 14:20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed [are] pure; but [it is] evil for that man who eateth with offence.
Rom 14:21 [It is] good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor [any thing] whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
Rom 14:22 Hast thou faith? have [it] to thyself before God. Happy [is] he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
Rom 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because [he eateth] not of faith: for whatsoever [is] not of faith is sin.

NOW, look at Chapter 15 as Paul continues his discertation:

Rom 15:1 ¶ We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves.
Rom 15:2 Let every one of us please [his] neighbour for [his] good to edification.
Rom 15:3 For even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me.

Paul was clear cut and straight forward that we are to be about others and their edification and NOT about pleasing ourselves because we have every right. Love is about others not self.

I am not, and will not put my self on the same plane as Jesus, or those Jesus Christ personally, and verbally spoke to and heard by the human ear. There should not be any today that still adhere to being offended by meat or drink offered to Idols.

That is fine. But it was not Jesus who is speaking but Paul throught the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. It doesn't matter if it is to idols or to oneself, scripture states without equivocation it is about that which causes thy brother to stumble' and the meat and drink to idols were the examples Paul was using. You should know that at the very least!

We are also to use common sense and pay attention to other scripture. In Colossians 2:16 we are not to let any judge us, as it becomes their sin.

*sigh* You do understand (I hope) that Paul is speaking about the Jewish Law regarding eating and drinking, monthly and yearly feast, and sabboths? We know this is speaking of or specifically to the keeping of the Jewish Law because of the very next verse:

Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ.

The Law was the shadow of things to come which are fulfilled in Jesus.
Also, in relation to the "judging us". It must be noted this is speaking of determining if a person is a true believer or not by the criteria of the Mosaic Law which are a shadow of things to come. This judgment is more than just right or wrong but more in accordance which those whom Paul was contending against much of the time - Judisers. (though one may believe in Jesus, but if they did not keep the Law also, they were not truly saved). This is not about Paul saying don't let those people condemm you for 'doing them' but literially for NOT doing them. (eating, drinking, monthly and yearly feasts, and sabboths)

This is (once again) not properly dividing the word of truth but looking for proof-text according to pre-text thereby showing it is out of context. This was speaking to the Gentile church of those Judisers who would come in and bring the yoke of the Law upon them to bondage, where as in the beginning of the chapter Paul tells them not to listen to men (other gentiles and their teachings) either. But to hold fast Christ whom they have learned and are positioned in according the truths God revealed to them through Paul and others.

In light of the above it is clear you have misunderstood the passages you were quoting for being able to do something privately even though you know it is an offence and stumbling block to another believer.

My contention still stands as I stated earlier. Thank you for your responding to me however.