COL 2:14-17 The REAL truth from God's Word

[stuart lawrence]

Imagine a child, raised by parents, who every time they slipped up where the parents rules were concerned were thrown out if the house, and not let back in until they earnestly repented.
In England, such a child would be removed from the family home by the authorities for their own protection.
It seems some believe, God loves his children far less than earthly parents love their offspring

 

[Soyeong]

Look, Saul the pharisee could faultlessly obey what we often term the legalistic law( phil3:6)
People who did not know God in Jesus day could faultlessly obey that law living under it.
The law Saul the pharisee could nit obey when he lived under it was the moral law/ TC

Therefore he would have no need to write rom 6:14 concerning the legalistic law, only the moral law. Think about it.

The power of sin is the law 1cor15:56

Which specific law? Not law you can faultlessly obey!

Yet, I fully agree with you. The law itself is holy just and good.

Paul never made any distinction between moral and non-moral laws, but rather he was saying that he obeyed the Mosaic Law faultlessly, which is inclusive of the TC. The issue here is that being faultless is not the same thing as sinless. The Bible describes many people as faultless, but only Jesus was sinless because he never sinned. Paul delighted in obeyed the Mosaic Law (Romans 7:22), but often failed to do so because of the law of sin, yet he was still counted as faultless because he continued to practice repentance. The power of sin is the law of sin (1 Corinthians 15:56, Romans 7:8). If you agree that that the Mosaic Law is holy, righteous, and good, and you agree that you should do what is holy, righteous, and good, then you should agree that you should obey the Law.

 

[stuart lawrence]

Paul never made any distinction between moral and non-moral laws, but rather he was saying that he obeyed the Mosaic Law faultlessly, which is inclusive of the TC. The issue here is that being faultless is not the same thing as sinless. The Bible describes many people as faultless, but only Jesus was sinless because he never sinned. Paul delighted in obeyed the Mosaic Law (Romans 7:22), but often failed to do so because of the law of sin, yet he was still counted as faultless because he continued to practice repentance. The power of sin is the law of sin (1 Corinthians 15:6, Romans 7:8). If you agree that that the Mosaic Law is holy, righteous, and good, and you agree that you should do what is holy, righteous, and good, then you should agree that you should obey the Law.

Paul obeyed the mosaic law faultlessly which is inclusive of the TC?

For I would not have known lust except the law had said: thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment wrought in me all manner of concupiscence
Rom7:7

And the commandment that was ordained to life I found to be unto death verse 10.

That sin through the law might become exceeding sinfull verse13

I am sold as a slave to sin verse14

I do not understand what I do , for what I want to do I do not, but what I hate I do verse15

For I have the desire to do what is good but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do, but the evil if not want to do, this i keep on doing
Verse19

The above all refer to: thou shalt not covet/TC

Yes, the law came as one whole law, and you are right, Paul never literally stated a distinction in any set verse between legalistic and moral law. However, it is not hard to see from what Paul wrote which law he could obey as Saul the pharisee and which law condemned him

 

[Soyeong]

Paul obeyed the mosaic law faultlessly which is inclusive if the TC?

For I would not have known lust except the law had said: thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment wrought in me all manner of concupiscence
Rom7:7

And the commandment that was ordained to life I found to be unto death verse 10.

That sin through the law might become exceeding sinfull verse13

I am sold as a slave to sin verse14

I do not understand what I do , for what I want to do I do not, but ehat I hate I do verse15

For I have the desire to do what is good but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do, but the evil if not want to do, this keep on doing g
Verse19

The above all refer to: thou shalt not covet.

Again, faultless is not the same as sinless. I think coveting is just an example of something that Paul would not have known was a sin if the Mosaic Law hadn't revealed it to be one. In any case, Paul coveted and committed other sins, but was nevertheless counted as faultless because he had had his sins forgiven. In Romans 7:12-13, Paul said that the Mosaic Law is good and that he did not blame what was good for bringing death to him, yet you are acting like Paul blamed the Mosaic Law for bringing death to him.

Yes, the law came as one whole law, and you are right, Paul never literally dress distinction in any set verse between legalistic and moral law. However, it is not hard to see from what Paul wrote which law he could obey and which law condemned him

Do you agree that in Romans 7:21-25, Paul said he delighted in obeying the Mosaic Law and that he served it with his mind, but contrasted it with a law of sin that held him captive that he served with his flesh? It seems to me like you are disregarding the distinction that Paul did make while inserting a distinction that Paul didn't make. Nowhere in the Bible does it make any sort of distinction between legalistic and moral law and thinking of God's Law as being legalistic has always been a fundamental misunderstanding of it when the truth is that has always been about love.

 

[stuart lawrence]

Again, faultless is not the same as sinless. I think coveting is just an example of something that Paul would not have known was a sin if the Mosaic Law hadn't revealed it to be one. In any case, Paul coveted and committed other sins, but was counted as faultless because he had had his sins forgiven. In Romans 7:12-13, Paul said that the Mosaic Law is good and that he did not blame what was good for bringing death to him, yet you are acting like Paul blamed the Mosaic Law for bringing death to him.



Do you agree that in Romans 7:21-25, Paul said he delighted in obeying the Mosaic Law and that he served it with his mind, but contrasted it with a law of sin that held him captive that he served with his flesh?

Of course, Saul would not have known coveting was sin unless the law had stated: Thou shalt not covet. The law is holy, just and good. And Paul stated in verse 13:
Did that which is good( the law) become death to me? By no means.
I don't mean to be offensive. But what you are failing to see is, sin took advantage/ occasion of the commandment to arouse all manner of sin in Saul the pharisee. We could go into how sin could do that if you like. Hence:
For when we were controlled by the sinfull nature, the sinfull passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies bringing forth fruit for death. Verse5
Saul the pharisee did NOT believe he was counted as faultless when he failed to observe the law. He could not have stated the law condemned him by his failure to obey it if that were true.
As to your last point, I will for now ignore it, as I hope we are having an important discussion, not one revolving around your insistence the entire mosaic law must be followed.
Just to say, it is the moral law being specifically discussed in rom ch7

 

[Soyeong]

Of course, Paul would not have known coveting was sin unless the law had stated: Thou shalt not covet. The law is holy, just and good. And Paul stated in verse 13:
Did that which is good( the law) become death to me? By no means.
I don't mean to be offensive. But what you are failing to see is, sin took advantage/ occasion by the commandment to arouse all manner of sin in Saul the pharisee. We could go into how sin could do that if you like. Hence:
For when we were controlled by the sinfull nature, the sinfull passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies bringing forth fruit for death. Verse5
Saul the pharisee did NOT believe he was counted as faultlesswhen he failed to observe the law. He could not have stated the law condemned him by his failure to obey it if that were true.

When you have sinned and you have had your sins forgiven, then are your sins still held against you, or are you faultless? Paul had had his sins forgiven, so he was no longer at fault for committing them, and thus was faultless.

As to your last point, I will for now ignore it, as I hope we are having an important discussion, not one revolving around your insistence the entire mosaic law must be followed

My point in my last paragraph was not about the entire law being followed, but about recognizing the distinction that Paul made between the Law that God had given and the law of sin. It seems to me like you are disregarding the distinction that Paul did make while inserting a distinction that Paul didn't make. Nowhere in the Bible does it make any sort of distinction between legalistic and moral law and thinking of God's Law as being legalistic has always been a fundamental misunderstanding of it when the truth is that has always been about love.

 

[stuart lawrence]

When you have sinned and you have had your sins forgiven, then are your sins still held against you, or are you faultless? Paul had had his sins forgiven, so he was no longer at fault for committing them, and thus was faultless.



My point in my last paragraph was not about the entire law being followed, but about recognizing the distinction that Paul made between the Law that God had given and the law of sin. It seems to me like you are disregarding the distinction that Paul did make while inserting a distinction that Paul didn't make. Nowhere in the Bible does it make any sort of distinction between legalistic and moral law and thinking of God's Law as being legalistic has always been a fundamental misunderstanding of it when the truth is that has always been about love.

Saul was a strict pharisee. Heaven for him hinged on obeying the letter of the law. That is why he said: the letter kills. The pinnacle of the law was the TC, often described as the moral law.
When Saul the pharisee made a commitment to God( 13 isn't it for a Jewish lad) he said sin took occasion of the comnandment: thou shalt not covet to arouse ALL manner if concupiscence in him. Saul the pharisee believed in righteousness of observing the law. For Paul the Christian stated:
Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness for everyone who believeth. Rim10:4
Saul, living under a strict law of righteousness found all manner of sin aroused in him. For sin took occasion of the commandment/ that which is holy, just and good, to make Saul a worse sinner. This is why Paul the christians core emphasis is on dying to the law in order to live for God.
Once again I agree. The bible makes no specific distinction between moral and legalistic law. But once again I repeat. It is clear from what Paul wrote the moral law/TC brought condemnation to him.
And Jesus said, the Pharisees cleaned the outside of the cup but on the inside were full of wickedness, hypocrisy and everything unclean.
Once again, they did not obey what is often termed the moral law. For that is the law they must be breaking according to Christ's description of them

 

[stuart lawrence]

When you have sinned and you have had your sins forgiven, then are your sins still held against you, or are you faultless? Paul had had his sins forgiven, so he was no longer at fault for committing them, and thus was faultless.



My point in my last paragraph was not about the entire law being followed, but about recognizing the distinction that Paul made between the Law that God had given and the law of sin. It seems to me like you are disregarding the distinction that Paul did make while inserting a distinction that Paul didn't make. Nowhere in the Bible does it make any sort of distinction between legalistic and moral law and thinking of God's Law as being legalistic has always been a fundamental misunderstanding of it when the truth is that has always been about love.

Possibly this isn't for a theological discussion on the internet. But:
At the age of ten I responded to an altar call and set out on the Christian path. My experience, during the next five years mirrors exactly what Paul wrote in rom 7:7-11. For I tried to attain heaven as Saul the pharisee tried to attain it and got exactly the same result he got. Looking back at those years, what can I now say about them?
I had felt alive before the law was placed within me, for there was no condemnation then. I had just been a normal, healthy, happy kid. But once the law did come to me, sin consciousness sprang to life and I died/ felt condemned. All manner of concupiscence was aroused in me, through me knowing, in effect of what the law commanded. The commandment i believed would give me life, if I obeyed it, instead brought death/ condemnation, for i could not keep it.
However, I knew the law itself was holy, just and good. But sin took ocassion of what was holy, just and good to make me exceeding sinfull
Rom7:7-13

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I hope, for your sake you stop bearing false witness as freely as you do. Remember Jesus words:
The measure you use to judge others will be used to judge you

Let God be our judge. I do not judge you (John 12:47-48)

 

[LoveGodsWord]

For anyone who doesn't ignore responses. If you truly love God and have been born again of the Holyspirit, you will, as surely as night follows day repent/ say sorry to your heavenly father when you err.
Just as, you will always apologise to a loved one who you offend. It is instinctive/ automatic
Those who continually ask if you can remain saved in Unrepentant sin, show by asking that question, they do not have right relationship with father and son, nor do they understand what right relationship is based on

Your above quote does not answer the question I sent you which is
"Is a person in a saved state if they are in unrepentant sin or are they in an unsaved state?"
So nope you have not answered the question. It seems you do not want to answer the question because you will then have to agree with the scriptures I have been sharing with you.

In Christ Always!

 

[LoveGodsWord]

BTW
You ever heard the term:
The devil can quote scripture
NOT saying you are a devil. Just making a point

It is interesting; God's professed believers in the day of Jesus also accused him of having a devil (John 7:20; John 8:48; John 8:52) Does that mean that Jesus did not speak the truth and had a devil?

 

[stuart lawrence]

Your above quote does not answer the question I sent you which is
"Is a person in a saved state if they are in unrepentant sin or are they in an unsaved state?"
So nope you have not answered the question. It seems you do not want to answer the question because you will then have to agree with the scriptures I have been sharing with you.

In Christ Always!

I have since answered it ONCE AGAIN.
As I repeatedly state. Those who insist you must obey the TC most earnestly, have no qualms about breaking them whenever they like

 

[Soyeong]

Saul was a strict pharisee. Heaven for him hinged on obeying g the letter of the law. That is why he said: the letter kills. The pinnacle of the law was the TC, often described as the moral law.

Obeying the letter of the Law is about outwardly obeying it exactly how it is written while not paying attention to the intent of the Law of showing our love for God and growing in a relationship with Him. Obeying the Spirit of the Law is inwardly obeying it in a way that shows our love for God and builds our relationship with Him. The letter kills because it is missing the whole point of the Law. In Matthew 7:21-23, the Pharisees were doing good things in accordance with what the Law instructs, but they were nevertheless regarded as Lawless because they didn't have a relationship with Jesus because he said he didn't know them.

When Saul the pharisee made a commitment to God( 13 isn't it for a Jewish lad) he said sin took occasion of the comnandment: thou shalt not covet tobaroyse ALL manner if concupiscence in him. Saul the pharisee believed in righteousness of observing the law. For Paul the Christian stated:
Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness for everyone who believeth.

Romans 10:4 Christ is the goal of the Law, which leads to righteousness for all who have faith in God.

In Romans 9:30 - Romans 10:4, Israel did not fail to obtain righteousness because they did what God commanded them and God gave them faulty commands, but rather they failed to obtain righteousness because they misunderstood that the purpose of obeying the Law was a relationship with Christ for everyone who has faith, and instead sought to establish their own righteousness.

Saul, living under a strict law if righteousness found all manner of sin aroused in him. For sin took occasion of the commandment/ that which is holy, just and good to make Saul a worse sinner. This is why Paul the christians core emphasis is on dying to the law in order to live for God

It makes no sense to say that we need to die to God's instructions for how to live for Him in order to live for Him. Rather, Romans 7:4 is referring to what was being talked about in the previous verses. We died to the law of our husband through the death of Christ so that me might be free to belong to another, to him whom God raised from the dead in order to bear fruit for God.

Once again I agree. Thebible makes no specific distinction between moral and legalistic law. But once again I repeat. It is clear from what Paul wrote the moral law/TC brought condemnation to him.
And Jesus said, the Pharisees cleaned the outside if the cup but on the inside were full of wickedness, hypocrisy and everything unclean.
Once again, they did not obey the moral law. For that is the law they must be breaking according to Christ's description if them

The Law was given to reveal what sin is and there are far more things that are sins than are listed in the TC, so there are no grounds whatsoever to refer to just the TC as moral laws and say that it would be moral to disobey all of God's other commands. The Mosaic Law did not command the Pharisees to clean cups, but rather that was a man-made tradition (Mark 7:3-4). In Mark 7:6-9, Jesus criticized the Pharisees for being hypocrites for setting aside the commands of God in order to establish their own traditions, so his issue with them was that they were not obeying the Mosaic Law. So he was not making a distinction between God's moral and non-moral laws, but between God's Law and man's law.

 

[stuart lawrence]

Let God be our judge. I do not judge you (John 12:47-48)

God will indeed be our judge.
And according to you, we will be judged on whether you have obeyed the letter the Bible says kills and is the ministry of death and condemnation.
As Jesus says:

The measure you use to judge others will be used to judge you
Matt7:2

 

[stuart lawrence]

It is interesting; God's professed believers in the day of Jesus also accused him of having a devil (John 7:20; John 8:48; John 8:52) Does that mean that Jesus did not speak the truth and had a devil?

Those accusers did not practice what they preached/ demanded of others, as you do not either practice what you preach.
Jesus reserved his harshest words for such people

 

[LoveGodsWord]

God will indeed be our judge.
And according to you, we will be judged on whether you have obeyed the letter the Bible says kills and is the ministry of death and condemnation. As Jesus says:The measure you use to judge others will be used to judge you
Matt7:2

No my friend because that is not what I am saying. That is what you are saying. I am just saying that if anyone is in known unrepentant sin they are not following God and are in danger of the judgement because God's judgements have only ever come to man kind because or unrepentant sin. As it was in the days of Noah and Sodom so shall it be when the Son of Man commeth....

It is never too late however to return to Jesus and seek forgiveness unless our time here on earth is over. No man knows how much time we have so it it best for all of us to seek Jesus today while we can. Tomorrow may be too late.

 

[stuart lawrence]

Obeying the letter of the Law is about outwardly obeying it exactly how it is written while not paying attention to the intent of the Law of showing our love for God and growing in a relationship with Him. Obeying the Spirit of the Law is inwardly obeying it in a way that shows our love for God and builds our relationship with Him. The letter kills because it is missing the whole point of the Law. In Matthew 7:21-23, the Pharisees were doing good things in accordance with what the Law instructs, but they were nevertheless regarded as Lawless because they didn't have a relationship with Jesus because he said he didn't know them.



Romans 10:4 Christ is the goal of the Law, which leads to righteousness for all who have faith in God.

In Romans 9:30 - Romans 10:4, Israel did not fail to obtain righteousness because they did what God commanded them and God gave them faulty commands, but rather they failed to obtain righteousness because they misunderstood that the purpose of obeying the Law was a relationship with Christ for everyone who has faith, and instead sought to establish their own righteousness.



It makes no sense to say that we need to die to God's instructions for how to live for Him in order to life for Him. Rather, Romans 7:4 is referring to what was being talked about in the previous verses. We died to the law of our husband through the death of Christ so that me might be free to belong to another, to him whom God raised from the dead.



The Law was given to reveal what sin is and there are far more things that are sins than are listed in the TC, so there are no grounds whatsoever to refer to just the TC as moral laws and say that it would be moral to disobey all of God's other commands. The Mosaic Law did not command the Pharisees to clean cups, but rather that was a man-made tradition. In Mark 7:6-9, Jesus criticized the Pharisees for being hypocrites for setting aside the commands of God in order to establish their own traditions, so his issue with them was that they were not obeying the Mosaic Law. So he was not making a distinction between God's moral and non-moral laws, but between God's Law and man's law.

The letter of the law can only be obeyed outwardly to a point, not inwardly!
And I agree, looking to the letter of the law is not about living God.
I quoted the KJV regarding rom 10:4
In deut 6:25 Moses tells the people if they obey the law that will be their righteousness. Paul states in rom 3:21. But NOW a righteousness apart from law has been made known........
It is plainly obvious through repeated statements of Pauls, Saul the pharisee believed in righteousness of observing the law.

It makes no sense to say we need to die to Gods instructions for how to live for him?

Paul is saying you must die to a righteousness of observing the law in order to live for God. That is what he means by dying to the law. For as Paul stated in rom ch7 when he lived under the law( of righteousness) sin took occasion of the commandment to arouse all manner of sin in him.
The Pharisees could FAULTLESSLY obey their man made commands. They could NOT obey the law relating to the inner man, as neither could Saul the pharisee: Thou shalt not covet

 

[stuart lawrence]

No my friend because that is not what I am saying. That is what you are saying. I am just saying that if anyone is in known unrepentant sin they are not following God and are in danger of the judgement because God's judgements have only ever come to man kind because or unrepentant sin. As it was in the days of Noah and Sodom so shall it be when the Son of Man commeth.... It is never too late however to return to Jesus and seek forgiveness unless our time here on earth is over. No man knows how much time we have so it it best for all of us to seek Jesus today while we can. Tomorrow may be too late.

As I previously wrote. Those who keep telling believers they must repent of Unrepentant sin in order to be in a saved state show they do not have right relationship with father and son, nor do they understand what right relationship us based on, not do they understand the outworking of the core foundation upon which the NC stands.
They only have a very shallow understanding of the partial letter itself

 

[LoveGodsWord]

You should listen to what Soyeong is sharing with you. He is not saying what you think he is saying.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

As I previously wrote. Those who keep telling believers they must repent of Unrepentant sin in order to be in a saved state show they do not have right relationship with father and son, nor do they understand what right relationship us based on, not do they understand the outworking of the core foundation upon which the NC stands.
They only have a very shallow understanding of the partial letter itself

Ok thanks for this post. I read from your post above that you believe someone professing to be a Christian in "unrepentant sin" is in a saved state? Is this correct? Or do you need to revise your post?