What does "my sins have already been judged in Christ" mean?
Of all humanity, we all are deserving of God's wrath because of our sin. I'm assuming you are familiar with this condition of fallen man and would agree with that statement. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23
As a consequence of all being sinners; in order not to be eternally punished in the Lake of Fire, one's sin needs to be atoned for. Which means he who atones for sin must take on the wrath of God in the stead of one being atoned for. Theologically, that's called "substitutionary atonement". Which I believe the Roman Catholic church (RCC) also asserts this doctrine to be Biblical. Some people have issues with the term "substitutionary atonement". (Of which, I'm not sure why? But that's another subject.)
Now the consequence of the fall brought about 3 issues regarding death for humanity.
1. - One of those is eternal punishment for sin; which I just mentioned.
2. - The second is separation from God in regards to "fellowship" (with God - but also obviously affects human relationships too) and connection in this life; has caused humans not to be able to be in fellowships again with God outside of being atoned for. The consequence of sin from the perspective of humanity is that none of us want God anyways. Adam and Eve's transgression brought this corruption into the material realm of the cosmos. This is what's called "the fall" and why we are all in a fallen state. I believe the RCC calls this "original sin". Some people don't believe in "original sin". Which means humans are born into this world in a fallen state in rebellion against God even before they personally commit sin themselves. The consequence of the fall is that sin is inevitable. Everyone will sin at some point. And we do this because since Adam and Eve disobeyed; we all have a fallen nature.
Now in Protestant Reformation theological terms; the condition of fallen humanity is called "total depravity". "Total depravity" means none can; nor do any want to be reconnected to God because the consequence of the fall was so profound. "Total depravity" does not mean that fallen humans have no conscience and can't make moral choices to do things that are in alignment with God's goodness. We can still make those choices because having a conscience is part of being made in God's image. And the conscience is an integral part of what we are as humans. Though that's been affected by the fall; the fall did not erase that aspect of our being.
Fallen angels on the other hand though; have no moral conscience. When they fell; their fall was complete and they became "depraved totally". So though Satan and demons may seek to "disguise themselves as angels of light"; their corruption is complete and absolute. This is because they are not created in God's image. Although, because they are sentient entities; they are accountable for their sin; just as humans are. Both humans and angles are sentient beings. Animals are intelligent; but not "sentient" as in relation to their accountability to God or their disobedience. Although because of what Romans 8:22 says about creation groaning and travailing in pain; I believe all life has some form of awareness of the Creator. And I attribute this awareness to "the breath of life"; which comes from God. The fall plunged all of creation into a certain state of disobedience. But all life outside of humanity did not have a choice as to being cast into that fall; and this is why plants and animals aren't accountable to "sin". I know that sounds strange because how do plants "sin"? I don't know the answer to that; but we do have verses like Deuteronomy 24:4 and Ezekiel 14:13.
3. The third is physical death. Everything with the breath of life dies and fallen angels become subject to death at least at the point Judgement Day comes. Granted there are some verses that raise the question of whether or not demons contend with some form of death like unto carbon based life does. (The demons that went into the pigs and plunged into the sea.) But I don't know the answer to that either.
The Atonement:
So the atonement deals with all three of these aspects of the consequences of the fall; as well as the personal sin people commit.
And that's what I mean by "my sins have already been judged in Christ".
How do explain that dire warning, if Jesus paid the penalty for all their sins?
Assuming you are addressing this from the idea that Jesus paid for the sin of every single human being that ever lived?
Now the issue with that idea; is that it perverts the justice of God; because essentially for humans who end up in the Lake of Fire; basically two people are paying for the sin of one. (Jesus paid for their sin and they are in the Lake of Fire paying for their own sin.) Even in human terms that's not justice.
The other issue is that this makes at least a portion of Christ's atonement ineffectual. Which causes additional issues when Jesus makes statements like "All that the Father gives me shall come.... " John 6:37-39
Which leads back to the doctrine of election. I do know Roman Catholics who do believe in election.
Now what is meant by "I believe in election" isn't consistent among all people who state so.
1. Some believe "election" means that God "saw down the corridors of time who would accept Him".
2. Other's state Scripture says they were "chosen from the foundation of the world" (Ephesians 3:4) "Chosen" and "elect" are the same Greek word. Thus "neither having done good or evil that the purpose of God according to election might stand; not of works but of Him that calls." (Romans 9:11)
So to answer your question would depend on whom one believes Christ atoned for.
How do you know they have "no power to overcome" their sins?
Does a thief have no power to stop himself stealing if he knows a policeman is watching him?
What it means to be "dead in trespass and sin" is a theological concept that is different than the action of conscience that indicates to a person they've crossed a line.
And this here I think demonstrates the difference between those under the law who will be condemned for their sin and those whom are atoned for who are (or will be) regenerated by the Holy Spirit.
(Now.... how's the best way to explain this..... )
Those who will be condemned; are condemned predicated upon the reality that "the wages of sin is death". The punishment they earn is based in the sin they've committed. The commission of sin is an act of the fallen will. This is why "all have sinned and fallen short...." But the extent of sin one chooses to commit is an act of the will. This is why their punishment is based on the "wages of sin" they've earned. (Thus the application of your statement about the thief and the cop.)
Does that make sense to you?
That's the manifestation of "the law of sin and death". Which is testified to the sinner by the Mosaic moral law; despite the sinner knows this prior to the revelation of the Mosaic moral law, because all humanity has a conscience due to being created in God's image.
The Mosaic law / consequence "law of sin and death" is a different process than what happens when someone is redeemed. The person who is redeemed no longer being subject to the condemnation of the Mosaic moral law, because they are now under the "law of Christ". Keeping in mind though; that this does NOT mean those under grace are immoral. And this is because, to be indwelled by the Holy Spirit caused the desire to obey Christ; the consequence of this being morality.
This is what 2 Timothy 2 is talking about with "the man who strives..." (does so "lawfully") And the power by which he is able to "do so lawfully" is because the indwelling Spirit being the 3rd Person of the Trinity can not deny Himself.
Does that make sense? Can you follow the explanation I'm giving?
Not all sins are "deadly", but some are (
1John 5:16-17). I suggest that murder (which includes abortion) is one of the "deadly" sins - it's not unpardonable, but it certainly has the potential to put one's hope of salvation at risk.
Except one indwelt by the Holy Spirit isn't going to be prone to committing that sin; even if they had done so in the past. And this is because the redemptive process has created them as "... a new creature in Christ..." They've been raise from the dead of "sin and death" becoming inherently moral because God is a moral entity. Thus God can't deny Himself.
Incidentally, how does one determine what sins are "deadly" - the Bible doesn't elaborate. That would really trouble me ... not knowing what sins are "deadly"!
And this is a very valid issue for one concerned about it.
In the grand scheme of the redemption plan though; one doesn't have to fear condemnation because past sins are atoned for and the indwelling Spirit compels one on; in the concern for morality which.... repents one from continuing in committing these what you'd call in the RCC "deadly sins".
Of course this doesn't mean that genuine believers still don't contend with "non-deadly sins". This being the residual of the fallen nature that still bears the propensity to "fall short of the glory of God".
For example; I'm not murdering, committing adultery, stealing stuff, lying etc; but yes, I'm still getting frustrated unduly. I'm still loosing my temper on occasion. I'm still assuming something someone says as opposed to listening carefully and trying to understand their thought process behind what they are saying. Things like this, are what you as a Roman Catholic might call "non-deadly sins". They are a consequence of still having a fallen nature and are what one might call "sins of omission" as opposed to "sins of commission".
These things aren't intentional and deliberate "shake your fist at God" willful disobedience. They are the consequch of living with a currupt nature, still in a fallen and corrupt world. This is why "the last enemy to be overcome is death" and why we still die given natural outcome of life and death.
Mosaic law was God's standard of holiness - with the death and resurrection of Jesus, God instituted a different standard of holiness, although his moral laws remain.
Fundamentally, I agree with you here. Although the Mosaic law is really just the "behavioral basics" of the totality of what the holiness of God really requires. And this is why Jesus made statements like "Well, you think adultery is..(what the Mosaic law states).; but what I tell you is... (the expanded version).
And I conclude that even the "expanded version" still is not the totality of what the holiness of God really entails. The totality of God's holiness we'll never grasp because we are not God. We can only grasp the reflection of that holiness being created entities who are only "in His image".
The only human who ever actually "got" the entirety of the holiness of God was Jesus; and this is because he had a Divine nature. Adam, due to the nature of being a temporal created entity is why he fell and Christ didn't; because Adam was corruptible to begin with. Adan was corruptible; not because God created him of God's own intention that Adam would fall; but because Adam simply did not bear the nature of God. (He only bore the image.) The nature; would come later in the incarnation. Where God took Divinity (the Son) and inseparably joined it to a human nature (the son) Thus creating the God-man who is the only one who could atone for sin.
Does my explanation make sense to you?
The Mosaic laws that Jesus fulfilled were rendered defunct, but the moral laws remained.
Other Mosaic laws were rendered defunct when the gospel spread to the Gentiles. It's interesting that Jewish Christians were expected to adhere to the Mosaic laws that Jesus didn't fulfill, whereas Gentile Christians were not expected to adhere to those laws (at least, that's how it seems to me).
Jesus fulfilled the entirety of the Mosaic law; yet morality remains a product of the indwelling Holy Spirit in the believer because God is moral.
Now what your saying about Jews as opposed to gentiles; you're going to have to explain a little more because I'm not sure what exactly you are referring to by laws Jews were still expected to keep.
There are different ways of interpreting "the law of Christ", I guess.
I don't' think there are "different ways" as much as continuously expanding understandings of.