Understanding what it means to be not under the law

[FlimFlamboyant]

You do not actually understand what the flesh is really referred to. The "flesh" is actually is referring to the "living soul" that is in us. The living soul is the earthly image that is in us. Please read my blog "spirit - body - soul 4 at this link: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/blogs.php?u=2754 I still have lots to say but you can have a fair conclusion of what I refer as soul and spirit that is in us.

I think we're talking past each other here to some extent, anyway. Where you would contend that the "soul" is something of an intangible nature, I would contend that the soul is merely our carnal lives, including these bodies we inhabit.

If living in flesh you meant living with a physical body, literally the flesh, then all of us will suffer corruption. But rather, living in the flesh is actually being lead by the earthly image of the "living soul." 1 Cor 15:45

I take the same position that Collosians' does on this matter. We are "in" fleshly bodies, but the believer is not "in the flesh". Occasionally, even Paul uses the same terminology to describe these two entirely different things. For example:

(Phi 1:23,24) For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you.

Here in Philippians, Paul is clearly speaking of living in these carnal bodies, not actually being LED by them.

(Rom 8:9) But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

In this case, however, it used in the context of what it is that we're being led by. I guess the most simplistic way I can put this is we, as believers, live IN fleshly bodies, but we do not live BY them.

You see, you cannot live between the flesh and the Spirit at the same time. either you are guided by the Spirit, or guided by the flesh; never be both.

Agreed; a man cannot serve two masters, afterall.

[Colossians]

Smaller,


Calling the old man the "no longer I" now?
Never done so. Your "no longer I" is an invalid grammatical nominalisation of a non-entity.
Rather, the old man is no longer "I".






[the law] is meant for the lawless TO WHOM we are still attached in the body.
The old man acts when the New man doesn’t, and vice versa.
There can be no attachment between him who was crucified, and him who is born again: they are necessarily disjunctive.
God only recognises him who is born again (the new man).






the LAWLESSNESS in you is UNDER THE LAW
Lawlessness is not a thing: it is the activity of the old man aroused by the law, which law is necessarily over him only.
"I" who live in my human being am not under the law: "I" am a complete spirit-person joined to Christ's headship. "I" include no flesh.
The flesh that “I” live in will manifest “I” (manifest Christ) as “I” understand that “I” am not under the law my flesh is under: “I” am enabled to take charge of the flesh only as “I” understand it was crucified by a law which “I” am not under, and that it is therefore dead to “I”.
Such taking charge will therefore not manifest itself in a keeping of the law, for the “I” that is in charge is not under the law, but under Christ, and therefore cannot hear the law. Such taking charge will instead manifest itself as love which will incidentally fulfill the parts of the law which can be fulfilled by love. But incidentally only.






I do not find ….."faith" AT ODDS with The Law.
That is because you are not looking. Perhaps you are even not born again.
This is what you’d find if you looked: “The law is not of faith”






Well it's rather convenient to have such a secure faith that continually vascillates between the old man and the new.
Your use of “convenient” here reveals your self-effort at justification, and therefore that you are under the law.
It is quite possible that your "Jesus" is merely an alias for "the law": a personification of the law, and thus a false Christ.







the fact will remain that Paul SERVED THE LAW in HIS MIND
Paul served the law which he was under, not that which he was not under. Thus he did not serve “the law” (the law of Moses), but “the law of God”.
And so Jesus called the Torah “your law”, not “my law”.

The law is the Torah. It’s administrators were the Levites, and its head the Levite Moses.
The law of God is found at 1 Jo 3:23. Its administrator and Head is found at Heb 7:10.
So then: “the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law” Heb 7:12







Sin originates in THE MIND
Not the mind of Christ, which mind is the mind of the “I” of Rm 7:20, and the mind of him who is born of God and who therefore cannot sin (1 Jo 3:9).







And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
Since earth is STILL HERE, I should consider Jesus' Word here valid as well.
Thus you reveal your earthly-mindedness.
The believer (the "I" of Rm 7:20) has been seated in heavenly places (Eph 2:6). For him the earth is not home anymore. For him old things have passed away and the new has come. Just like 2 Cor 5:17 says.






And blaming the "old man" for sin is just another way of holding sins against people.
It is God’s way of exonerating the believer.
The old man is not merely an old nature of the same man. It is a former person who does not exist in God’s eyes, having been crucified.
The literal greek of 2 Cor 5:17’s “a new creature” is “a creature that has never existed before”.

[7thangel]

I think we're talking past each other here to some extent, anyway. Where you would contend that the "soul" is something of an intangible nature, I would contend that the soul is merely our carnal lives, including these bodies we inhabit.

I take the same position that Collosians' does on this matter. We are "in" fleshly bodies, but the believer is not "in the flesh". Occasionally, even Paul uses the same terminology to describe these two entirely different things. For example:

(Phi 1:23,24) For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you.

Here in Philippians, Paul is clearly speaking of living in these carnal bodies, not actually being LED by them.

(Rom 8:9) But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.


In this case, however, it used in the context of what it is that we're being led by. I guess the most simplistic way I can put this is we, as believers, live IN fleshly bodies, but we do not live BY them.

I guess I understand your point. Flesh do refer to the carnal body, or the earthly nature. However, I cannot figure out what you really mean live "in" fleshly bodies, bud not live "by" them. You see, the baptism that saves us is, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh(referring to carnal body), but the answer of a good conscience towards God. That means, we can live by the filth of the body, thus living "by" the flesh, but yet saved. What I could simply imply in this is that your understanding of living "in" and "by" the flesh is faulty in regards to applying it to what a believer is. A believer can still be led "by" the flesh and yet saved. But I am not sure if I got what you really meant by "living by the flesh."

[Colossians]

7th angel,

the baptism that saves us is, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh(referring to carnal body), but the answer of a good conscience towards God.
Baptism declares that the filth of the flesh is put away, regardless of its activity thereafter. It is a statement 'death by faith', which is why baptism implies buriel.
So then it is the very cause of a good conscience toward God.

I deal with the dichotomy of the flesh and spirit, and the pragmatics thereof, in my above latest post to "smaller", particularly under the paragraph responding to smaller's statement that "the LAWLESSNESS in you is UNDER THE LAW".

[Nang]

There is a false teaching going around that to be not under the law means merely to be not under its condemnation.

But it doesn't: it means what it says: to be not under the law (itself).

All men live under the Law of God.

The Law of God is eternal.

However, no person finds salvation by living under the Law of God, for no person is capable of perfectly obeying the Law.

Thereby, all men are condemned under the Law.

Only Jesus Christ perfectly lived under and obeyed all the Law of God; thereby giving evidence of His righteousness.

When one comes to Christ, he is a new creature that has never existed before: the "new man". It is this new man who is not under the law, and to whom therefore the law does not apply to.

A rather odd conclusion.

The "new creature in Christ" is the sinner who has the righteousness of Jesus imputed to his account before God.

Jesus followed all the Law, and then imputed His works to His people, when He exchanged His holy righteousness with their sins. (Cross Work!)

Thereby, sinners live new lives, showing obedience and love of God's Law, due to their faith in the lawful life of their Savior. They rest in His lawful works, rather than striving to fulfill every jot and tittle in their still sinful flesh.

The Law does not save, but the Law does not go away.

Those saved by the grace of God prove this is so by their faithful attendance to the Law of God out of gratitude to God for His saving love and grace in in His Son.

To say God's Law is not important or applicable since Christ, is the heretical teaching called "Antinomianism."

(Bad stuff, that Antinomianism stuff!)

Nang

[smaller]

Smaller,

Calling the old man the "no longer I" now?
Never done so. Your "no longer I" is an invalid grammatical nominalisation of a non-entity.
Rather, the old man is no longer "I".

As stated prior just another form of counting sins against mankind. Ill advised from the scriptures.

[the law] is meant for the lawless TO WHOM we are still attached in the body.
The old man acts when the New man doesn’t, and vice versa.
There can be no attachment between him who was crucified, and him who is born again: they are necessarily disjunctive.
God only recognises him who is born again (the new man).

Absurdity. Sin indwelling in sinful flesh remains condemned and in this Jesus did no different than The Law.

the LAWLESSNESS in you is UNDER THE LAW
Lawlessness is not a thing: it is the activity of the old man aroused by the law, which law is necessarily over him only.
"I" who live in my human being am not under the law: "I" am a complete spirit-person joined to Christ's headship. "I" include no flesh.
The flesh that “I” live in will manifest “I” (manifest Christ) as “I” understand that “I” am not under the law my flesh is under: “I” am enabled to take charge of the flesh only as “I” understand it was crucified by a law which “I” am not under, and that it is therefore dead to “I”.
Such taking charge will therefore not manifest itself in a keeping of the law, for the “I” that is in charge is not under the law, but under Christ, and therefore cannot hear the law.

I think we've already discovered that faith does not nullify The Law, but upholds and serves it. You cannot uphold (establish) and serve what you cannot hear. I find your understandings severely wordy to "get around" the obvious.

Such taking charge will instead manifest itself as love which will incidentally fulfill the parts of the law which can be fulfilled by love. But incidentally only.

What you are really saying in effect is that LOVE is totally incapable of being LAWFUL. I find that conclusion also quite without merit.

I do not find ….."faith" AT ODDS with The Law.
That is because you are not looking. Perhaps you are even not born again.
This is what you’d find if you looked: “The law is not of faith”

Neither does "faith" nullify The Law. I cannot so easily pick and choose my desires IF my desires are all the scriptures. I conclude that your conclusion is missing ingredients via a good dose of doubletalk while the obvious slips by your nose.

Well it's rather convenient to have such a secure faith that continually vascillates between the old man and the new.
Your use of “convenient” here reveals your self-effort at justification, and therefore that you are under the law.
It is quite possible that your "Jesus" is merely an alias for "the law": a personification of the law, and thus a false Christ.

I do not deny the fact that "sin indwells my flesh" and evil is present with me. I understand that the sin indwelling and evil present is the lawless to whom The Law is written and points to as well in the spiritual understanding and serving of The Law. These same sin indwelling and evil present are also NO LONGER I so there is no excuse for "it." I don't try to hang my excuses on another man, my "old one," whenever he supposedly shows up.

the fact will remain that Paul SERVED THE LAW in HIS MIND
Paul served the law which he was under, not that which he was not under. Thus he did not serve “the law” (the law of Moses), but “the law of God”.
And so Jesus called the Torah “your law”, not “my law”.

That statement by Jesus serves my point very well. The Law is to those entities that are the temporal causes of sin that dwell in the flesh AND that Jesus separated from within men and SPOKE to nearly continually in the Gospels.

And are you going to say that The Law of Moses was not delivered from God as God's Laws? lol I've seen people try to slice The Law into a few pieces as you have so they can pick and choose, but it is a hollow attempt to dodge yet again, the obvious statements that Paul made. Not even worth a rebuttal other than to say:

29 They clave to their brethren, their nobles, and entered into a curse, and into an oath, to walk in God's law, which was given by Moses the servant of God, and to observe and do all the commandments of the LORD our Lord, and his judgments and his statutes;

You'd think Paul was an inspired idiot of the O.T. using your slice and dice methodology.

The law is the Torah. It’s administrators were the Levites, and its head the Levite Moses.
The law of God is found at 1 Jo 3:23. Its administrator and Head is found at Heb 7:10.
So then: “the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law” Heb 7:12

You presume The Law without purpose. If Paul served same and upheld same and did not nullify same by "faith" then I conclude you are in error. I also have no problem accepting Paul's statement that we as believers are not under same YET serve same and uphold same FOR The Law's intended and openly stated purposes which you have so far failed to see other than to make excuses for yourself which are not required for a believer.

Sin originates in THE MIND
Not the mind of Christ, which mind is the mind of the “I” of Rm 7:20, and the mind of him who is born of God and who therefore cannot sin (1 Jo 3:9).

I don't see John trying to pass himself off as Jesus either. What are you thinking?

And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
Since earth is STILL HERE, I should consider Jesus' Word here valid as well.
Thus you reveal your earthly-mindedness.

Do false accusations against me justify your position now?

Faith does not ask me to lie to myself. The earth is still here as is sin.

The believer (the "I" of Rm 7:20) has been seated in heavenly places (Eph 2:6). For him the earth is not home anymore. For him old things have passed away and the new has come. Just like 2 Cor 5:17 says.

Yet there remains a day of wrath that has not yet arrived. It is pointless to deny the obvious. It is much more difficult to get a hold of both sides of this equation.

And blaming the "old man" for sin is just another way of holding sins against people.
It is God’s way of exonerating the believer.

It's a blind man's way of excusing himself while condemning other people for doing the same things.

Faith never requested me to be a hypocrite either.

The old man is not merely an old nature of the same man. It is a former person who does not exist in God’s eyes, having been crucified.
The literal greek of 2 Cor 5:17’s “a new creature” is “a creature that has never existed before”.

And we cannot say we have NO SIN or The Truth is not in us. YET we do not "sin." Dealing with the facts of one's body construction in the Truth of what The Word presents and reveals about the matter is more profitable than one sided concoctions of scriptures to the detriment of other scriptures.

I'd just as soon get them ALL.

enjoy!

smaller

[smaller]

Paul stated that "The Law is spiritual."

Jesus saw no differently

The Pharisees and Saducees believed a person had to wash their hands to eat and if they did not they were defiled.

Jesus knew all the particular laws and traditions that applied to "hand and feet washing," but did not apply it the same way they did, by the fleshly observation of The Law, but the spiritual applications of same and as such was expressing His Divine Understanding of "how" The Law was to be used:

Here is the account in part from Matt. 15:

1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?


19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

The fleshly observers missed this for centuries eh?

Jesus provided many other examples of application of the spiritual intent of The Law in the separation of MANKIND from the things that INDWELL AND DEFILE THEM from The Law as DID PAUL.

We would be well advised in this thread to LOOK at those many examples in the Gospels to find our understanding of "serving The Law" in those applications. You will find them VERY FAR away from "fleshly" understandings that were never the purposes for The Law to begin with.

It is no wonder men do not keep The Laws and serve them IN MIND when they don't even understand them. Using that fleshly methodology I wouldn't either and would probably have to come up with these modern day Pharisee excuses as well for my reading deficiencies.

enjoy!

smaller

[Colossians]

Nang,

When one comes to Christ, he is a new creature that has never existed before: the "new man". It is this new man who is not under the law, and to whom therefore the law does not apply to.
A rather odd conclusion. The "new creature in Christ" is the sinner who has the righteousness of Jesus imputed to his account before God.
It is not the case that we are the same entity of being only now with a new nature. We are a new creature, not a revamped one. The literal greek means “a creature that has never existed before”.
Natures were never crucified. Only people. When one comes to Christ, he is not the same one who was crucified with Christ, but already the new creature: his coming to Christ is the result of his being born again, not that which caused it.


They rest in His lawful works, rather than striving to fulfill every jot and tittle in their still sinful flesh.
Christ’s fulfillment of the law was not the keeping of it, but the becoming sin for us and thus providing full punitive satisfaction for the law.
His being crucified fulfilled (filled up/satisfied) the law, for in order for the law to be fulfilled, it must be allowed to express itself fully in what it is created to do: condemn and punish.
Christ’s life, was by faith which is not of the law. This is why he did not keep the Sabbath.


the Law does not go away.
No but those in Christ have gone away. “He hath seated us in heavenly places in Christ Jesus”.

[Nang]

Nang,

When one comes to Christ, he is a new creature that has never existed before: the "new man".

Unsustainable concept.

I was a sinner saved by God; a new creature due to the indwelling Spirit of God in my old body and self. To live as a new creature, I live according to the Spirit who dwells within me.

You take the concept way too far and into mystical regions.

It is this new man who is not under the law, and to whom therefore the law does not apply to.

Wrong.

The Law of God is immutable and eternal and all things that exist, exist by and under this Law.

It is only the obligation to the Law that we have been relieved of, in order to find salvation. No longer are we condemned for failing to keep God's Law, but we are saved under the Law because Jesus Christ performed all the Law perfectly on our behalf.

The Law is not nullified . . .it is performed and kept by our Savior, in whom we rest, trusting in Him as our legal Advocate in the court of God.

It is not the case that we are the same entity of being only now with a new nature. We are a new creature, not a revamped one.

I am the same person. I was dead in my sins, and now I live, alive in Christ Jesus. Me. Restored. Saved. Individually named in the Lamb's Book of Life. Intimately known by my name by the Father.

The literal greek means “a creature that has never existed before”.
Natures were never crucified. Only people.

Well, which is it? Creature, or nature, or person. You are unclear in your argument.

When one comes to Christ, he is not the same one who was crucified with Christ,

Don't know if you have read any of my other posts, but I have tried to present the truth of federal headship, or representation of Jesus Christ for His people in His life, death, and resurrection. IOW's, when Christ lived in the flesh, He lived representing His people (faithful "seed") in His body. When Christ died, He died the death of those "seed" He represented, in His body. When He resurrected, He represented His people in His body, and to this day He acts as Mediator in heaven, representing His people before the right hand of God the Father on the throne of grace.

In that respect, we are to consider ourselves "crucified with Christ."

That does not mean that we lose our individual identity, but that we take upon ourselves the vicarious work and accomplishments of Christ before our standing with God.

but already the new creature: his coming to Christ is the result of his being born again, not that which caused it.

"How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" John 3:4 (Let alone acquire a new identity that qualifies himself as a new, worthy creature, deserving of salvation from God?)

Christ’s fulfillment of the law was not the keeping of it, but the becoming sin for us and thus providing full punitive satisfaction for the law.

If Jesus Christ had not first perfectly fulfilled all the Law, He would not have been any more worthy or qualified as a sacrifice offering before God than any sinner. It was the fact that Christ perfectly fulfilled ALL God's Law, that God accepted Him as satisfactory ransom for our sins.

His being crucified fulfilled (filled up/satisfied) the law,

This is elementary theology . . .pay close attention . . .

Jesus Christ became sin for His people and was crucified suffering God's wrath and judgment against those sins. His death did not satisfy the Law. Jesus had already satisfied God's Law, making Himself worthy to be the substitute in death for His people.

His life fulfilled the Law.

His death satisfied God's wrath against sin.

His resurrection demonstrated and promised us power over death.

for in order for the law to be fulfilled, it must be allowed to express itself fully in what it is created to do: condemn and punish.
Christ’s life, was by faith which is not of the law. This is why he did not keep the Sabbath.

This paragraph is so riddled with Christological error, it would take a book to answer.

To repeat: The Law was fulfilled prior to the death of Christ. Jesus suffered death as a proven and perfect Man. That is what made His death significant and sufficient. If Christ had not fulfilled all the Law prior, He would have been nothing more than a human sacrifice, which is abominable in the eyes of God.

those in Christ have gone away. “He hath seated us in heavenly places in Christ Jesus”.

How can those IN Christ since the foundation of the world, be gone? Christ is not gone, so neither can those He represents eternally in His Person be gone. The only reason a portion of humanity is seated in the heavenly places in Christ, is because they are IN Christ . . .for goodness sake!

And if you choose to answer me again, I would appreciate you make some effort to substantiate your crazy claims with some Scripture, rather than out of context hints at Bible language.

Nang

[Colossians]

Smaller,


We see now you have reached the extent of your ability to refute: the knowledge being presented is beyond yours. Your answers are largely non-sequiturs. Your braggacio in your sign off “enjoy” is starting to run weak, as has been expected.





Calling the old man the "no longer I" now?
Never done so. Your "no longer I" is an invalid grammatical nominalisation of a non-entity.
Rather, the old man is no longer "I".
As stated prior just another form of counting sins against mankind.
You have not attended to the point. Therefore it stands. (Rules of debate)





[the law] is meant for the lawless TO WHOM we are still attached in the body.
The old man acts when the New man doesn’t, and vice versa.
There can be no attachment between him who was crucified, and him who is born again: they are necessarily disjunctive.
God only recognises him who is born again (the new man).
Absurdity. Sin indwelling in sinful flesh remains condemned and in this Jesus did no different than The Law.
You have not attended to the point. Therefore it stands. (Rules of debate)






the LAWLESSNESS in you is UNDER THE LAW
Lawlessness is not a thing: it is the activity of the old man aroused by the law, which law is necessarily over him only.
"I" who live in my human being am not under the law: "I" am a complete spirit-person joined to Christ's headship. "I" include no flesh.
The flesh that “I” live in will manifest “I” (manifest Christ) as “I” understand that “I” am not under the law my flesh is under: “I” am enabled to take charge of the flesh only as “I” understand it was crucified by a law which “I” am not under, and that it is therefore dead to “I”.
Such taking charge will therefore not manifest itself in a keeping of the law, for the “I” that is in charge is not under the law, but under Christ, and therefore cannot hear the law.
I think we've already discovered that faith does not nullify The Law, but upholds and serves it.
All we have established is that you are not reading, or cannot read.
You have not attended to the point. Therefore it stands. (Rules of debate)







Such taking charge will instead manifest itself as love which will incidentally fulfill the parts of the law which can be fulfilled by love. But incidentally only.
What you are really saying in effect is that LOVE is totally incapable of being LAWFUL.
You need to go to remedial English classes. Nothing was said of this.
Misrepresenation. Therefore the point stands. (Rules of debate.)





I do not find ….."faith" AT ODDS with The Law.
That is because you are not looking. Perhaps you are even not born again.
This is what you’d find if you looked: “The law is not of faith”
Neither does "faith" nullify The Law
It can’t. It is of a different domain. That is why faith does not serve it and is not of it.
You have not attended to the fact that the law is not of faith. Therefore the point stands. (Rules of debate.)







Well it's rather convenient to have such a secure faith that continually vascillates between the old man and the new.
Your use of “convenient” here reveals your self-effort at justification, and therefore that you are under the law.
It is quite possible that your "Jesus" is merely an alias for "the law": a personification of the law, and thus a false Christ.
I do not deny the fact that "sin indwells my flesh" and evil is present with me. I understand that the sin indwelling and evil present is the lawless to whom The Law is written
Evil is present with me, not in me.






I don't try to hang my excuses on another man, my "old one," whenever he supposedly shows up.
You do worse. You hang them on some scapegoat called “lawless”, with the result that is doesn’t matter what you do here, you’ll still end up in heaven alongside the most vile unrepentant pedophile.
You don’t understand that a human being has its own spirit. It is that spirit which will be punished.
Your “Mr Lawless” had no postal address.






the fact will remain that Paul SERVED THE LAW in HIS MIND
Paul served the law which he was under, not that which he was not under. Thus he did not serve “the law” (the law of Moses), but “the law of God”.
And so Jesus called the Torah “your law”, not “my law”.
That statement by Jesus serves my point very well. The Law is to those entities that are the temporal causes of sin
The statement of Jesus does not such thing. You are making up stories. The point stands.





And are you going to say that The Law of Moses was not delivered from God as God's Laws?
The name it bears is not “God”, but “Moses”.
29 They clave to their brethren, their nobles, and entered into a curse, and into an oath, to walk in God's law, which was given by Moses the servant of God, and to observe and do all the commandments of the LORD our Lord, and his judgments and his statutes;
Redundant. Nehemiah is OT, so of course it is going to be called “God’s law”.
The fact is, it is not the law which speaks to those who are not under the law. You simply are dancing around this at light speed as though Paul wrote Romans to say “have another shot at keeping the law”.





The law is the Torah. It’s administrators were the Levites, and its head the Levite Moses.
The law of God is found at 1 Jo 3:23. Its administrator and Head is found at Heb 7:10.
So then: “the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law” Heb 7:12
You presume The Law without purpose. If Paul served same and upheld same and did not nullify same by "faith" then I conclude you are in error.
You have not attended to the point. Therefore it stands. (Rules of debate)





Sin originates in THE MIND
Not the mind of Christ, which mind is the mind of the “I” of Rm 7:20, and the mind of him who is born of God and who therefore cannot sin (1 Jo 3:9).
I don't see John trying to pass himself off as Jesus either. What are you thinking?
You have not attended to the point. Therefore it stands. (Rules of debate)






And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
Since earth is STILL HERE, I should consider Jesus' Word here valid as well.
Thus you reveal your earthly-mindedness.
Do false accusations against me justify your position now?
According to you it is Mr Lawless in me, so why are you worrying?
But the accusation is not false (you are indeed focussing on the flesh), so it cannot be Mr Lawless in me after all.






The believer (the "I" of Rm 7:20) has been seated in heavenly places (Eph 2:6). For him the earth is not home anymore. For him old things have passed away and the new has come. Just like 2 Cor 5:17 says.
Yet there remains a day of wrath that has not yet arrived. It is pointless to deny the obvious. It is much more difficult to get a hold of both sides of this equation.
You have not attended to the point. Therefore it stands. (Rules of debate)





The old man is not merely an old nature of the same man. It is a former person who does not exist in God’s eyes, having been crucified.
The literal greek of 2 Cor 5:17’s “a new creature” is “a creature that has never existed before”.
And we cannot say we have NO SIN or The Truth is not in us.
You have not attended to the point. Therefore it stands. (Rules of debate)





You seem to think we will be physical in heaven. We won’t be.

[Unpastorized]

Well
Since you people who say you are no longer under my Gods law refuse to answer my questions i thought it might be a good idea to show ya where you are headin. Its really the pits!

PSALM 94 [11] The LORD knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity.12] Blessed is the man whom thou chastenest, O LORD, and teachest him out of thy law;[13] That thou mayest give him rest from the days of adversity, until the pit be digged for the wicked.

Teach man out of thy law, until pit digged for the wicked

PSALM 119 [84] How many are the days of thy servant? when wilt thou execute judgment on them that persecute me? [85] The proud have digged pits for me, which are not after thy law.[86] All thy commandments are faithful: they persecute me wrongfully; help thou me.

They who are not after the law have dug pits and ALL thy commandments are faithful

PROVERBS 28 [9] He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination.[10] Whoso causeth the righteous to go astray in an evil way, he shall fall himself into his own pit: but the upright shall have good things in possession.

Those who turn from hearing the law will fall into pit they themselves dug.

PSALM 7 [15] He made a pit, and digged it, and is fallen into the ditch which he made.

ISAIAH 24 [3] The land shall be utterly emptied, and utterly spoiled: for the LORD hath spoken this word.[4] The earth mourneth and fadeth away, the world languisheth and fadeth away, the haughty people of the earth do languish.[5] The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.[6] Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate: therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men left.[17] Fear, and the pit, and the snare, are upon thee, O inhabitant of the earth.[18] And it shall come to pass, that he who fleeth from the noise of the fear shall fall into the pit; and he that cometh up out of the midst of the pit shall be taken in the snare: for the windows from on high are open, and the foundations of the earth do shake.[22] And they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days shall they be visited.

Well, heres the end of the story. The Day of the Lord. Those that have transgressed the law of God will end up in the pit and scripture says in Revelation that those that keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus will end up in the Kingdom. Those in the pit will be visited after many days. A thousand years maybe?

REV.20 [1] And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.[2] And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,[3] And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

YUP. A thousand years. Looks like those that do not observe to keep Gods 10 commandments will be having some company in the pit. Kinda makes Saddams wormhole look rather appealing.

The new testament says if you break one of the commandments, you break them all. Has the whole world been decieved as the bible claims? Will good intentions or a warm fuzzy at a sunday go to meeting lead us to the kingdom of God or must we keep His commandments AND have faith in Jesus as the scriptures say. Choose life.

You boys beieve the scriptures?

[Unpastorized]

So Colossians
Ya gonna talk to me?

[Colossians]

Nang,

When one comes to Christ, he is a new creature that has never existed before: the "new man".
Unsustainable concept.
It is what is written. So the problem is with you.



I was a sinner saved by God; a new creature due to the indwelling Spirit of God in my old body and self.
The Spirit does not indwell your old self. You do not understand the dichotomy in Rom 7.



It is this new man who is not under the law, and to whom therefore the law does not apply to.
Wrong. The Law of God is immutable and eternal and all things that exist, exist by and under this Law.
The law will pass away when heaven and earth does, just like Jesus said.
In the meantime, those who are seated already in heavenly places, are necessarily not under that law.
Thus we are told “ye are not under the law”.



It is only the obligation to the Law that we have been relieved of, in order to find salvation.
So we are under the law but without obligation to keep it. Eh ……



No longer are we condemned for failing to keep God's Law, but we are saved under the Law because Jesus Christ performed all the Law perfectly on our behalf.
No we are dead to the law, and transferred to another Authority. You don’t know your bible.




The Law is not nullified
It is nullified for the believer. “There is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before”.
Clear.




. . .it is performed and kept by our Savior
God obeys no-one but Himself. There is no law in the spiritual realm except His person. The universe of God is amoral.
Your idea overall is a standard legalist trick: you are justified by faith, but faith is justified by law. Thus you are indirectly justified by law. You say your eyes are only on Christ, but they are on Christ through you. Thus you are promulgating a doctrine of indirect justification by works.




It is not the case that we are the same entity of being only now with a new nature. We are a new creature, not a revamped one.
I am the same person. I was dead in my sins, and now I live, alive in Christ Jesus. Me. Restored. Saved. Individually named in the Lamb's Book of Life. Intimately known by my name by the Father.
We retain our uniqueness, but we have a different headship, being placed within the Person of Christ.
Thus we are not identifiable as our former selves from an external position, but are hidded in Christ.
The new creature is Christ in our body, in Whom we are, in whom Christ is, in Whom we are… ad infinitum.
The Person of Christ solely delineates the new creature. That Person, being God, obeys no law, but is rightfully a law unto Himself.







When Christ died, He died the death of those "seed" He represented, in His body.
Which is why the law is finished for them, just as it was for Him.
In that respect, we are to consider ourselves "crucified with Christ."
There is no “in that respect” about it, no mere metaphorical sense. The proxy statement of faith results in a literal crucifixion.
You need to understand that not only are we imputed with righteousess, but are imparted with it.
This stems from your not understanding that our new man is the person of Christ within us and not a composite new-man-human-being, and also stems from your metaphorical-only sense of our being crucified with Christ.





but already the new creature: his coming to Christ is the result of his being born again, not that which caused it.
"How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" John 3:4
(Let alone acquire a new identity that qualifies himself as a new, worthy creature, deserving of salvation from God?)
No-one chooses his birth. Our being born-again was the result of our having been crucified with Christ.
Only the elect of God were crucified with Christ.
The Holy Spirit then reconciles the ledger when those individuals come into their place in history: He draws them irresistably to Christ.
It is too late for those in Christ to be worthy of salvation: they are already saved.






Christ’s fulfillment of the law was not the keeping of it, but the becoming sin for us and thus providing full punitive satisfaction for the law.
If Jesus Christ had not first perfectly fulfilled all the Law, He would not have been any more worthy or qualified as a sacrifice offering before God than any sinner. It was the fact that Christ perfectly fulfilled ALL God's Law, that God accepted Him as satisfactory ransom for our sins.
The law was fulfilled in its punitive aspect. At the cross.
Christ never kept the law. To keep the law, is to place one’s eyes on one’s own performance. Such is sin, and such would have rendered Him unacceptable as sacrifice for us.
You need to understand that to keep the law, paradoxically results in breaking it, for it necessitates that one take his eyes off God momentarily, and so transgress the greatest commandment.
In line with this, you need to understand that “the law” is synonomous with “self-effort”, and in a still wider sense, “life in the absence of the revelation of God”.
Christ came to demonstrate the works of another, His Father, necessarily precluding His own attention to what the law said. Of necessity then, the non-intuitive sabbath law, would not be kept. Which is why He did not keep it.





His being crucified fulfilled (filled up/satisfied) the law,
This is elementary theology . . .pay close attention . . .
Jesus Christ became sin for His people and was crucified suffering God's wrath and judgment against those sins. His death did not satisfy the Law. Jesus had already satisfied God's Law, making Himself worthy to be the substitute in death for His people.
Pay closer attention. No one is fulfilled unless one is allowed to express oneself fully according to one’s constitution. The law could not be fulfilled unless it was allowed to operate in its full capacity, necessarily including its punitive aspect and that which identifies it as law. The law was therefore fulfilled at Calvary.
You also need to understand that the law includes the prophets (1 Cor 14:21). One cannot keep the prophets, so your rendering “fulfill” as “keep” is superficial.
Christ’s fufillment of the law meant the delivering up of the seed that was promised, and was typed in Rachel’s fulfillment in her having given birth to Benjamin, who also caused her death. Thus the law (afore represented by Rachel who represented the Jewish contingent of the elect of God and thus the law) was fufilled also at death: Calvary.





those in Christ have gone away. “He hath seated us in heavenly places in Christ Jesus”.
How can those IN Christ since the foundation of the world, be gone?
Do you read? What does the verse say?




Christ is not gone
Of course He is. He is seated at the right hand of the Father.
No hang on.... there's a knock at the door. Maybe you're right!





The only reason a portion of humanity is seated in the heavenly places in Christ, is because they are IN Christ
And where is Christ seated? Yellowstone National Park?

[smaller]

Smaller,

We see now you have reached the extent of your ability to refute: the knowledge being presented is beyond yours.

Look Mr. Hollow Declaration of Victory, I agree that The Law is not "against" the children of God, but that ONE STATEMENT by Paul stating that "we" are not "under" The Law by no means throws out the basis of a very large portion of the scriptures and the reasons for same and THAT is what we should be contemplating.

That is the beauty of The Word. There is one side, and then there is ANOTHER. I am quite glad that The Word is constructed that way. So my deal as previously stated is to catch it ALL and that should be the goal of every good student rather than to be locked into resistance to the scriptures that BLATANTLY DISAGREE with one's position and we have found many such with your presentation.

My "goal" is not to "beat" anyone. dig?

And you have a severe difficulty of arguing from the excluded middle meaning that there are perhaps OTHER POSSIBLE MEANINGS to your denial of applicable LAW, so debate that if you will.

Your answers are largely non-sequiturs. Your braggacio in your sign off “enjoy” is starting to run weak, as has been expected.

You may be reading your own mind there pal O. Talk about perceived debate via extreme exaggeration, on a single word no less!

You can dance all you want. I really don't think you've attempted to even meet me on the ground that I have found understandings for these things. That is your loss. I aim to gain and this aim is not to your "loss."

Calling the old man the "no longer I" now?
Never done so. Your "no longer I" is an invalid grammatical nominalisation of a non-entity.
Rather, the old man is no longer "I".
As stated prior just another form of counting sins against mankind.
You have not attended to the point. Therefore it stands. (Rules of debate)

I wasn't aware we were having a "debate." Perhaps you can simply address the scriptures you don't like?

Let me turn up the volume on this particular chain and see if you can get a grip on these supposed scriptural facts:

-Paul had sin indwelling him that he called "no longer I" twice in Romans 7, in addition to having evil present with him. (I believe you have actually conceeded to this...;)
-Paul also had a messenger of satan that tormented his flesh.
-Jesus also showed that the DEVIL AND HIS MESSENGERS had access to the flesh of mankind.

Now see if you can connect the dots here and figure out who the "no longer I" was in Paul's flesh without blaming mankind.

When you get to the nose on your face take a turn north to your brain and you may see who THE LAW is written to and WHO the "lawless" that The Law is written to IS.

Then you will know what I am seeing here and then, and then, and then you can begin to slice me to little pieces and devour me, OK?

[the law] is meant for the lawless TO WHOM we are still attached in the body.
The old man acts when the New man doesn’t, and vice versa.
There can be no attachment between him who was crucified, and him who is born again: they are necessarily disjunctive.
God only recognises him who is born again (the new man).
Absurdity. Sin indwelling in sinful flesh remains condemned and in this Jesus did no different than The Law.
You have not attended to the point. Therefore it stands. (Rules of debate)

You have not attended to the point of what point it is that I have not attended. Specificity is the mother of dialog Mr. Attempted Debate Maker.

the LAWLESSNESS in you is UNDER THE LAW
Lawlessness is not a thing: it is the activity of the old man aroused by the law, which law is necessarily over him only.
"I" who live in my human being am not under the law: "I" am a complete spirit-person joined to Christ's headship. "I" include no flesh.
The flesh that “I” live in will manifest “I” (manifest Christ) as “I” understand that “I” am not under the law my flesh is under: “I” am enabled to take charge of the flesh only as “I” understand it was crucified by a law which “I” am not under, and that it is therefore dead to “I”.
Such taking charge will therefore not manifest itself in a keeping of the law, for the “I” that is in charge is not under the law, but under Christ, and therefore cannot hear the law.
I think we've already discovered that faith does not nullify The Law, but upholds and serves it.
All we have established is that you are not reading, or cannot read.
You have not attended to the point. Therefore it stands. (Rules of debate)

I can see that you have roped yourself in a dead end in this conversation and are resorting to non answers to somehow declare yourself some sort of a victor. What is the point of that Colossians?

What you don't seem to be picking up is that I agree with Paul, that we are not UNDER THE LAW, but this does not mean THAT there ARE SOME THINGS ARE UNDER THE LAW that are NOT PEOPLE. I'll refrain from tweaking your head any further as it seems to be painful for you.

You need to go to remedial English classes. Nothing was said of this. Misrepresenation. Therefore the point stands. (Rules of debate.)

Ad hom drivel.

I do not find ….."faith" AT ODDS with The Law.
That is because you are not looking. Perhaps you are even not born again.
This is what you’d find if you looked: “The law is not of faith”
Neither does "faith" nullify The Law
It can’t. It is of a different domain. That is why faith does not serve it and is not of it.
You have not attended to the fact that the law is not of faith. Therefore the point stands. (Rules of debate.)

Never said it was, but faith on the same hand does not "nullify" The Law (about the 7th time cited (Mr. Ignore the point-rules of debate-hello)

Well it's rather convenient to have such a secure faith that continually vascillates between the old man and the new.
Your use of “convenient” here reveals your self-effort at justification, and therefore that you are under the law.
It is quite possible that your "Jesus" is merely an alias for "the law": a personification of the law, and thus a false Christ.
I do not deny the fact that "sin indwells my flesh" and evil is present with me. I understand that the sin indwelling and evil present is the lawless to whom The Law is written
Evil is present with me, not in me.

Is that "evil present" just hovering around your brain? Passing through the air like your unsaved neighbors bad dinner odor? Perhaps you can elaborate just "how" evil is "present" with YOU???

I don't try to hang my excuses on another man, my "old one," whenever he supposedly shows up.
You do worse. You hang them on some scapegoat called “lawless”, with the result that is doesn’t matter what you do here, you’ll still end up in heaven alongside the most vile unrepentant pedophile.
You don’t understand that a human being has its own spirit. It is that spirit which will be punished.
Your “Mr Lawless” had no postal address.

Are you now presenting that you have to be responsible in order to "obtain your reward?" And what measure could you possibly use since THE LAW of PERFORMANCE has been TOSSED OUT?

When you get the picture here that I believe The Word SEPARATES the "sin indwelling" from the people "it" inhabits your petty "rewards points" system takes on an entirely different meaning and your "reward" is to LOVE YOUR UNSAVED NEIGHBORS and YOUR ENEMIES rather than condemn them to burn alive in fire forever....AND....

You still get to retain THE LAW and ETERNAL TORMENT.

What a tidy little package eh? Well, maybe not. Perhaps you simply prefer to damn those you are supposed to LOVE? We'll see. And perhaps that is exactly what THE WORD is trying to show you IS IN YOU?

[quote]
the fact will remain that Paul SERVED THE LAW in HIS MIND
Paul served the law which he was under, not that which he was not under. Thus he did not serve “the law” (the law of Moses), but “the law of God”.
And so Jesus called the Torah “your law”, not “my law”.
That statement by Jesus serves my point very well. The Law is to those entities that are the temporal causes of sin

The statement of Jesus does not such thing. You are making up stories. The point stands.

What exactly is it you don't get by now?

And are you going to say that The Law of Moses was not delivered from God as God's Laws?
The name it bears is not “God”, but “Moses”.
29 They clave to their brethren, their nobles, and entered into a curse, and into an oath, to walk in God's law, which was given by Moses the servant of God, and to observe and do all the commandments of the LORD our Lord, and his judgments and his statutes;
Redundant. Nehemiah is OT, so of course it is going to be called “God’s law”.
The fact is, it is not the law which speaks to those who are not under the law. You simply are dancing around this at light speed as though Paul wrote Romans to say “have another shot at keeping the law”.

And you are in blatant denial of just what God's Law is. You have denied God's Law are THE LAWS from Moses in favor of "Melchizedek" laws (whatever that it) and (some other unspecified laws) and EVERYTHING but MOSES LAW. What is the point of that? I gave you a specific scripture that says GOD'S LAW is MOSES LAW and I find nothing against that understanding in the scriptures.

Perhaps you have another up and comer potential for "God's Law(s)???"

lol

The law is the Torah. It’s administrators were the Levites, and its head the Levite Moses.
The law of God is found at 1 Jo 3:23. Its administrator and Head is found at Heb 7:10.
So then: “the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law” Heb 7:12
You presume The Law without purpose. If Paul served same and upheld same and did not nullify same by "faith" then I conclude you are in error.
You have not attended to the point. Therefore it stands. (Rules of debate)

More ad hom drivel and evasion.

Sin originates in THE MIND
Not the mind of Christ, which mind is the mind of the “I” of Rm 7:20, and the mind of him who is born of God and who therefore cannot sin (1 Jo 3:9).
I don't see John trying to pass himself off as Jesus either. What are you thinking?
You have not attended to the point. Therefore it stands. (Rules of debate)

Why don't you admit you don't get it, think about it, and come back some other day? And maybe you can put away that burning desire to be some kind of a "winner" who is trying to "beat" smaller in the process???

And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
Since earth is STILL HERE, I should consider Jesus' Word here valid as well.
Thus you reveal your earthly-mindedness.
Do false accusations against me justify your position now?
According to you it is Mr Lawless in me, so why are you worrying?
But the accusation is not false (you are indeed focussing on the flesh), so it cannot be Mr Lawless in me after all.

You have a problem that I don't BLAME YOU for sins now? That is very very funny.

The believer (the "I" of Rm 7:20) has been seated in heavenly places (Eph 2:6). For him the earth is not home anymore. For him old things have passed away and the new has come. Just like 2 Cor 5:17 says.
Yet there remains a day of wrath that has not yet arrived. It is pointless to deny the obvious. It is much more difficult to get a hold of both sides of this equation.
You have not attended to the point. Therefore it stands. (Rules of debate)

yawn...

The old man is not merely an old nature of the same man. It is a former person who does not exist in God’s eyes, having been crucified.
The literal greek of 2 Cor 5:17’s “a new creature” is “a creature that has never existed before”.
And we cannot say we have NO SIN or The Truth is not in us.
You have not attended to the point. Therefore it stands. (Rules of debate)

double yawn...

Hey! If you learned to use the "quote" brackets maybe you could keep closer tabs on "the points?" Try it sometime. Your style of heaping all these sentences together is somewhat annoying. Nothing personal.

You seem to think we will be physical in heaven. We won’t be.

When you want to dialog about The Law let me know. What being 'physical' in heaven has to do with that I don't know. Perhaps I can declare some sort of victory via ignoring the point now?

move on.

and of course

enjoy!

smaller

[FlimFlamboyant]

You boys beieve the scriptures?

(Rom 6:14) For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

(Heb 7:18) For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

Do you?

I tell you what, when you go through your wardrobe and eliminate every article of clothing that contains more than one type of material (Deu 22:11) and give up bacon you let me know. And don't try to tell me that the commandments of Jesus and/or the 10 commandments supercede the law of Moses, because you're just shooting yourself in the foot by doing so:

(Mat 8:4) And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

(Mat 23:2,3) Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

Do you offer gifts to the priest as Moses AND Jesus commanded? Do you observe the ordinances that are handed down from Moses' seat as Jesus himself commanded? I didn't think so.

The new testament says if you break one of the commandments, you break them all. Has the whole world been decieved as the bible claims? Will good intentions or a warm fuzzy at a sunday go to meeting lead us to the kingdom of God or must we keep His commandments AND have faith in Jesus as the scriptures say. Choose life.

I am sick and tired of this ludicrous presumption that since we believe that we're not under the law, we must therefore have no motivation or desire to live godly.

(1Co 6:12) All things are lawful unto me, ...

Do you get that? Can you wrap your mind around what that means? It means exactly what it says. Does this mean that we now have no motivation to serve in a godly manner? Read the rest of the verse:

...but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

Paul mentions this again a few chapters later:

(1Co 10:23) All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

If it isn't expedient or edifying, what reason would a believer have to indulge in it? Do you honestly think that a believer needs the threat of the condemnation of the law to keep him in line? What's a better motivator, fear, or love?

(Rom 8:15) For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

Do you enjoy your job? Do you think you'd be more proficient if you hated your job, performing under the fear that you might lose it, or if you loved your job? There's no contest.

(Gal 5:13,14) For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Now where exactly is this liberty coming from if we're under the law? Yet Paul STILL beckons us to refrain from abusing that liberty in love for one another.

(Gal 5:18) But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

Woah, what's this? Are we led of the Spirit? Back to Romans 8:

(Rom 8:14-16) For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

Are we the sons of God? Verse 16 says so. But wait, how can this be, if we still sin?

(Rom 7:17,18) Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

If you are a child of God, that bag of flesh you see in the mirror that IS subject to the law is NOT YOU. This is what Collosians and I have been hammering on for some time now concerning the new creature; otherwise known as the "new man". Check him out:

(Eph 4:24) And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

Explain to me how that a law which was "not made for a righteous man" can possibly apply to the "new man", who is already righteous?

(Rom 7:22-25) For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Notice what I underlined, and notice the difference between the inward man (the new man, if you're a believer) and the flesh. One delights in "the law of God", while the other serves "the law of sin". The law of sin is that carnal commandment that prove to us just how unrighteous we are in the flesh:

(Rom 7:7) 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.

(Rom 3:20) Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

If you think God is interested in saving these pathetic carnal bodies by a system of carnal commandments that can only bring death to them, you have another thing coming.

(Rom 8:2-4) For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

The flesh has been eliminated from the equation when it comes to our salvation. We have been created a brand new, spiritual creature that delights in the law of God, and is not subject to the law of Moses which is made only for the ungodly. Our motivation to serve God comes not from the fear of a carnal commandment, but from the love and joy that our inward man has for the God who saved us, and gave himself for us. And that, my friend, is far more effective than any law you could ever devise.