It might seem confusing to you
It's not "confusing" to me, I am
certain that your view is
incoherent and
inconsistent with the Scriptures.
For instance, while we both agree that God is ultimately the source of salvation, you believe that human action also plays a part in achieving salvation. You think that God does his part and we do ours.
You are not acquainted with the Scripture, so you define any activity at all as "work":
a. Again, when the land has its Sabbath, it is still active, but that activity is not "work". If it "works", it breaks its Sabbath. It only "works" if it is tilled, if its vines are pruned, or if someone performs a harvest on it. That is, it only "works" if someone establishes a Master-Slave relationship with it. Otherwise, it is resting. However, that does not mean it is completely inactive. It produces fruit and people may still eat. Its activity is not "work". Activity that is done while resting does not qualify as "work".
Jesus says "come to Me and you will find rest"--He doesn't mean "you will be
inactive", but that the works we produce while resting in Him do not qualify as a righteousness of our own from the Law, works, but God's righteousness (Ro 1:17. 3:27, 14:5, 23), a gift (Ro 5:15-17, 6:20-23).
b. When we walk in faith, that is not "works". Again, you think any activity falls under the category of "work". "Works" pertain to our own righteousness, but walking in faith is God's righteousness--so much so that Paul defines the preacher preaching the Gospel as "Christ came and preached to you", and "I was abundant in labors above them all, yet, not I, but the grace with me", and "I have been crucified with Christ and it is no longer I who live but Christ". Thus, walking in faith is, categorically, not "works", since that would pertain to "a righteousness of my own", but "God's righteousness is revealed from faith to faith".
c. Judges 7:2+ shows a precedent for God alone being the Savior, and, yet, man still being involved in God alone being the Savior. Men
obey God, and God alone is the Savior.
Notably, however, which I think is near the core of our disagreement, in Judges 7:2+, when God solves the problem of men boasting when He alone saves, the fearful must not involve themselves. Why? Somehow, it is entangled with boasting. In God being Savior, no flesh may boast, but this also means that fear is not to be involved--to fear is inexorably entangled with the idea that self is performing (Ro 8:15)--so my contentions about remaining in Christ by walking in faith cannot be to arouse fear in people. Indeed, Paul describes the manner of living as "giving thanks" (Ro 14).
d. "Each man has his gift"--therefore, walking in faith is classified as a "gift".
Conclusion : When we walk in faith, that is considered a "gift"--the "gift" of righteousness whereby we are justified as a "gift" in the future Judgment (Ro 2:6-16).
According to the scriptures, salvation is not dependent on human action, but rather eternal life is given to individuals based on their relationship with the Spirit.
You don't know the Scriptures.
Saying something is debunked doesn't make it so.
Yeah, the debunking debunks it--you opt to disagree with the debunking, but your mere opting, contrary to Scripture and logic, to disagree does not make it un-debunked. It just means you disagree.
Asserting something isn't the same thing as explaining something.
I said "as explained" : you are free to interact with the explanation, I do not have to keep repeating myself.
I firmly stand by my viewpoint. I have been explaining the common technique of Bible interpretation, which involves understanding the author's perspective. This means paying attention to how an author uses a specific term, like "flesh," and also noting when the author uses a different term, such as "body."
Consider the verse in question.
Romans 8:12-13 So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh— for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live.
Have you noticed when Paul changed his terminology? According to Paul, are we putting to death the deeds of the
flesh, or are we putting to death the deeds of the
body? He says we are putting to death the deeds of the
Body.
In this passage, the Apostle discusses two methods for overcoming the sinful tendencies of the body: 1) living according to the flesh, and 2) living according to the spirit. In both cases, the goal is to suppress the sinful behavior of the body. This suggests that the "flesh" doesn't represent our sin nature. If someone lives in accordance with their sin nature, they would produce more sinful behavior rather than less.
You will die if you live according to the flesh because the flesh has sinful desires, and sin leads to death. This is in accord with his instruction in Romans 6.
Believers are free from the legalistic requirements of Jewish Law. Living according to the Spirit means being led by the Spirit and involving moral reasoning guided by the Spirit. Those who attempt to mortify the deeds of the body "according to the flesh" are attempting to live by keeping all the rules.
I could see why you would see it that way--and, preliminarily, I will agree--but, again, all this does is prove there is a
contingency, which would be my point. Clearly, they had
not been so doing, because he indicted them as "hypocrites", who were "storing up wrath", for their boasting in their Jewishness, part of which was their knowledge of good and evil from the Law, without actually
performing the righteousness they espoused (Ro 2),
for this very reason of, contrary to their Gentile Christian brothers,
not relying on grace.
How we go about mortifying the deeds of the body is at issue here.
Still, it's a
contingency. They will die if they do not mortify the deeds of the flesh.
I looked it up in the Greek, and, indeed, it
does say "according to the flesh". You were correct. I was incorrect.
Take note of Paul's change in terminology. He speaks about the deeds of the "soma" not the deeds of the "sarx".
The deeds of the soma, sins, must be mortified--IF the audience does not do that, they will be "condemned" and die, not be "justified" and live. Contingency.
But not all "condemnation" is a death sentence.
1. So, now, you
concede "each man must be fully convinced in his own mind" is a Law (the Law of Faith), but, still, you deny the "condemnation" is a "death sentence". I never said he would be condemned to wrath for a single instance of sin by breaking the Law of Faith.
That said, sin leads to death--what ever is not of faith is sin, unto condemnation.
Death will result without correction--as both James (James 2) and Paul (Ro 2:6-16) say, his justification is at stake, and, as Paul says, he is condemned.
2. You, now,
admit there is "condemnation"--good. There is "no condemnation" for those "in Christ". We know that remaining "in Christ" is by obeying His command to i. believe in the Name of God's Son, and ii. love one another (Jn 15; 1 Jn 3:23,24), so, ipso facto, by sinning, he is not remaining "in Christ" where there is "no condemnation".
