This has already been addressed
I know. I addressed it. :)
--identifying someone's ancestral lineage and describing one's manner of living ("walk after the flesh", and contrasting it against "walk after the spirit") are not the same goals, so comparing the phrases is to compare apples and oranges.
The two concepts are related because, as we will see below,
who we are often dictates what we
do. For instance, many people grow up in a religious family. At some point in life, they either embrace their family religion or reject it. Those who reject Judaism and become Christians, for example, take on a new identity. They
were Jewish; they are
now Christian. Those who grew up Muslim and subsequently converted to Christ, take on a new identity. They
were Muslim, but they are
now Christian.
In Paul's wording, he uses the phrase "
kata sarka" to indicate who we were before our conversion experience. A person may have been born Jewish, and until conversion, they walk according to Judaism because that is how their parents taught them. But once they are sanctified by the Spirit and have the Spirit of Christ, they no longer walk according to Judaism, they walk according to the indwelling Spirit.
While it may be true that Jews oughtn't trust in their heritage as a basis for being in right standing with God, it does mean that "walking after the flesh" doesn't refer to "living sinfully".
We understand the meaning of the phrase "walk according to the flesh" from the immediate context. What does Paul mean HERE?
The following verse alerts the reader that Paul wants to discuss the
who and the what of a person in Christ rather than their behavior.
Romans 8:5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
Paul helps his readers get to the main issue in verse 5, where he talks about the quiddity of two groups: 1) those who ARE according to the flesh, and those who ARE according to the Spirit. He compares and contrasts the two groups. Granted, there are deeds of the flesh and works of the body, all of which indicate behaviors motivated by evil intent as
@Ritajanice pointed out earlier. But here, in this context, Paul is focused on
identity, and how we live in the light of that identity.
the one in Christ, i.e., what he is. What are they? They are according to the flesh. What do they do? They set their minds on the things of the flesh.
As
@Ritajanice pointed out, Paul lists some examples of the deeds of the flesh in Galatians 5. A cursory glance at the list will show that Paul has listed things some people DO. But here in Romans 8, Paul speaks about who we ARE, and what we do in light of that.
Colossians 3:5 uses similar language to refer to sins, so, nope. No cigar.
Colossians 3:5 exists in a larger context where Paul is making a similar point -- what we do should reflect who we are. He argues from the idea that we are "new" men (a different kind of human being.) We give no value to being physically circumcised, whether we are men or women, slave or free, rich or poor. But Christ is all.
No, actually, "according to the flesh" means "physically descended from", but "walking after the flesh" is a way of describing a lifestyle of indulging in the sinful desires of the flesh, and we know this because its opposite is "mortifying the deeds of the flesh", as also Colossians 3:5 says.
But Paul doesn't say "walking
after the flesh." The principle he describes in Romans 8 is living according to identity. Who we are should dictate what we do. In Colossians we are "the new man" so we ought to walk as new men (or women). In Romans 8, we are "according to the Spirit" so we ought to leave our childhood behind and walk in light of what the Spirit is teaching us.
The Jewish Christians trusted in their Jewishness, and Paul was helping them trust in grace by destroying that.
I don't know what you mean by "Christian."
Paul's point wasn't about "inner" and "outer" man, his point was correcting the Jewish Christians' trust in their Jewishness, which you already conceded was boasting, which would need humbling.
Where are you reading this? In Romans 2, Paul explicitly says that a true Jew is one inwardly. I don't know how you can miss this.
Right, so even granting your flawed premise, "walking after the flesh" does refer to sinning, as I said.
How does that follow?
"Principles of individual action" don't result in sins when they are broken--this one does result in sin and condemnation when it's broken, so it is actually nothing other than "the law of faith".
Who said anything about breaking a rule or a commandment? Perhaps you didn't know that the word "sin" has a wide range of meanings. Those who act against their own conscience aren't breaking divine Law, are they? You aren't suggesting that "whatever I think" is divine law are you?
