One of the key questions that has come up in the debate about sin, desire and temptation is whether or not we are responsible for our temptations. This in fact is key to the position that Matthew Roberts and others hold. The argument is that the desires which tempt us according to James are our own desires, so that in effect we tempt ourselves. If I am tempting myself, then yes, I’m culpable and it is sin.
John Stevens argues that temptation is not desire. His point is that something crucial has happened at conversion. We are not subject to sin as our master anymore, we are given new hearts that love the Lord. At the same time, there is the reality that we continue to have the presence, even of indwelling sin to fight against. John uses the image of an alien interloper.
“Whilst we have been set free from sin, we continue to live in our fallen bodies, which belong to this present evil age. We no longer have wicked hearts in the way that we did before conversion. The great blessing of the New Covenant is a new heart, and God has written the law on our hearts by his Spirit (Ezek. 36:26; Jer. 31:33). However, we continue to have to live with our fallen flesh and will not be set free from it until we die, when it will be destroyed and our bodies resurrected and glorified. In Romans 7:17 Paul places the blame for this struggle squarely on ‘Sin’, which indwells his fallen flesh. It is like an alien interloper. He laments the fact that he has to endure this permanent struggle because he lives in a ‘body of death’ (Rom. 7:24) but takes great hope in Romans 8 in the power of Spirit to enable him to resist the pull of this indwelling sin until final liberation comes with the redemption of all things at the new creation.”[1]
Matthew Roberts takes issue with this. In his response he observes that John takes the view
“that sinful desires are not my desires at all, but belong to my old self which is an ‘alien interloper’ – so it, not me, is responsible for them. “
He rejects this because:
“Never does Paul suggest that I’m not responsible for my old self because it’s not me. On the contrary, he says sin produced ‘in me’ all kinds of covetousness (Rom.7:8), just as James says we are lured and enticed by our own sinful desire (James 1:14). Since Paul also ascribes our sinful actions to ‘sin’ (Rom. 7:20), John’s view would mean (though he doesn’t intend this) that we’re not responsible for our sinful acts either!”
My concern with Matthew’s response, which is similar to what he says in his book Pride, is that he doesn’t pause to give full attention and weight to what God’s Word does say. First, in Romans 7:8, sin is personified as “seizing the opportunity.” In a way that does appear to distinguish it from me as a new creation. Secondly, in Romans 7:21-25, he talks in terms of wanting “to do good” but “evil” being “right there with me.” He makes it clear that when he sins, he is doing the things that he doesn’t want to do and indeed failing to do what he wants to do. It is incontrovertible that there is a distinguishing of the old self and a distancing of it and sin from our identity in Christ. This may not fit with Roberts’ system and yet he needs to give it its full weight and consider why Paul talks in these terms.
What we might want to do is to consider why Paul does this. I want to suggest that one reason is that it highlights the difference that regeneration makes. We truly are new creations, our old self died and was buried with Christ.
Does this mean though that Steven’s position requires no responsibility for our sin, including sins in our thought life such as lust? Well, no. I am responsible for how I respond to temptation. It is worth noting that in both Romans 7:7 and James 1:14, it is clear that our responsibility is identified as being at that stage. We are responsible for our sin. That remains the point. The question is not about whether sinful desire is sin, the question is about when desire becomes sin.
This question of whether there is a distance between the old man and the new man is important because towards the end of his article, Matthew argues that:
Christians in this life remain sinners, and sin even in our best deeds, because we are polluted by our evil desires. Of course, we should thank God for the wonderful way He helps us resist our attractions to sin. But that does not mean we can account ourselves righteous. Our only righteousness is Christ Himself.
Now, it is worth reminding one another again that the position John represents does not argue, infer or even come close to tending towards the suggestion that we have any other righteousness but Christ himself. We are talking about what it means to live the Christian life, to grow in sanctification, nothing more, nothing less. There is nothing in our position that argues, infers or even tends towards the suggestion that we might be dependent on our own works for justification. I do hope that Matthew will come back and correct his statement.
However, I specifically want to pick up here on his statement that “we are polluted by our evil desires.” It would be helpful for Matthew to both explain a little more about what he means by this and to show us where he is getting this from in Scripture because this does not seem to me to give a true feel for how Scripture describes the believer.
Indeed, note the following.
- We receive the Holy Spirit who fills us. Christ indwells us. God is present with us. Does this fit with the idea of being polluted by sin?
- Jesus tells his disciples at the Last supper that they are clean (John 13:10).
- I think there may also be something to consider with regards to the practice of church discipline, where part of the concern seems to be to protect the rest of the church from being polluted.
All of this begins to highlight why proper engagement with God’s Word, careful exegesis and much effort and wrestling with the implications is needed.
[1] Is sinful desire itself sin? A debate on temptation | Evangelicals Now
Faithroots 