Why the debate about sin, temptation and desire matters

I’ve had four concerns about the debate around temptation, desire and sin (concupiscence).

1. That the debate has been framed in terms of adherence to historic confessional documents and the comments of historical authors rather than by exegesis and exposition of Scripture.
2. That the debate has pretended to be about a wider principle affecting us all but in reality has focused on one narrow issue, same sex attraction.
3. That the debate has tended towards the academic in terms of its tone and language.
4. That the debate is based on a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of one side’s argument.  In effect to attack a strawman. 

I wanted  to just pick up on three crucial implications from these.

First of all, by narrowing the debate down to one application, the impression has been unfortunately given that this isn’t to do with all of us.  Rather, it only affects one category of people facing one specific sin and this begins to look like some people are being targeted.

Secondly.  I was particularly concerned, reading the Evangelicals Now article by the way that Matthew Roberts seemed to be hearing John Stevens and those of a similar view as saying something  about justification.  In his article, for EN, Matthew writes:

“Is my plea before God based partly on my innocence? Is the Christian’s security before God, when troubled by the knowledge of his sinful nature, established partly on the belief that God is not troubled by a sinful heart? 

He sets this out as the big issue but he has created an argument about something that none of us are saying.  The question is not about where our security before God is.  There is not even the hint of suggestion that we think we can base our “plea before God based partly on [our] innocence.

The problem here is that if those engaging in a theological debate have not been heard, then what about the ordinary member of a church who goes to their pastor and says “Here is this particular temptation I’m battling with.”  Will they be listened to and treated as genuine or will their experience be that they experience accusation?

Thirdly, Matthew has assumed that the whole debate is about justification. However, that clearly is not the doctrinal category under scrutiny.  If we always go back to justification, then where is the place for sanctification.  You see, it seems to be the possibility of growth in holiness that is diminished here.

This brings me back to a point I’ve raised previously.  We can attempt to label and define wrong desire as much as we like but when are we going to start talking about how to cultivate good and godly desire?