Last night, a conversation opened up about fighting sin and resisting temptation. Fascinating and useful stuff. Kutz pushed his 3-man position (read about it here and here), I pushed my desire for the new creation position, and Nathan offered his own sin is inevitable so just get on with it position (which I'm sure he'll blog on soon).
Nathan's very valid criticism of my position is that I've done a Keller and tried to make all sin fit under one heading. Such a thing can be done - Keller has shown us that if you define and redefine particular sins and colour them in in a certain way, they all look like idolatry. I've done the same, but squashed and squeezed so that all sinful desires are redefined as desires in some way for the new creation. It can be helpful, but it's a stretch.
The other criticism of my position was that of whether our desires will actually be fulfilled in the new creation or whether we'll be changed so that our desires will change. I expect my desires to be filled. I imagine that when I'm with God and his people I'll have these ah-ha moments of 'When I thought I wanted x, I didn't realise that what I actually wanted was this!' (And I'll be thinking about some element of life in the new creation.) But that might be C.S.Lewis and Plato more than it is the bible.
The problem with most of our models is the difficulty in maintaining our utter sinfulness while allowing that the spirit does actually make a difference. Real progress in godliness is what's expected of us (1 John 1).
There was lots of great clarification along the way. John had a habit of referring to the bible, which gave us a bit of a jolt. This is systematics we're doing! Vibe over text! Andrew pointed out that the bible has lots of ways of describing sin and talking about our fight against it, so no one model is probably going to capture it.