Precious Remedies against Satan's Devices - Part 1

Thomas Brooks divides Satan's devices (schemes, wiles) into several different categories.  The first category is "Satan's devices to draw the soul to sin." These are ways, that is, that Satan works to get people to break God's law. Under this category, Brooks discusses 12 specific "devices:

Device 1: By presenting the bait and hiding the hook.
The idea here is that Satan shows us the pleasures that can be derived from sin, but obscures from us the "wrath and misery" that follow from committing sin.

For remedies, consider that . . .
1. We ought to keep at the greatest distance from sin and from playing with the bait.
2. Sin is but a bitter sweet.
3. Sin will usher in the greatest and the saddest losses.
4. Sin is very deceitful and bewitching.

Precious Remedies Against Satan's Devices

I have long believed that one of the best books ever written in the area of the doctrine of sanctification, and particular on the mortifying of sin in the believer's life, is the work by the puritan Thomas Brooks, Precious Remedies against Satan's Devices (available from Banner of Truth). Lately, in my own personal devotions, I have been drawn back to this book, re-reading it as a help in my own (feeble) pursuit of holiness. And I have decided, as part of that process, to post the main points of Brooks's treatise on this blog. Hopefully, at least once or twice a week, I will post one of the "devices" (schemes, wiles) of Satan that he uses to lead people into sin that Brooks discusses, along with the biblical "remedies" that Brooks recommends.  It will be more or less just an outline of Brooks's book, but I hope that it benefits readers nonetheless and perhaps encourages them to go out and read the whole book for themselves.

In the introduction, Brooks takes the reader to 2 Cor. 2:11, where the Apostle states, "We are not ignorant of his [i.e., Satan's] devices" (ESV: "designs"; NASB: "schemes"). The idea is that Satan has his devices, his tricks, his ways of leading people (even believers) astray into sin.  And, Paul says, we are not ignorant of those devices--at least we shouldn't be, because the Bible explains his devices.  And, what's more, the Bible provides us with divinely revealed remedies to those devices--that is, means by which can avoid the snare of those devices and avoid sin.  Other relevant texts that Brooks cites to prove his point are Eph. 6:11; 2 Tim. 2:26; and Rev. 2:24.  All of these, in different ways, speak of Satan's desire and method to ensnare us in sinful rebellion against God, and of the importance of learning from Scripture how to resist Satan's influence.

I hope you will join me in this exploration of Brooks's marvelously helpful book.

In Defense of the Bible in print

My new book (co-edited with Terry Wilder) has at last been released.  In Defense of the Bible has first-rate contributions from first-rate scholars responding to all of the major challenges to biblical authority.  Here is the link to the publisher's website:

http://www.bhpublishinggroup.com/academic/books.asp?p=9781433676789

Article on 1 Cor 10:13 and Libertarianism

In 1 Cor 10:13, Paul writes that God provides Christians with a "way of escape" when they face temptations. In a recent article in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS)(www.etsjets.org), Paul Himes, a Ph.D. student at Southern Seminary, argues that this text implies that Christians, when they face temptations to sin, have libertarian freedom (i.e., the ability to do otherwise). I have written a response to Himes that has just been published in the same journal. I argue that this text, understood in context and in light of other New Testament texts, does not teach a libertarian view of freedom but a compatibilist one (one consistent with determinism). I have posted a pdf of the article on my Wordpress site at this address:

http://stevenbcowan.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/1cor10-13-libertarianism.pdf


In fairness, I should mention that Himes makes a response to my critique in the same issue of JETS. In a future blog post, I plan to answer his response.

Audio Book Available

I'm not sure why I didn't know this before, but I just discovered that one of my books, Who Runs the Church? 4 Views on Church Government, is now available as an audio book.  I have to say, it's kinda cool to hear someone reading my own book to me--yes, I know, VERY narcissistic!  Anyway, here's the link:

http://www.audible.co.uk/pd/ref=sr_1_1?asin=B004FUHP5O&qid=1340164985&sr=1-1

Article Published on Free Will in Heaven

For those who might be interested, my paper, "Compatibilism and the Sinlessnees of the Redeemed in Heaven," has just come out in the journal Faith and Philosophy (October 2011 issue). In this paper I argue in defense of the claim that a compatibilist view of freedom is the best explanation for why the redeemed in heaven are incapable of sinning.

If Ron Paul Were President in 1941...

Ron Paul touts himself as a "non-interventionist" in his foreign policy. He believes that we should have few if any military bases in foreign countries, that we should have few if any defense treaties with other countries, and that we should not involve ourselves in any military conflicts unless we are directly attacked. This means no military interventions like Kuwait, Iraq, Kosovo, etc. It means we should not have troops in South Korea and definitely should not bother to help the South Koreans defend themselves against any North Korean invasion. That's their business not ours.

For all those out there who are enamored with Ron Paul and his foreign policy, I ask you to consider some implications of his views. Specifically, I ask you to imagine what would be the case if Ron Paul had been President of the U.S. in 1941 when the U.S. (in actual history) was attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor and subsequently entered into World War II. Think about it: If Ron Paul had been President in 1941. . .

• China would probably still be under Imperial Japanese occupation.


• The Philipines would still be under Imperial Japanese occupation.


• Some of the Aleutian Islands in Alaska would still be under Imperial Japanese occupation.


• Korea, Burma, and most of SE Asia would be under Imperial Japanese occupation.


• Australia would very well have been invaded by Imperial Japan and would still be under its occupation.


• Nazi Germany would still exist and would still be occupying most of continental Europe and problably Russia too and possibly Great Britain.


• Nazi Germany would still occupy most of North Africa and would likely have extended its rule to Palestine and other parts of Arabia.

Ron Paul supporters might object to all this by saying, "Wait a minute! Paul does believe in military responses to agression against the United States. Japan attacked the U.S. Navy at Pearl Harbor. And then the Nazi's declared war on us. So, Paul would not have objected to our participation in World War II." However, this response falters on the fact that if Ron Paul were President in 1941, we would not have had any naval or military bases in Pearl Harbor for the Japanese to attack in the first place! And even if we had military bases in Pearl Harbor, the Japanese would not have attacked us given Paul's non-interventionist policies. They would have gone about their business and invaded the Philipines, Australia, etc., and not had to worry about our naval fleet in Pearl Harbor.

Ron Paul's foreign policy would have been naive and dangerous then (not to mention cruel), and it's naive and dangerous now.

Christian Hedonism Challenged

I just ran across this very insightful critique of Piper's Christian hedonism by Reformed philosopher and theologian Paul Helm. Though Piper's views on this emphasize some elements in Christian theology and living that have been sadly neglected and that we should recapture today, I have never been able to get past the feeling that he has gone too far. Helm offers a much-needed corrective. I hope all the Piper fans out there will read Helm's blog with an open mind.

Women's Subordination Revisited

The latest issue of the philosophy journal Philosophia Christi features an exchange between egalatarian Adam Omelianchuk and myself over my 2009 article "The Metaphysics of Subordination: A Response to Rebecca Merrill Groothuis." As you might guess, Omelianchuk argues that I have failed to adequately defend the coherence of the distinction complementarians make between woman's equality of being/value and subordinate function. I respond that he begs the main question, primarily through the use of an obscure and undefined notion of "ontological inferiority." I'll let the reader decide who is right. I invite comments by those who have read all three articles.

Scooby Doo and Philosophy

Because my son loves it and gets me to watch it with him, I have become a pretty ardent fan of the Scooby Doo cartoons and movies over the last couple of years. So I was much intrigued when I heard about a blog by David Leonard that brought out some connections of Scooby Doo to some aspects of my chosen profession, philosophy. Though I might quibble with a few points, it is very interesting reading. Most of all, it should remind us that philosophical/worldview ideas permeate every aspect of our culture, even kid's cartoons. David Leonard's blog post is on the website of the MacLaurin Institute at this address:

http://www.maclaurin.org/blogscoobydooepistemology