Evil concupiscence or thoughts cast in by the devil?

[bsprouse]

Hello Puritan Board,
I was recently reading Thomas Brooks' "Precious Remedies Against Satan's Devices" and I was struck by the council given in a proposed situation where the devil casts in a multitude of vain thoughts when the soul is seeking God. Brooks writes:

The third remedy against this device of Satan is, to consider this, that those vain and trifling thoughts that are cast into our souls, when we are waiting upon God in this or that religious service, if they be not cherished and indulged, but abhorred, resisted, and disclaimed, they are not sins upon our souls, though they may be troubles to our minds; they shall not be put upon our accounts, nor keep mercies and blessings from being enjoyed by us.

My concern with Brooks' council is that if his premise is incorrect (that the devil has the ability to cast thoughts into our minds), then his teaching would suddenly be indistinguishable from the Roman Catholic view of concupiscence and the non-sinfulness of our primary first-motions of indwelling sin. Rather than confessing and repenting of his sin, the soul is instead sadly being deceived into believing that his own thoughts are somehow the devil's which he need not repent of.

My question to the board is whether or not this idea of the devil casting thoughts into our minds is a legitimate category within reformed theology. There aren't any passages of Scripture that come to my mind supporting this view, nor do I believe this to be taught in the WCF. And yet in my studying of concupiscence I do know men like John Bunyan and Thomas Goodwin allowed for some notion that the devil could cast in thoughts. I've just never read anything so doctrinally explicit in Puritan writings as what Thomas Brooks teaches here.

Thank you for your consideration and would appreciate any feedback or commentary!

 

[chuckd]

We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against Principalities, against Powers, against the Rulers of the darkness of this World, against Spiritual Wickednesses in Heavenlies. Eph. 6:12

Chap. IV Of the third doctrine: They are mighty and malicious enemies that war against us, even principalities, powers, rules of the darkness of this world, and spiritual wickedness in heavenlies. Thus are they positively described. I shall a little search into the words, that we may understand what puissant enemies we have against us.

1. Principalities, they are not only princes, but principalities in the abstract; it sets forth the eminency of their government, above all the princes in the world...

2. Powers. They are not only powerful, but powers in the abstract; i.e. they are clothed and filled with a mighty power: Were devils princes only in their stile, and had no power, the title could not carry it; we little esteem of sounds, syllables and words. Have we not seen what the sword can do without a title, and how empty the title is without the sword? Well, but devils have both; as they are principalities, so they are powers; they are the princes of the power. What this power is, is past my telling, only if we look in the world, we may find it wonderful in several parts of it. As,

i. For the elementary part of the world...

ii. For the sensible part of the world, he can enter into the bodies of beast, and act them at his pleasure....

iii. For the souls of men, which we call the intellectual part of the world, He hath a great power over them. 1. He can work on the understanding; he can penetrate into the fancy, which is the organ of internal sense, and move those phantasms he finds there, and by that means excite various thoughts in the understanding, and perswade to this or that. Do we not experience his power within us? do we not perceive evil thoughts injected into our minds against our wills; not that Satan imports any new thing into our minds, which he found not in our fancies before. It is usually delivered in the schools, That the devil cannot put into the fancy new species of things, and such as the sense had never any knowledge of; as he cannot make a man born blind, to dream of colours, and their differences. But he can make many compositions and deductions of those various phantasm he finds within, and accordingly move the understanding to this or that. 2. He can move the will; I cannot say that absolutely he can determine it. The bowing, bending, and turning and forming of the will efficaciously is only proper to God; yet can the devil act something as towards the will, and his acting carries a king of power with it, though’ God only can determine it. The will may be said to be moved or bowed two ways, either inwardly or outwardly. The internal mover or agent, is either our own natural inclination and propension to its object, or God himself who is the author of that inclination: Now in this way, there is nothing can move the will but God and ourselves. The external mover or principle, is either the object propounded to the will, the understanding having apprehended it as good; or the affections and concupiscence which reside in the sensitive appetite, for by them is the will often seduced, and drawn to consent. Very passions can make that many things which are evil, may seem good to the will, and so incline it to embrace them. Now this is certain, that devils can propound an object; and they can move, and trouble, and affect our passions; they can stir up wrath, pride, covetousness, lusts, in men; and therefore externally they cannot move the will.

Isaac Ambrose, War with Devils, Book 1, Ch.4

 

[Semper Fidelis]

My concern with Brooks' council is that if his premise is incorrect (that the devil has the ability to cast thoughts into our minds), then his teaching would suddenly be indistinguishable from the Roman Catholic view of concupiscence and the non-sinfulness of our primary first-motions of indwelling sin.

1. Do you suppose Christ was upholding a doctrine of Roman Catholic concupiscence when he warned Peter about being tempted by the Devil?
2. If not, was the Devil tempting a man with indwelling sin?

 

[bsprouse]

Thank you for the reply, Chuck. That's a helpful quote to tease out the distinction of "evil thoughts [being] injected into our minds against our wills" while maintaining that the "internal mover or agent" is still our own natural inclination (as quoted below). That would lend me to believe that those thoughts are still are own for which we are responsible.

The will may be said to be moved or bowed two ways, either inwardly or outwardly. The internal mover or agent, is either our own natural inclination and propension to its object, or God himself who is the author of that inclination: Now in this way, there is nothing can move the will but God and ourselves.

 

[bsprouse]

Thank you as well, Rich. To answer your questions:
1) Of course not.
2) Yes

I suppose the issue could be Brooks teaching what Rutherford taught to be the primary first motion of the intellect in recognizing an external temptation. I didn't take his quote that way which was why I posed the question.

If the first, prime motion is either purely intellectual [and] in the mind, so that it speculatively knows the temptations of the Devil, this is not sin, even as this was in Christ. Or it is a first, prime motion in the [innate] appetite [or desires of a person], or even another [motion] following the first; both these presuppose some cognition and semi-consent, or a consent having begun and imperfect; and this is sin (Examination of Arminianism. trans. Charles Johnson, Travis Fentiman. 84).

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Brian,

What is this that Paul speaks of: "Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked" (Eph 6:16)? Is it not the projection into our minds and feelings – thoughts and emotions – of the devil's lies and temptations?

And this, "Neither give place [i.e., ground] to the devil" (Eph 4:27)?

You might find this earlier post a help: Quotes on Satan as accuser and tempter directly afflicting the saints.

 

[bsprouse]

Hi Mr. Rafalsky! I didn't realize my post was essentially a recycling of an old thread, so thank you for directing me there. I read the quotes you referenced, and found them helpful. William Spurstowe and George Petter's respective references to John 13:2 and Acts 5:3 seem to be the clearest Scriptural examples of the devil's ability to cast in thoughts. However, I did find William Hendriksen's commentary on Matt 16:22 to be interesting in that while the thought seemingly did not originate in Peter's own heart yet, "Peter was stung by this fearsome rebuke of Christ and repented instantly."

My difficulty with the teaching of the devil casting thoughts into our minds is the question that it raises: how do we distinguish between the sinful thoughts stirred by our own concupiscence (Matt 15:19) and these non-sinful thoughts injected in by the devil? Such a distinction seems ripe for abuse as acknowledged by Whitefield: "some indeed are apt to impute all such evil thoughts to a disorder of body."

Edit: I'm realizing now that the quoted portion from William Hendriksen was your commentary on his commentary

 

[JP Wallace]

Two (possible) biblical examples:

1) Ananias and Sapphira if they were believers at all were influenced by Satan.

Acts 5:3 ESV “But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land?”

2) And this one is better:

2 Timothy 2:24-26 ESV “24 And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, 25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.”

In response to your question - the words "cherish" and "indulge" are important in what Watson writes - I think they are a step further than the "primary first" thought of some temptation etc....but rather a thinking upon it. Maybe Owen would describing it as "entering into a temptation."

 

[Semper Fidelis]

My difficulty with the teaching of the devil casting thoughts into our minds is the question that it raises: how do we distinguish between the sinful thoughts stirred by our own concupiscence (Matt 15:19) and these non-sinful thoughts injected in by the devil? Such a distinction seems ripe for abuse as acknowledged by Whitefield: "some indeed are apt to impute all such evil thoughts to a disorder of body."

We wouldn't be said to be struggling with the world, the flesh, and the devil if the only struggle we had in temptation is with the flesh.

Your "concern" essentially eliminates the category of external temptation if the only source of temptation is our corruption.

It's strange that you think this bears any resemblance to the Roman Catholic notion of concupiscence because whether or not our corruption remains as we are united to Christ is independent of the issue of whether or not the world or the devil can externally tempt us. In other words, the RCC claims that baptism washes all corruption away and that the internal desires we possess are not sinful in fact. That is because they believe that it would be a legal fiction for God to declare someone righteous who is not. we believe Christ unites sinners to Himself.

Regarding temptation, however, theologians distinguish between external temptation and internal temptation. The latter comes from our flesh; the former comes from the world and the devil. The Lord's Prayer makes no sense (lead us not into temptation and deliver us from the evil one) if the category of external temptation does not exist. In fact, we believe Crhsit was tempted (externally) in every way we could ever be. He, Himself, faced no internal temptation that arose from internal corruption. He was, however, tempted by the world and the devil and overcame.

Now, what about external temptation? Should we repent of it? Specifically, if we had some sort of thought that was planted by a demon. Since we wouldn't be able to distinguish that thought from something that arose from our flesh, it would be appropriate to ask forgiveness for the thought and turn to Christ. He can sort it out. The "comfort", however, is that not every thought that arises within us properly "belongs" to us. By that I mean that Paul tasks about being deceived by sin (harmatia). It is in us, but is not always properly "who we are" and it's hard to tease out what is coming from principalities and powers and from our own indwelling sin. Either way, we should not lose hope because we are united to a faithful Savior.

 

[bsprouse]

It's strange that you think this bears any resemblance to the Roman Catholic notion of concupiscence

Hi Rich,
My rationale was that a thought being described as "vain and trifling" could in fact not be sinful if we withhold consent. That sounded like Roman Catholic doctrine when I first read it and rather to be a motion of our flesh. Now if such thoughts can be injected in as part of an external temptation, then the conversation becomes much more nuanced. I appreciate your last paragraph and you taking the time to respond!

 

[MW]

Scripture is somewhat blunt:

James 1:14, "But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed."

This is one of those rare cases when I don't find a general Puritan teaching to be helpful. But there are Puritans on the other side as well, so I take solace in that. The idea of injected thoughts for which man is irresponsible makes too much of the Devil and too little of man. The heart is deceitful above all things. Every imagination of the thoughts of his heart is only evil continually. I am sure the Devil would like to think he has that power, but no. He finds in man a ready object to receive his subtle temptations to wickedness.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Scripture is somewhat blunt:

James 1:14, "But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed."

This is one of those rare cases when I don't find a general Puritan teaching to be helpful. But there are Puritans on the other side as well, so I take solace in that. The idea of injected thoughts for which man is irresponsible makes too much of the Devil and too little of man. The heart is deceitful above all things. Every imagination of the thoughts of his heart is only evil continually. I am sure the Devil would like to think he has that power, but no. He finds in man a ready object to receive his subtle temptations to wickedness.

I was thinking of that verse when I answered. I agree that we can never blame another for being tempted and that it is our evil desires that lead to this but I rather think of that as internal temptation. That is, I still believe that external temptation can come from other places.

For instance, someone might tempt another with a lifetime supply of vegemite and the evil desire of those who actually enjoy that stuff is excited.

 

[Phil D.]

For instance, someone might tempt another with a lifetime supply of vegemite and the evil desire of those who actually enjoy that stuff is excited.

For those more refined, other things are more of a Tim-Tam-tion...

 

[MW]

For instance, someone might tempt another with a lifetime supply of vegemite and the evil desire of those who actually enjoy that stuff is excited.

We are happy little Vegemites, as bright as bright can be
We all enjoy our Vegemite for breakfast, lunch and tea
Our mummy says we're growing stronger every single week
Because we love our Vegemite, we all adore our Vegemite
It puts a rose in every cheek

 

[Ploutos]

We are happy little Vegemites, as bright as bright can be
We all enjoy our Vegemite for breakfast, lunch and tea
Our mummy says we're growing stronger every single week
Because we love our Vegemite, we all adore our Vegemite
It puts a rose in every cheek

I happen to like vegemite. We brought some back with us, and it was a sad day when the last of it disappeared. I readily acknowledge that I wouldn't ladle thick globs of it into my mouth, but I don't understand the derision in which it is held. It's really quite tasty.

And I love that poem, which you have just introduced to me for the first time.

 

[arapahoepark]

Scripture is somewhat blunt:

James 1:14, "But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed."

This is one of those rare cases when I don't find a general Puritan teaching to be helpful. But there are Puritans on the other side as well, so I take solace in that. The idea of injected thoughts for which man is irresponsible makes too much of the Devil and too little of man. The heart is deceitful above all things. Every imagination of the thoughts of his heart is only evil continually. I am sure the Devil would like to think he has that power, but no. He finds in man a ready object to receive his subtle temptations to wickedness.

I don't necessarily disagree but, and this may be an elementary question but at what point does external temptation become internal or vice versa? We are corrupt and able to be lured yet, how can Christ attribute to Satan Peter's speech and not Peter's own, presumably, thirst for power at worst and ignorance of God's word at best?

 

[MW]

I don't necessarily disagree but, and this may be an elementary question but at what point does external temptation become internal or vice versa? We are corrupt and able to be lured yet, how can Christ attribute to Satan Peter's speech and not Peter's own, presumably, thirst for power at worst and ignorance of God's word at best?

It is akin to compatibilism. Satan is the tempter, the mastermind; the world offers the substance of the temptation; the flesh is the thing tempted. Eph. 2:1-3 sums it up well -- there is the spirit that works in the children of disobedience, following the course of this world, and fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind. For the regenerate there is still the influence of indwelling sin, Rom. 7; evil is present. It is not one or the other; all work together.

Peter's carnal Jewish view of the Messiah is obvious, and yet his opposition embodies the work of "Satan," since he would have Christ to receive the kingdoms of this world some other way than by suffering and death. To understand the reference in Matt. 16 one has to understand the "office" of Satan in chapter 4, and the work of Christ in opposition to Satan in chapter 12.

 

[Hugues Pierre]

Wilhelmus à Brakel has a nice section on Satan interjecting thoughts. It can be read here.

 

[bsprouse]

Thank you for sharing, Rev. Pierre. I appreciated the commentary that directly engaged the question I had. Certainly gives me something to think about.

But there are Puritans on the other side as well

And thank you very much, Rev. Winzer. I was quite encouraged by your post. Would you be able to share with me any writings that are of the minority opinion on the other side? I'm quite interested to read more on this topic. Have a great rest of your day and hope all is well with your congregation!

 

[Joshua]

Why do the “suggestions of Satan” have sway, even in the regenerate? Because of remaining corruptions, both inherited of our original head, Adam, and our own sins. The more vile things which seem to come from “left field,” repulsing us, might surely be enlarged/exaggerated by the devil, but the seed form is there, for from the heart proceed such sins. Whether more enlarged by the world, or devil, we may squarely place blame at self, too, and regardless of the strength of attack, the answer is same:

Flee to Christ, your High Priest, Who welcomes your free and full confession(s), already knows your sins, and has promised -as that Fountain opened for sin and uncleanness- never to turn anyway any who comes to Him by faith, hoping in His mercy.

Obsessing over the source may eclipse the fruit of the work of repentance. Let the result of such objectivity, God’s Spirit blessing the means, have its due effect, working in us the diminishing of self, and the fullness of our Savior. He has promised not only to forgive, but also to cleanse and deliver from such things, and we will reap, in due time, if we faint not. So may we weary not in the well-doing of objective self-examination, confession, and forsaking of the vilest of our corruptions, trusting that the LORD will perfect that in us, which He has begun, and promised so to do.

 

[TheInquirer]

What is interesting to me is exactly how the demon world interacts with the minds of humans. Is there some kind of spirit to spirit (speaking in terms of the immaterial component of humanity) form of communication? I would have to say yes but how such communication works is mysterious.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Matthew, when you say, James 1:14 KJV, "But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed." And you comment, "He [the Devil] finds in man a ready object to receive his subtle temptations to wickedness." I agree with this wholeheartedly! Thank you for fine-tuning the issue.

We are to resist the Devil, and put to death ("mortify" Rom 8:13 KJV) our desires if they are sinful. We are no longer under the dominion of sin. We are given the armor and weapons of God to resist evil of all sorts. Our God has given us hearts filled with His Spirit to discern and conquer the wiles of our adversary.

How the devils speak to us may be the projecting into our thoughts of their thoughts of deception and lies, their "fiery darts" to tempt us – they have this ability to tempt through non-verbal communication – even as we have the ability, if need be, to speak to our God in silent prayer without using our vocal chords.

 

[Pomopu]

What is interesting to me is exactly how the demon world interacts with the minds of humans. Is there some kind of spirit to spirit (speaking in terms of the immaterial component of humanity) form of communication? I would have to say yes but how such communication works is mysterious.

Much the same. You didn't ask for my opinion, but I find the question interesting so here it is. First, an observation: in our minds, during a conversation, we come to inherit, internally, externally produced, physically produced, noise/sound. So someone speaks. The air wriggles. These wriggles get stamped into our ears, eventually into a part of our brain. But we believe we are not just brain, but also mind. At some point, from the air wriggling, to the stamping of the wriggles into our ears, to the process of these sound as words, there is as it were an in the soul reception of the physical stuff as spiritual stuff.

so 1) a man uses his lungs/vocal chords to emit noise 2) This noise is encoded into our brains, but at some point that same information is as it were spiritually inherited, it is spiritually possessed, because a human being in the image of God is not mere brain. The encoding has that third step 3) Encoding into the soul, as it were. I'm just speaking as simply as I can, and I don't have the terms of art to be more specific.

Alright, such as it is for person-to-person communication. There is also self-communication, we generate thoughts that never leave the confines of our mind/soul. Maybe the process is something like 1) Mind has thought 2) mind reflexively considers this thought 3) Mind thinks new thought. . .etc

For each process, for receiving spoken words, or thinking unspoken words, physical instruments can detect changes in brain waves. Literally! Fascinating. Not as if what is happening the brain, the change in sodium and potassium, the transmission of neurotransmitters, etc., just is spiritual stuff; but the spiritual act of thinking, the thoughts of the soul, have physical. . .what, after-effects? Means? Parallel movements? However you want to say it.

So here's my half-baked theory: Demons communicate like men, through the air. They don't enter into the second mode, of our own internal self-communication to which Christians include the Triune God, which seems to be a sort of closed system as it were within our soul. Biblically, we see demons using men to speak into the air, with men's vocal chords, through the power of their lungs. But Satan spoke to Jesus without any human intermediary, demonstrating the theoretical warrant for the idea demons use air.

And obviously, we see angels speaking to men and women, not inserting thoughts into their brains/minds!

The spiritual, practical upshot to my theory is the following: Demons don't know my thoughts. God does, demons don't. They can track precise physiological changes in my body, like some all-knowing scientist, but they can't enter my mind, they aren't godlike enough to shift the neurotransmitters in my brain that seem without question attached to human thinking.

So the upshot to my theory is the 1) Christian gets more comfort 2) The demons/Satan are understood to be less omniscient then we think 3) God reserves his rightful place as that alone he knows our most inward being. . . if demons use air!. . ..This is assuming demons can't read the changes in our brain like we read books to get words! But I think that's fine, because the difference between spirit and matter seems extreme and mysterious.

TL;DR: "Yes such communication is mysterious," 100%. Theory: Demons use air. They go use physical means. Upshot: They don't know my thoughts like God does. They aren't privy to those thoughts. And our (limited) free will is better preserved. Because demons communicate like worldly sinners, as it were, who tempt us all the time.

Mostly this is just a thought experiment. But maybe true?

...And as I think more, maybe there is a crucial difference for people possessed by demons?

 

[MW]

Would you be able to share with me any writings that are of the minority opinion on the other side?

I will try to fish them out on Monday when I have a little time. Meanwhile the earlier thread linked by Steve contains a quotation from George Petter, which I think gives the appropriate qualification in terms of indirect causation. We shouldn't attribute God's perfections to the Devil. As a creature he is shut up to means as much as any other creature. Having said that, there is no doubting he is a master mentalist, who can read sinners like a book as he is able to reflect on his own evil nature and dispositions and see his own likeness in their sinful lusts and practices. We must never let down our guard!

 

[bsprouse]

Thank you so much, no rush at all though. Have a blessed Lord's Day tomorrow!

 

[En Kristo]

As far as I know, the Bible doesn’t tell us how the devil tempts us. As MW noted, James 1:4 has this to say: "But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.” Is it possible that when the scripture speaks of being tempted by Satan, that the temptation (as well as all sin) has its origin in Satan by way of Eden so that our temptations can equally be said to originate both in our own sinful nature and in Satan? The Bible often attributes things to primary and secondary causes:

Ex. 4:21 And the LORD said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the amiracles that I have put in your power. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go.

Ex. 8:32 But Pharaoh ohardened his heart this time also, and did not let the people go.,

Ex. 9:12 But the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he did not listen to them, as the LORD had spoken to Moses.

 

[MW]

A few Puritan gems to show that Satan's temptations and sinful flesh work hand in glove, so to speak.

William Spurstowe:

A Sixth Demonstration, with which I shall shut up this first general Head of Satan’s ability to tempt, is from the suitableness that is between his Suggestions and corrupt reason. He cannot in the least offer violence to the soul, or break in upon it by a forcible entry whether it will or no. The body may be liable to his violence, but not the soul. The Assertion of Bonaventure is a truth, Inducit Diabolus, immutat Deus, nemo cogit. The Devil may allure, God only can effectually change, but none can compel us. When therefore he tempts to sin, he insinuates himself by such Topics that are pleasing to Carnal Reason, and apt to beget a ready compliance with his suggestions.

William Gouge:

The influence of flesh and blood in prompting sin or deterring from good applies equally to our internal corruption and evil desires, stirred by Satan; he is the mischief's architect and finisher, making those temptations arising from our flesh Satan's domain. Thus, the Apostle, advising against anger, cautions against giving the Devil a foothold. When greed led Ananias to deceit, Saint Peter questioned why Satan had filled his heart. David's pride, prompting a census, was instigated by Satan, for as the Spirit of God propels us towards good, so does the devil's spirit urge every evil.

Thomas Manton: (an outline)

[1] If there were no devil to tempt us, yet the heart of man is fruitful enough of all that is evil : Mat. xv. 19, ‘Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witnesses, blasphemies.' There is a black catalogue, and all comes out of the heart of man. [2.] That without the flesh, the world and the devil can have no power over us. [3.] The flesh doth not only make us flexible and yielding to temptations, but is active and stirring in our hearts, to force and impel us thereunto. [4.] The temptations of the flesh and the world go in conjunction, and do mutually help one another. [5.] This vehement propension of corrupt nature to outward things is set at work by a hope of gaining them, or a fear to lose them; and so we are assaulted on every hand, by right-hand and left-hand temptations. [6.] That there is no avoiding either of these snares and temptations as long as any carnal affection remaineth unmortified.

Thomas Watson:

The heart is the poisoned fountain, from whence all actual sins flow. ‘Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, fornications, murders.’ Mark 7:21. The cause of all evil lies in a man’s own breast, all sin begins at the heart. Lust is first conceived in the heart, and then it is midwifed into the world. Whence comes rash anger? The heart sets the tongue on fire. The heart is a shop or workhouse, where all sin is contrived and hammered out. How needful, therefore, is this prayer, deliver us from the evil of our hearts! The heart is the greatest seducer, therefore the apostle James says, ‘Every man is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.’ James 1: 14. The devil could not hurt us, if our own hearts did not give consent. All that he can do is to lay the bait, but it is our fault to swallow it.

 

[En Kristo]

A few Puritan gems to show that Satan's temptations and sinful flesh work hand in glove, so to speak.

William Spurstowe:

A Sixth Demonstration, with which I shall shut up this first general Head of Satan’s ability to tempt, is from the suitableness that is between his Suggestions and corrupt reason. He cannot in the least offer violence to the soul, or break in upon it by a forcible entry whether it will or no. The body may be liable to his violence, but not the soul. The Assertion of Bonaventure is a truth, Inducit Diabolus, immutat Deus, nemo cogit. The Devil may allure, God only can effectually change, but none can compel us. When therefore he tempts to sin, he insinuates himself by such Topics that are pleasing to Carnal Reason, and apt to beget a ready compliance with his suggestions.

William Gouge:

The influence of flesh and blood in prompting sin or deterring from good applies equally to our internal corruption and evil desires, stirred by Satan; he is the mischief's architect and finisher, making those temptations arising from our flesh Satan's domain. Thus, the Apostle, advising against anger, cautions against giving the Devil a foothold. When greed led Ananias to deceit, Saint Peter questioned why Satan had filled his heart. David's pride, prompting a census, was instigated by Satan, for as the Spirit of God propels us towards good, so does the devil's spirit urge every evil.

Thomas Manton: (an outline)

[1] If there were no devil to tempt us, yet the heart of man is fruitful enough of all that is evil : Mat. xv. 19, ‘Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witnesses, blasphemies.' There is a black catalogue, and all comes out of the heart of man. [2.] That without the flesh, the world and the devil can have no power over us. [3.] The flesh doth not only make us flexible and yielding to temptations, but is active and stirring in our hearts, to force and impel us thereunto. [4.] The temptations of the flesh and the world go in conjunction, and do mutually help one another. [5.] This vehement propension of corrupt nature to outward things is set at work by a hope of gaining them, or a fear to lose them; and so we are assaulted on every hand, by right-hand and left-hand temptations. [6.] That there is no avoiding either of these snares and temptations as long as any carnal affection remaineth unmortified.

Thomas Watson:

The heart is the poisoned fountain, from whence all actual sins flow. ‘Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, fornications, murders.’ Mark 7:21. The cause of all evil lies in a man’s own breast, all sin begins at the heart. Lust is first conceived in the heart, and then it is midwifed into the world. Whence comes rash anger? The heart sets the tongue on fire. The heart is a shop or workhouse, where all sin is contrived and hammered out. How needful, therefore, is this prayer, deliver us from the evil of our hearts! The heart is the greatest seducer, therefore the apostle James says, ‘Every man is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.’ James 1: 14. The devil could not hurt us, if our own hearts did not give consent. All that he can do is to lay the bait, but it is our fault to swallow it.

This is a keeper. Thanks for sharing.

 

[No Other Name]

As far as I know, the Bible doesn’t tell us how the devil tempts us. As MW noted, James 1:4 has this to say: "But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.” Is it possible that when the scripture speaks of being tempted by Satan, that the temptation (as well as all sin) has its origin in Satan by way of Eden so that our temptations can equally be said to originate both in our own sinful nature and in Satan? The Bible often attributes things to primary and secondary causes:

Ex. 4:21 And the LORD said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the amiracles that I have put in your power. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go.

Ex. 8:32 But Pharaoh ohardened his heart this time also, and did not let the people go.,

Ex. 9:12 But the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he did not listen to them, as the LORD had spoken to Moses.

But the Bible attributes events to both primary and secondary causes only with God being the primary cause as your quotes from Exodus affirm. In the bolded are you suggesting that the Bible refers to Satan as tempter in a distant-time sense as the serpentine originator of our lusts "genetically" speaking in our flesh?

 

[En Kristo]

But the Bible attributes events to both primary and secondary causes only with God being the primary cause as your quotes from Exodus affirm. In the bolded are you suggesting that the Bible refers to Satan as tempter in a distant-time sense as the serpentine originator of our lusts "genetically" speaking in our flesh?

Yes. That is what I am asking.

Jesus told the Pharisees, "John 8:44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” The idea is that when we are tempted (or when we sin), we are tempted by our own sinful nature, but in this life, we have our sinful nature from “our father the devil.”

In other words, we are, "drawn away of our own lust, and enticed,” but ultimately drawn away of Satan’s lust through our inherited Adamic nature. This is an easier concept for me to grasp than some sort of mental telepathy whereby Satan and his minions interject thoughts into our heads.

This is not to deny that Satan has real power. Rather, it is to say that since the fall, Satan exercises power external to our thoughts. To the extent that he exercises influence on our thoughts internally, he does so not directly, but indirectly through the sinful nature that we have inherited.

I am not saying that any of this is true. I am asking if it can be true. Is it sound biblical reasoning or is it in error?