# The Existence of Satan as a Person



## Southern Presbyterian (Nov 6, 2008)

I have recently come into contact with a "reformed" Pastor who does not believe that Satan is an actual person. He believes rather that Satan is a scriptural allegory that represents the rebellious nature of man. There are many other "wacky" things attached to this belief (I'll not go into those for now). Has anyone else ever encountered this belief? I believe that this opinion has been arrived at through a seriously flawed hermeneutic of his own invention, but it would be most interesting to find out if this has come from some other camp.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Nov 6, 2008)

Ah, Josh, there is the rub. He is not currently a part of any denomination. He and his church left the CRC some 15 years ago but haven't been able to find a denomination that they have sufficient accord with in all this time. Therefore I placed the word Reformed in quotations.


----------



## JohnGill (Nov 6, 2008)

Southern Presbyterian said:


> I have recently come into contact with a "reformed" Pastor who does not believe that Satan is an actual person. He believes rather that Satan is a scriptural allegory that represents the rebellious nature of man. There are many other "wacky" things attached to this belief (I'll not go into those for now). Has anyone else ever encountered this belief? I believe that this opinion has been arrived at through a seriously flawed hermeneutic of his own invention, but it would be most interesting to find out if this has come from some other camp.



It's prevalent in liberal theology.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Nov 6, 2008)

But he seriously teaches this stuff. You should the "baggage" that comes with this teaching. 

I'm just wondering if this is "something new under the sun" or if he is regurgitating some other person's tripe.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Nov 6, 2008)

JohnGill said:


> Southern Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > I have recently come into contact with a "reformed" Pastor who does not believe that Satan is an actual person. He believes rather that Satan is a scriptural allegory that represents the rebellious nature of man. There are many other "wacky" things attached to this belief (I'll not go into those for now). Has anyone else ever encountered this belief? I believe that this opinion has been arrived at through a seriously flawed hermeneutic of his own invention, but it would be most interesting to find out if this has come from some other camp.
> ...



Could you site an example or source?


----------



## toddpedlar (Nov 6, 2008)

An example would be Elaine Pagels' "The Origin of Satan". Her views on canon, original sin and Adam & Eve, and Satan, are quite prevalent among liberal religion scholars -> and filter into the church through seminaries.


----------



## JohnGill (Nov 6, 2008)

*Hope these help*

Liberal theology and denial of Satan - Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS)



> "Liberal Christian theology," says the Encyclopædia Britannica, "tends to treat the biblical language about Satan as 'picture thinking' not to be taken literally—as a mythological attempt to express the reality and extent of evil in the universe."



GREAT BRITAIN.; DENIAL OF THE PERSONALITY OF SATAN NO GROUND FOR WITHH... - Article Preview - The New York Times

In liberal theology a denial of hell leads to a denial of the person Satan.

http://www.ekklesiafellowship.org/root/growth/BrianMcLarenOnHell.pdf

Bible.org: Liberalism


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Nov 6, 2008)

Joshua said:


> 1Ch 21:1 And The Rebellious Nature of Man stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
> 
> Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and The Rebellious Nature of Man came also among them.
> 
> ...



Yes, these things and many others have been pointed out to this guy. 

You should see the hermeneutic.... 

If I can get my hands on an electronic version of some of his notes I will post them. I'll check when I get home this evening.


----------



## kvanlaan (Nov 6, 2008)

> He and his church left the CRC some 15 years ago but haven't been able to find a denomination that they have sufficient accord with in all this time.



Is he, or is he related to, Hal Camping??


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Nov 6, 2008)

kvanlaan said:


> > He and his church left the CRC some 15 years ago but haven't been able to find a denomination that they have sufficient accord with in all this time.
> 
> 
> 
> Is he, or is he related to, Hal Camping??



No and no.


----------



## kvanlaan (Nov 6, 2008)

Maybe I should have asked if he was _affiliated with_ Mr Camping.

Anyway, the situation sounded oddly familiar, brought ol' Hal to mind...


----------



## Grymir (Nov 6, 2008)

That is also what the Satanic Church's teach too!


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Nov 6, 2008)

kvanlaan said:


> Maybe I should have asked if he was _affiliated with_ Mr Camping.
> 
> Anyway, the situation sounded oddly familiar, brought ol' Hal to mind...



Someone at church thought he might be getting this from James Jordan...

Personally I'm afraid that he's come up with it on his own. He seems to want to be "cutting edge" type of guy. And the more people disagree with him the better he seems to like it.

I'm having someone email a copy of some of his notes. When I get them I'll post it here so you all can see his hermeneutic process.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Nov 6, 2008)

Grymir said:


> That is also what the Satanic Church's teach too!



Really?! Do you have a source or article that you can link to?


----------



## Grymir (Nov 6, 2008)

I remember it from my pagan days. I was surprised. Give me a minute to google the satanic church info.


----------



## Grymir (Nov 6, 2008)

O.k. Here's one link - THE CHURCH OF SATAN Check out the 4th paragraph of the overview section.

Here's a quote from about.com on satanism - 

Satan and Satanism 

There are several types of Satanic belief systems. The most common is Philosophical Satanism, or Luciferian philosophy, wherein Satan is not believed to actually exist, but is seen as a sort of mascot for personal liberty. Most modern Satanic groups, especially the COS, fall into this category. (It should be noted that some prefer to place this and similar groups under the label of "religious" Satanism due to their ritual practices) Satan is not viewed as a living entity, but as an ideal. Much of the thought behind this particular belief system is in opposition to Judeo-Christian ideals that are seen as weak or ineffectual. In philosophical Satanism, the emphasis is on individuation, personal growth and human potential. There are no pacts, sacrifices, or criminal behaviors accepted or encouraged, altohugh some do intentionally cultivate a 'spooky' or intimidating image. This type of belief is likely to be embraced by people who feel powerless in their every day lives, but this is not neccessarily true of the majority. 

Here's the link to the above - Satanism

There are a couple of quick items I could find. I'll try and find some that spell out more detail and relating it to the "evil" in man.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Nov 6, 2008)

Okay, here is the "nutshell" version of this belief. What do y'all think of this hermeneutic?



> In a previous chapter, I argued that the Biblical reference to Beast was a characteristic describing fallen or sinful mankind. Since man has willingly perverted his original purpose as God's image bearer, he is likened to a beast This is a significant doctrine that needs to be understood if we are going to accurately determine what happened in the garden of Edon with Adam, Eve, and the serpent.
> 
> The word Serpent is used extensively in the Scripture as the Hebrew word Nachash (5175), literally meaning snake. It's taken from the root word translating as Whisperer, to hiss, and to prognostigate (which simply means to tell forth something in prophesy). The KJV also translates this word as Enchanter or Divine. The Greek word for serpent is Ophis (3789), meaning snake, with the implication t "a sharpness of vision or cunning." Both the Hebrew and Greek don't imply wickedness or malice in and of themselves. We can only derive that from the context God uses the word.
> 
> ...


----------



## JohnGill (Nov 7, 2008)

Joshua said:


> So, if the personified "Rebellious Nature of Man" is Satan, and He's allergorical or whatever, I wonder what that makes Jesus in the Gospels ... particularly when He's being tempted by the "Rebellious Nature of Man," who offers Him the World and Food, etc.?
> 
> 
> 
> Answer not a fool according to his folly.



Jesus is the "Obedient Nature of Man." I can't believe you don't know that.


----------



## KMK (Nov 7, 2008)

Perhaps the denom he is looking for is called, the PCUSA.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Nov 7, 2008)

Thank you all for your input and opinions. I just kind of wanted to make sure that I wasn't the only person who thought this guy is a whack nut. 

The right hand of fellowship with this man and his family is being withdrawn by my family. Yet we will still try to influence them with the truth of the matter and will not cut off all communications. We will pray for them and use this experience to build stronger "antibodies" in the Faith and strengthen our walk with Christ and our understanding of the Reformed Faith.

Blessings!


----------



## Hippo (Nov 7, 2008)

It is a problem that especially in this day and age the power of Satan is magnified so as to externalise sin for believers.

When we sin we do so because we want to, it is not Satan making us do it or even necessarily Satan tempting us. I do not believe that Satan is omnipresent and our very nature is sinful in the absence of Satan. If I sin it will be probably be own action based on my own desires due to my own perceptions.

Satan is real, but often when he is spoken of in this day and age it is not in respect of his personal being but as a representation of our own rebellion. 

Is it not possible that in any uses of the person of Satan in the Bible the intention (on any level) is to indicate mans fallen nature?

If I am wrong here I would be very glad to be corrected.


----------



## KMK (Nov 7, 2008)

Hippo said:


> It is a problem that especially in this day and age the power of Satan is magnified so as to externalise sin for believers.
> 
> When we sin we do so because we want to, it is not Satan making us do it or even necessarily Satan tempting us. I do not believe that Satan is omnipresent and our very nature is sinful in the absence of Satan. If I sin it will be probably be own action based on my own desires due to my own perceptions.
> 
> ...



I think that might be possible, but that would not discount his 'personality'. It is one thing to make a connection between Satan and sin, but another to deny Satan as a person altogether.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Nov 7, 2008)

Hippo said:


> Is it not possible that in any uses of the person of Satan in the Bible the intention (on any level) is to indicate mans fallen nature?
> 
> If I am wrong here I would be very glad to be corrected.



God communicates to us in plain speech through His Word. If it speaks poetically, then we probably should take it poetically, but it it speaks of reality (i.e. the person of Satan) then we should take it as real. 

<Hope that makes sense.>


----------



## wturri78 (Nov 7, 2008)

I knew an "evangelical" PCUSA pastor who said as much, mainly that he didn't think Scripture taught that there was a singular person called Satan, but rather many evil "spirits" who were a sort of nebulous representation of evil in the world. He never did explain it much beyond that. He was a huge fan of Barth--I don't know whether that view is typical of Barthian theology or he just coincidentally believed this way about Satan.


----------



## Grymir (Nov 8, 2008)

Hmmm. Barth has reared his head again with bad hermanutics. I wonder which translation the gentleman in the OP uses? (Could it be NIV?)


----------

