Now he's also completely sidetracked a very
fundamental issue. He started off saying in the Old Testament you've got where
it says the Satan, that that is always talking about this
supernatural being called Satan. He made a lot of emphasis on that point. But I
would like to point out that there is only three or at the most four cases where
you read about the Satan in the Old Testament. You certainly
don't read about the devil at all. So you don't get none there, but you've got
at the most four, probably more like two or three references to the
Satan in the Old Testament. And that is what the CGAF are pinning their
beliefs on - that there's this supernatural being called Satan which they say is
referred to the Satan who is going around bringing all these
problems into people's lives and is the source of temptation, is a spirit being
and has always been active right up until the point when he was destroyed by
Christ on the cross and yet they are pinning it on two or three verses in the
Now the point I made about God being called 'the Satan', that's gone unanswered. I would like to bring up another one in the Septuagint. Now Mark referred to the Septuagint to prove that diabolos and satan are equivalent in the Old Testament, so he obviously accepts the Septuagint. Now in the Book of Esther you read in the Septuagint of ho diabolos - the devil, referring to Haman, not to this supernatural being. So the claim that was made, I submit, and it was a claim that is at the basis of Mark's presentation, that when you read about the Satan, the devil,that is talking about the person outside you called the supernatural devil. Well, I'm sorry but that doesn't hold up because there's cases where you read it with the definite article and it just doesn't fit in with the theology that's being hung on it.
Now I was very disappointed that he didn't answer the questions about where did Satan come from, or did Satan fall, because okay, if he is going to say Satan did not fall, and I know that some of the CGAF people say that Satan didn't fall, then we have this conclusion to draw: that God created a sinful being. If Satan, or whoever it is, didn't actually sin, if he didn't fall at any time, well then, you have the question well where, sorry, if he didn't actually fall, then you have the conclusion that God actually created a sinful being, God created an agent of temptation. Well, that's just not on because God tempts no man. You really have got to expect us to believe that God created an agent of temptation. So if Mark doesn't know whether Satan fell, or he doesn't want to talk about that one, what does he make of Revelation 12, Satan being thrown out of heaven, Satan falling as lightning. Now this fall of Satan occurs two or three times. So you can't say that there was a specific time when Satan fell from a righteous state to a sinful state. So therefore you have to say Satan didn't fall, so therefore you say, well if he didn't fall, well God created him just as he is. That's an untenable position.
Now Mark then quoted from some commentator about John 8: 44 and said that Satan's being is irrelevant. Well, that is what this debate's about! Who is Satan? Well, he says the being of Satan is irrelevant. That surely is an admission of weakness.