The Devil And Satan What Does The Bible Say?
Transcript Of A Debate
Saturday 24th October 1992
Garden Park
Church of God, 5615 Madison Ave. SE, Grand Rapids MI USA
Debate speakers:
For the Supernatural Devil position: Mr. Mark Mattison (Church of God of the
Abrahamic Faith)
Against the Supernatural Devil position: Mr. Duncan Heaster
Index:
Mr. Mattison's First Address
2-1-1 Benjamin Wilson And
The Diaglott
2-1-2 Ha satan
2-1-3 Satan In The Gospels
Mr.
Heaster's First Address
2-1-4 The Origin Of Evil
2-1-5 Angels As
Ministering Spirits
2-1-6 The Origin Of Sin
Mr. Mattison's Reply
2-1-8 Does Satan Do God's Will?
2-1-9 The Origin Of The Devil
2-1-10 Fallen Angels
2-1-11 External Temptation
Mr. Heaster's
Reply
2-1-12 Satan And God's Will
2-1-13 Ho diabolos
2-1-14
The Devil And Cain
2-1-15 Where Sin Comes From
2-1-16 The
Temptations Of Jesus
Questions From The Floor To Mr. Mattison
2-1-17 Why Doesn't Satan Give Up
2-1-18 Personification In Historical
Narratives
2-1-19 Can Immortal Angels Sin?
2-1-20 Does The Devil
Induce Sin
2-1-21 Teaching Not To Blaspheme
2-1-22 The Devil And
Sin
Questions From The Floor To Mr. Heaster
2-1-23 Children Of
Disobedience
2-1-24 The Dragon And The Lake Of Fire
2-1-25 Good
And Bad Angels
2-1-26 Angelos And Daimonos
2-1-27 Man As A Sinful
Creature
Mr. Mattison's Final Speech
2-1-28 Salvation Issues
Mr. Heaster’s Final Speech
2-1-29 The Need For Proper Understanding
Note: It should be understood in the context of the devil-satan debate that
Mr. Mattison was representing the Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith General
Conference. The Church Of God Of The Abrahamic Faith congregations represented
by the magazine ‘The Abrahamic Faith Beacon’ share the Christadelphian view of
the devil, and are not in fellowship with the Church of God of the Abrahamic
Faith (CGAF) General Conference. Mr. Heaster was not aware of this difference at
the time.
Further note:
While the belief of the supernatural personal
devil and demons is reported to be held by many in The Church of God General
Conference, McDonough, Georgia, USA, (a.k.a. Church of God Abrahamic Faith, or
COGAF), there remains an amount of others who do not support such a belief. On
the contrary, as the Christadelphians, they support the belief that the devil
and demons are not real supernatural personal beings. Furthermore, there are
still others who have no stated position either way. The Statement of Faith of
the Church of God General Conference does not include any statement concerning
the nature of the devil or demons in its Constitution and By-Laws.
Traditionally, the Conference has left the choice to each individual or church
to make in regard to belief in the devil. Some are more outspoken than others
concerning their belief and are even willing to debate the issue in opposition
to the Christadelphian position. Although there are those associated with the
Conference who are outspoken in favour of the personality of the devil, they do
not speak for the entire body.
Pastor Michael P. Brown,
Glad Tidings
Church of God, Abrahamic Faith
Ontario, Canada
June 29, 2011
2-1-1 Benjamin Wilson And The Diaglott
I would like to begin my presentation by thanking Pastor Ray Hall and the Garden Park Church of God for letting us meet here this afternoon.
I consider it an honor to be able to participate in this important meeting between Church of God folk and Christadelphians. I think that this gathering is significant because it represents more dialogue between these two sister churches.
The Church of God and Christadelphia share more than common doctrines; we share a common heritage as well, having both emerged from the nineteenth century American Adventist phenomenon. Touching on this point, I would like to read the first two and-a-half paragraphs from the foreword of the book, 'The Devil and Satan', which is a transcript of a debate held between Mr. Duncan Heaster and my friend Pastor Jeff Fletcher in England in 1989.
In 1855 when Benjamin Wilson published the prospectus for the " Emphatic Diaglott" he was associated with John Thomas, who earned the accolade from Wilson as being " our learned and esteemed brother."
They were both members of the " The Brethren" . In due course, it became necessary for religious organisations to have more distinctive titles and those associated with Benjamin Wilson became known as the Church of God of Abrahamic Faith, and those with John Thomas as the Christadelphians.
When the " Emphatic Diaglott" was translated, Benjamin Wilson did not believe in a personal being called the Devil. This Debate on The Devil and Satan, between the successors of these two men, becomes particularly interesting as it shows how these two groups have grown apart.
Now this can be interpreted to mean a couple of things: first, that Benjamin Wilson was the founder of the Church of God, and second, that the members of the Church of God originally did not believe in a supernatural devil but eventually accepted this doctrine and thereby drifted away from their historical convictions.
Of course we know that is not the case. Though the Wilsons were important figures in Church of God history, the idea of the Church of God was being propounded by Elder Joseph Marsh as early as 1840. In fact Marsh, undoubtedly the most important of our church's founders, had been publishing our truths long before the 'Diaglott' ever appeared. It is also known that Marsh did believe in a supernatural devil.
Thus, we see that from the very beginning, both views have existed within our Church. Throughout our history, many of us have admitted that the Bible teaches the existence of an actual, literal, supernatural person called " the Devil" , but some of us have not. We can tolerate both views. This is significant, because that is the issue that Mr. Heaster and I are here to discuss this afternoon.
My point is that these differences are not significant enough to prevent fellowship. Our two Churches have so much in common, such as our understanding of the one God, the human Messiah Jesus, the conditional immortality of man, and the precious promise of the Kingdom of God to be established on the earth. Our theological affinities far outweigh our theological differences. That is why I believe we must at the very least meet face-to-face, dialogue on these issues, build bridges, and get to know one another better. I know that there will be some differences of opinion here about that, but I believe it had to be said.