Cohoon/Gary Debate on Satan

 
 
 Proposition: 
 The Scriptures teach that God created a ...being that fell...and 
now is the epitome of evil known as "Satan."

AFFIRM: Bobby Cohoon
DENY: James Gary

I wish to thank the Religious Debate team that has made it 
possible for Christians to discuss Biblical issues.  I also wish 
to thank Mr. Cohoon for accepting the debate proposal.  I pray 
God will bless this discussion and allow His truth to be accepted 
by those who, not only participate in this debate, but also those 
who follow it.

Mr. Cohoon said, concerning the debate proposal, 
“Angelic being” should be replaced by “spiritual being”...The 
word “grace” should be replaced by “righteousness” as Satan was 
never under grace...In its most basic form the question is did 
God create a righteous spiritual being who fell from righteousness and became known as the epitome of evil, Satan."

I have no problem with this rewording of the proposal.  Therefore 
the proposal at the beginning of this post has the questioned 
words replaced by ellipses and one can fill in whatever 
adjectives one wishes in the proposal. The proposal, with the 
ellipses should present the gist of the proposal without 
affecting the outcome of the debate.

Mr. Cohoon stated 
"There is ample evidence to satisfy this question from the pages 
of the Holy Scriptures. Any deviation from the Holy Scriptures 
would be to follow the ideas of man in all their fallibilities."

I am in total agreement with his sentiments here.

Mr. Cohoon does a very good job, IMHO establishing that "God 
preexisted all things as he is eternal. And, all things, be they 
on earth or in Heaven, were created by Him."  I am in agreement 
with him on this.  However, I do disagree with him that God does 
not create evil. It's the power of God as an enemy to His people 
that brings this evil on them.  As Jeremiah said concerning who 
commands and causes evil:

(Lam 3:37-38 NCV)  "Nobody can speak and have it happen unless 
the Lord commands it. {38} Both bad and good things come by the 
command of the Most High God."

Jeremiah seemed to think God caused both good and evil.  So did 
Job (Job 2:10).  And in keeping with that understanding we find 
it is God that causes evil on His people via sending strong 
delusion to those who want to believe a lie (2 Thes 2:10-11).  
For those that delight in going their way in lieu of God's, God 
said He would choose delusions for them (Isa 66:3).  God sends 
lying spirits to deceive those who stray from His ways and He 
deceives their prophets (1 Kings 22:20-23; Ezek 14:9).

God blinds eyes and closes minds (Isa 6:8-10).  He puts evil 
spirits in people (1 Sam 16:14-16; Judges 9:23).  He creates evil 
(Isa 45:7).  He says He is the cause of evil in the city (Amos 
3:6). He causes people to think, act like, and live with beasts 
for years (Dan 4:24-25).  Events many would accredit to "demons", 
such as hands writing on walls causing such fear that people's 
knees knock together and causing donkey's to talk (Num 22:28) are 
actually from God (Dan 5:5-6, 18-27).  All power is from God (Mat 
28:18).  God becomes an enemy to His people if they do not obey 
Him (Lam 2:5).   If God becomes His people's enemy, who needs a 
fallen spiritual being?

I do agree, however that God does not commit sin or iniquity as 
Mr. Cohoon rightly noted (2 Chron 19:7).   Committing sin or 
iniquity is not the same thing as creating evil.

Mr. Cohoon makes the following statement, 
"Does Satan exist? From Genesis to Revelation and all points in 
between Satan exists."

It is at this point I wish to clarify my stand.  As the proposal 
states,  I deny that God created a being that fell and is now the 
epitome of evil known as "Satan."  I do not say that the Bible 
does not speak of "satan(s)" throughout.  I simply do not define 
such "satan(s)" as a fallen being that became evil and now is the 
epitome of that evil. Yes "satan(s)" are throughout the Bible, 
but no fallen super being is.  This should become very clear as 
this discussion progresses.

Mr. Cohoon tells us that "Satan's" first appearance is in the 
Garden of Eden and is first spoken of in Gen 3:1. What Mr. Cohoon 
has done is  simply implied that the Bible depicts God creating a 
spiritual being that fell from righteousness without showing 
where the Scriptures support this creation.  It seems we're to 
just take for granted such a creature exists.

What do we have in Gen 3?  Does the chapter say that a fallen 
spiritual being is addressing Eve?  No!  Does it or the entire 
book of Genesis even mention the English words "satan" or 
"devil?"  No!  Mr. Cohoon implies that this "serpent", in Gen 3:1 
is a fallen spiritual being because Rev 20:2 speaks of a "dragon" 
that is a "serpent" which is the "devil" and "satan."

I must ask you, Mr. Cohoon, why do you equate the "serpent" in 
Gen 3 with the "serpent" in Rev 20?  What support can you give 
that they are the same thing?  What says the "serpent" in Rev 20 
is a fallen spiritual being?  The Bible also calls the tribe of 
Dan a serpent (Gen 49:17).  Christ calls the Jews "serpents" (Mat 
23:33).  Does that make the tribe of Dan or the tribe of Judah a 
fallen spiritual being?  Of course it doesn't.  Neither does the 
use of the word "serpent" in Gen 3 or Rev 20 make anyone or anything a fallen spiritual being.

Each use of the word "serpent" must have its meaning determined 
from it's context.  It seems you are doing what so many who 
defend the existence of a fallen spiritual "devil" do.  You 
obviously are taking for granted that the word "satan" and 
"devil" apply to a fallen spiritual being.  Yet you have not 
established that such a creature even exists as per the Bible.

Another thing Gen 3:1 says is the "serpent" was one of the beasts 
of the field.  Why would you think it was anything other than 
that?

Yes 1 Chron 21:1 does tell us that "satan" provoked David to 
number Israel.  But that verse does not say that "satan" was a 
fallen spiritual being.  If we take a literal translation of the 
Hebrew, e.g., Young's Literal Translation (YLT), we will find 
this verse translated as:

YLT 1 Chronicles 21:1 And there standeth up an adversary against 
Israel, and persuadeth David to number Israel,

As you can see Young actually translates the Hebrew word "satan" 
rather than transliterating it as so many "translators" have 
done.  In fact the YLT never transliterates the Hebrew word 
"satan."  If this had been done with the first English 
translation of the Bible, I doubt we would be having this 
discussion today.

Elsewhere in the Bible we find who the adversary of 1 Chron 21:1 
is:

(2 Sam 24:1 KJV)  "And again the anger of the LORD was kindled 
against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, 
number Israel and Judah."

As you can see the "satan" or "adversary" that moved David to 
number Israel was none other than God Almighty.

As for your implication that a fallen spiritual being was 
responsible for what happened to Job, I don't think Scripture 
will support you on this supposition.

In the book of Job, the only thing "satan" is accredited with 
possibly doing himself is inflicting boils on Job. Even if this 
"satan" actually did smite Job with boils I don't think that in 
and of itself constitutes the act of a supernatural spiritual 
being.  It is a matter of history small pox was given to Indians 
by the US Government via infected blankets.

However I believe that God is the one that actually smote Job 
with boils.  Notice after God brings to the attention of this 
"satan" how sinless Job is, this "satan" says Job is that way 
because God has a hedge about him.  He then says to God, "But put 
forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will 
curse thee to thy face (v. 11). Whose hand was mentioned in that 
verse as touching Job?  Was it this "satan's" hand or God's hand?

After "satan" made this challenge, God said to him "all that he 
hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine 
hand."  Who is it that gives power?  Is it "satan" or God (John 
19:11, Mat 28:18)?  Was "satan" allowed to put forth his hand 
against Job?  No!  So who was it that cursed Job with boils?  It 
was God (Job 2:3).  God told "satan" that Job's fate was in his 
power.  In other words "satan" had God smite Job with boils 
because God said it was he who did it.  In that case, who was it 
that cursed Job? God! Whose hand was it that was to touch Job's 
bones and flesh?  God's (Job 2:5)  Who does Job say took away 
from him?  God (Job 1:21). By whose hand did Job say he received 
evil?  God's (Job 2:10)!

Again, the YLT does not translate the Hebrew as "Satan", but "the 
Adversary."  This was an adversary of  Job.  Not a fallen 
spiritual being.

Mr. Cohoon states, 
"Scripture gives us more than ample evidence of the existence of 
Satan."  

It does give us much evidence of "satan(s)" (adversar(y, ies)), 
but it does not give one shred of evidence of a fallen spiritual 
being formerly known as Lucifer and renamed "Satan."

Mr. Cohoon says of the event of the sons of God and "satan" 
coming before God in Job 1:6, 
"This shows us that Satan had access to God in Heaven. Other than 
a spiritual being no one has that “type” of access."

It seems Mr. Cohoon is taking for granted that the event recorded 
in Job 1:6 is in Heaven where God's throne is.  However, there is 
nothing said about anyone going to God's Heaven for this 
meeting.  God met with men on earth many times (Gen 32:30; Ex 
24:9; Num 12:7-8; Deut 5:24; Jud 6:22-23; Judg 13:21-22; Isa 
6:5).  The "sons of God" in Job 1:6 cannot be angels because 
angels were never considered sons of God (Heb 1:5).  The sons of 
God were through the offspring of God's Son Adam (Luke 3:38; Ex 
4:22).

Mr. Cohoon says Luke 22:3 is evidence of a spiritual being 
entering into someone because it says, “Then entered Satan into 
Judas surnamed Iscariot….”

If we take this passage in its context we can see something other 
than a fallen angel entering into a flesh and blood person.  In 
the preceding verse (v. 2) we see the chief priests and scribes 
seek how to kill Christ. This would make these people an 
adversary to Christ.  Would it not?  And then we're told the 
adversary "entered into" Judas.  The word translated "entered" in 
this verse is from the Greek word "eiserchomai" and it can and 
has been translated "came" (Luke 4:16; 10:38; Acts 23:33).  The 
word translated "into", in this verse, is translated from the 
Greek word "eis" which is translated "unto" in Rev 19:7, 9; 21:9, 
among many verses.

So it appears that one of the adversary came unto Judas and 
propositioned him because in Luke 22:4, after the adversary came 
to him, he went to talk to the chief priests and captains about 
betraying Christ. There's no mention of a fallen angel here.  
Only that an adversary came to Judas and told him the Sanhedrin 
wished to speak to him about betraying Christ and he went and 
made his plans with them.

Mr. Cohoon uses Rev 12:7 to say it proves that there is a 
spiritual fallen being because that verse speaks of a dragon that 
is a serpent called "Satan" who was in heaven. But is this really 
what is said?  I don't think so!  A principality or government of 
darkness would be a government of man in opposition to God.  
IMHO, that is what the "dragon" is in Rev 12:7.  In v. 9 this 
"dragon" is said to be both "satan" (an adversary) and "the 
devil" (false accuser).    In v. 3 of Rev 12 we have a bit more 
description of the "dragon":

(Rev 12:3 KJV)  "And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and 
behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and 
seven crowns upon his heads."

And in Rev 17 we're given even more of a description of this 
"satan":

(Rev 17:7-12 KJV)  "And the angel said...I will tell thee the 
mystery of the...beast...which hath the seven heads and ten 
horns...{9} And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven 
heads are seven mountains...{10} And there are seven kings...{12} 
And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings..."

This describes the "dragon" of Rev 12:7 as being an adversary and 
false accuser made up of governments of men in opposition to God.

Besides why would a fallen spiritual being be fighting in God's 
heaven after Christ had been raised from the dead.  We're told by 
some "scholars" the book of Revelation wasn't written until, as 
late as 96 AD.  John's vision was about things to happen in the 
future to him (Rev 1:1).  How could this be so since the 
proponents of a fallen spiritual being say he was cast to the 
earth before man was created?

Mr. Cohoon quotes Ezek 28:15 saying 
"In comparing the King of Tyre to Satan Ezekiel wrote “Thou wast 
perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till 
iniquity was found in thee” (Ezekiel 28: 15)."

I find this "proof" of a fallen spiritual being to be interesting 
since later in his affirmative Mr. Cohoon quotes John 8:44 that 
says the "devil" was a murderer and a liar from the beginning.  
Yet the above verse speaks of someone being perfect from the day 
they were created.  This seems very contradictory.  Also the 
"devil" in John 8:44 is not defined as a fallen spiritual being.

Mr. Cohoon applies this verse to a fallen spiritual being but 
it's clearly addressed to the ruler of Tyre (Ezek 28:12).  This 
king is called a "man" (Ezek 28:2). He was to be brought to ashes 
(Ezek 28:18).  Would these things apply to a spiritual being?

Mr. Cohoon says Jude 1:6 is about spiritual beings leaving their 
righteous state.I do not see anything about fallen angels here.  
Here is a literal translation of that verse in context with the 
verses before and after it.

(YLT Jude 1:6) messengers also, those who did not keep their own 
principality, but did leave their proper dwelling, to a judgment 
of a great day, in bonds everlasting, under darkness He hath 
kept, [7] as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them, in 
like manner to these, having given themselves to whoredom, and 
gone after other flesh, have been set before -- an example, of 
fire age-during, justice suffering.

What is the subject here?  It's about contending for the faith 
that was once delivered unto the saints (v. 3), because certain 
MEN crept into the congregation who was unaware of their 
intentions and these MEN turned the grace of God into 
lasciviousness and denying God (v. 4).  So Jude is reminding the 
people to whom he is writing of how God dealt with their 
ancestors whom He brought out of Egypt by destroying the 
unbelievers (v.5).

What is the scenario here?  It is of the time God had Moses send 
"messengers" (Num 20:14; Jos 7:22)  or spies into Canaan (Num 
13:1-3, 17) and they, with the exception of Caleb and Joshua (Num 
14:6-9), gave a bad report to the congregation (Num 13:27-33).  
But the congregation believed the bad report (Num 14:1-4, 10).  
The congregation said they wished they had died rather than enter 
into the promised land (Num 14:1-4).  So God granted them their 
wish (Num 14:28) to die and not enter the promised land.  He said 
He would destroy them (Num 14:29-30, 32-38).  And He did (Heb 
3:17).

Then Jude, in v. 6 the messengers or spies that were sent out to 
bring back a good report of the promised land, did not keep to 
that principality which was their proper domain, left it and gave 
a bad report so that all of the congregation over 20 would not 
see that principality or promised land.  He kept them in the 
bonds of darkness or sin and reserved their fate to the Judgement 
on the Great Day.  The same thing is applied to the inhabitants 
of Sodom and Gomorrah.

That's why Jude 8 says such people defile their flesh, speak evil 
of God and despise the dominion He gave them.

So I see nothing here of a fallen angel named "Satan."

Mr. Cohoon states, 
"The Prophet Isaiah writes of Satan “How you are fallen from the 
heavens, O shining star, son of the morning! How you are cut down 
to the ground, you who weakened the nations! (Isaiah 14:12)."

Mr. Cohoon, Isa 14 is to the king of Babylon (Isa 14:4).  Somehow 
you have to make this king be a fallen being or at the very least 
say the context of the verse changes from this king to a fallen 
angel.  Of course this is nothing but supposition and has no 
basis in Scripture. What is said about this king's death is that 
he, like all flesh that dies will be eaten by maggots (Isa 
14:11).

Several things here.  You are obviously taking for granted that 
the word "Lucifer" actually exists in the text.  It doesn't!  
There is no proper name of "Lucifer" in the Hebrew MSS.  The word 
from which the KJV translators translated "Lucifer" is the Hebrew 
word "heylel."  Had it been a proper name, there would have been 
no need for translating, but simply transliterating.  The KJV 
translators did not use the Hebrew manuscripts but; used already 
translated versions, mostly by Jerome.  Jerome had mistranslated 
the Hebrew word for "day star" as "Lucifer."  Jerome had 
translated from the Latin.  The word "lucifer" in the Latin 
referred to Venus or the "day star."  It's a name derived from 
two Latin words "lucem" and "ferre."  They mean "bearer of 
light."

This king is to be an exception to the other kings of nations in 
the fact they lie in their own graves in glorious monuments. But 
this king won't because he will be cast out of his grave and not 
allowed to be buried as such kings are. but will be a carcass 
cast to the ground and trodden under foot (Isa 14:18-20).

There is no mention of a being named "Satan" or the "devil" 
anywhere in this chapter.   In fact this being is called a man 
(Isa 14:16).

Mr. Cohoon says, 
"Satan introduced unrighteousness into the perfect world that God 
had created.  By doing so he became the epitome of all that is 
evil."

Then why does the Bible say sin was introduced to the world by 
one man (Rom 5:12)?

This concludes my first denial of Mr. Cohoon’s affirmative.

Thanks,
James Gary