For the sake of convenience, Buzzard’s arguments are listed under separate headings, and the text of his article which presents each argument is to be found here under those headings.
This means that the text of Buzzard’s article is not presented here in the order in which it originally appears in the article – it is presented thematically, in order for the reader to identify conveniently the arguments Buzzard has made, and read the response to each one of them.
The following is a list of the headings under which Buzzard’s arguments have been grouped:
- The Alleged Novelty Of The Christadelphian Interpretation: Buzzard argues that the absence of the Christadelphian interpretation of satan and demons from Christian exposition of the past 1,800 years is evidence that it should be considered suspect.
- ‘The’ Satan Cannot Be ‘A’ Satan: Buzzard argues that the repeated use of the definite article to identify the satan, or the devil, is evidence that the Christadelphian interpretation of these words as referring to generic identities (an adversary, a devil), is both bad grammar and bad exposition.
- Christadelphians Divided Over Satan: Buzzard argues that the divided opinion among Christadelphians as to the identity of the satan in the record of the wilderness temptation of Christ, is evidence our community is struggling to find a way to insert into the text an interpretation which is contrary to it, in order to avoid the conclusion that a supernatural being of evil is involved.
- The Temptation In The Wilderness: Buzzard argues that the Biblical record of Christ’s temptation in the wilderness not only remains a problem unsolvable by Christadelphian expositors, but explicitly contradicts the Christadelphian interpretations, and that the most natural reading is that Christ was tempted by a supernatural being of evil.
- Satan In The Old Testament: Buzzard argues that the Old Testament bears witness to an external satan which cannot be reconciled with Christadelphian interpretations, but which must be a supernatural being of evil.
- Satan As A Fallen Angel: Buzzard argues that the Bible identifies satan clearly as a fallen angel, thus contradicting the Christadelphian understanding of satan.
- New Testament Teaching On Demons: Buzzard argues that the New Testament (especially the gospel records), speaks of demons using language which cannot be reconciled with the Christadelphian interpretation, unless it is to be assumed that both Christ and the New Testament authors were practicing a deliberate deceit on their readers.