As many know, I have an interest in the origin and development of Satanology and Demonology. A reason for this is that, as far as I know, I am the Latter-day Saint apologist who has done the most work on the Christadelphian movement. A supernatural, personal Satan is a doctrine to be rejected in the Birmingham Amended (and Unamended) Statement of Faith.
The 19th century saw a rise in anti-diabolism. To quote a
footnote in a forthcoming article on a similar topic:
Examples from the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries include Anonymous, The Mosaical Account of the Human
Fall, Metaphorical; And Figurative of the Angelick Defection: Shewing that Man
is the Fallen Angel, and Disproving The Existence of the Devil (London:
Fielding and Walker, 1779); William Ashdowne, An Attempt to Shew That The
Opinion Concerning the Devil, or Satan, As a Fallen Angel, And that He Tempts
Men to Sin, Hath No Real Foundation in Scripture (Canterbury: J. Grove,
1791); John Simpson, An Attempt to Explain the Meaning of the Words שָׂטָן,
ΣΑΤΑΝ, ΣΑΤΑΝΑΣ, ΔΙΑΒΟΛΟΣ, and of other Supposed Synonymous Expressions in the
Old and New Testament (London: T. Egerton, 1804); Walter Balfour, An
Inquiry into the Scriptural Doctrine Concerning the Devil and Satan: And Into
the Extent of Duration Expressed by the Terms Olim, Aion, and Aionios, Rendered
Everlasting, Forever, &c. In the Common Version, and Especially When
Applied to Punishment, Second edition (Charlestown: Davidson, 1827);
John Epps, The Devil: A Biblical Exposition of the Truth Concerning “That
Old Serpent, The Devil and Satan” and A Refutation of the Beliefs Obtaining in
the World Regarding Sin and Its Source (London: Sherwood & Co., 1842);
John Thomas, Elpis Israel: An Exposition of the Kingdom of God, With
Reference to “The Times of the End,” and “The Age to Come” (London: John
Thomas, 1849). John Thomas (1805–1871) founded a denomination, now known as the
Christadelphians, who reject the teaching “That the devil is a supernatural
personal being” (see “Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith: Doctrines to be
Rejected,” number 11, https://parisave.org/statement-of-faith/).
Another similar group with a similar dogmatic opposition to a personal,
supernatural devil is that of “Church of the Blessed Hope” (also known as
“Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith”). One of this group’s founders was
Benjamin Wilson (1817–1900), who is best known for being the translator of The
Emphatic Diaglott Containing the Original Greek Text of What is Commonly Styled
the New Testament (According to the Recension of Dr. J. J. Griesbach) with an
Interlineary Word for Word English Translation (New York: Fowler &
Wells Co., Publishers, 1864). For a modern biblical defense of anti-diabolism,
see Duncan Heaster, The Real Devil, Third edition (Carelinks,
2009).
Note the
following also from Roman Catholic scholar Joseph F. Kelly in his 2013 Who is
Satan?:
The challenge to traditional views
of Satan and evil came to a head in the nineteenth century. . . . In the
nineteenth century, formidable challenges to the literal interpretation of
Genesis 1-11 began when scientific geology demonstrated that the world is much
older than six thousand years and that there was no geological evidence for a
worldwide flood. . . . It is difficult if not impossible for us to realize the
impact these new movements had upon believers and the challenge they presented
to much traditional teaching. If Adam and Eve did not exist, then neither did
the tree or the diabolic serpent, and original sin as customarily understood had
to be rethought. We are just not born evil because we inherited the stain of
sin from a primeval couple who never existed. Furthermore, these new exegetes refused
to accept Jewish apocryphal notions, such as an angelic revolt, as biblical. .
. . By the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth,
three new disciplines to study human behavior made their appearance: anthropology,
sociology, and psychology. All three would change our view of evil and,
inevitably, of Satan. (Joseph F. Kelly, Who Is Satan? According to the
Scriptures [Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2013], 140, 141. 142)