I have some problems with the criteria the author selected as being definitive of Christianity.
Perhaps the worst problem is defining Satan as a living being. In a manner of speaking, it could be said that categorizing Satan is “way above our pay grade.”
A good way of describing the problem is found in the Islamic concept of the “Abdala”. They are entities whose purpose is to maintain the continuity of existence. As such, they have a direct covenant with God, that is not any of the human covenants. Humans are not endowed with the ability to define or describe them, as we can most other things, and humans are advised to leave them alone.
In essence, what they do is not our business, and they have their own rules that we are not privy to. They have been, are, and will remain unknown to us.
Much the same problem exists with Satan. Living being or not, it is not up to us to say. Our job is not to define Satan, but to avoid Satan if at all possible. This part we know. But when people go around saying that Satan is “such and such” and “so and so”, they are treading on thin ice. Unlike the Abdala, at least we have been given some definition of what Satan is to work with. But that is not license to abstract.
And don’t *even* think you can describe the Holy Ghost. That is pushing “Taking God’s Name in Vain” to extremes.
Why don’t you identify what you believe the author used as the ‘criteria’, then we can discuss your problems with it.