Does Lucifer Have Free Will?

[cvanwey]

Well, as per the Trilemma of Lewis: The Christ depicted in the Gospels is either God, a madman, or a devil. I think that is where Faith comes in. Jesus seemed to have resulted in far too much that my moral sense considers Good, for the other two options. But if you want to make such an argument, there are always ways and means to do so. The question is which one seems most plausible, on which hill you choose to die. I chose to die on Golgotha, in expectation and hope of rising-in-Christ with the Carpenter crucified there.

This sounds suspiciously close to the Lord, Lair, Lunatic argument. But in such a case, either referring to CS Lewis' brand, or the one aforementioned, there exists one more option you have not considered.... Legend

And wouldn't you know it, the 'Legend' option seems to fit quite nicely; as the NT was accounted for via oral tradition for decades prior to actual writing to paper by unverified authors, in many parts.

But I do get your position. You must pick one. I trust that your decision was for sound reasons, and not just wishful thinking...

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

This sounds suspiciously close to the Lord, Lair, Lunatic argument. But in such a case, either referring to CS Lewis' brand, or the one aforementioned, there exists one more option you have not considered.... Legend

And wouldn't you know it, the 'Legend' option seems to fit quite nicely; as the NT was accounted for via oral tradition for decades prior to actual writing to paper by unverified authors, in many parts.

But I do get your position. You must pick one. I trust that your decision was for sound reasons, and not just wishful thinking...

The Lord, Liar, Lunatic is the CS Lewis Trilemma restated. It is the same thing, a paraphrase of Lewis. And no, I don't need to consider Legend, as the Trilemma was conceived for "Christ as depicted in the Gospels", where He certainly is not treated as legendary. Hence the note at the end of my post, to forgo silly responses like this one. Besides, a Legend is usually partially based on fact, which is still very much in favour of my argument that you have to choose one option on Faith, and the God one seems most reasonable to me. The Legend would reflect one of the other options, after all, so really adds nothing to the argument at all.

 

[cvanwey]

The Lord, Liar, Lunatic is the CS Lewis Trilemma restated. It is the same thing, a paraphrase of Lewis. And no, I don't need to consider Legend, as the Trilemma was conceived for "Christ as depicted in the Gospels", where He certainly is not treated as legendary. Hence the note at the end of my post, to forgo silly responses like this one. Besides, a Legend is usually partially based on fact, which is still very much in favour of my argument that you have to choose one option on Faith, and the God one seems most reasonable to me. The Legend would reflect one of the other options, after all, so really adds nothing to the argument at all.

Nope, disagree...

Legend can refer to Alexander the Great, whom I mentioned prior in either this thread, or another. As stated prior, it's one thing to be reported as born, fight in war, and die. But does legend reveal he really was the son of Zeus?

My point is very simple. Legendary tales can exist for actual figures in history, as well as mythical ones.

In your case, Jesus may be real, but all mention of the supernatural could have been added later, via repeated oral tradition...

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Nope, disagree...

Legend can refer to Alexander the Great, whom I mentioned prior in either this thread, or another. As stated prior, it's one thing to be reported as born, fight in war, and die. But does legend reveal he really was the son of Zeus?

My point is very simple. Legendary tales can exist for actual figures in history, as well as mythical ones.

In your case, Jesus may be real, but all mention of the supernatural could have been added later, via repeated oral tradition...

Um yes? In which case the man was either God, a madman or a devil, for such a tradition to occur. It makes no difference, for you still need to determine what of the 'legendary material' you give credence to. If all of the miraculous is false, He still said things implying He was God, or was believed to have said so. For this is an argument on the sources and depiction of Jesus, not Jesus outside thereof. So it makes no iota of difference to the argument that I can see.

 

[cvanwey]

Um yes? In which case the man was either God, a madman or a devil, for such a tradition to occur. It makes no difference, for you still need to determine what of the 'legendary material' you give credence to. If all of the miraculous is false, He still said things implying He was God, or was believed to have said so. For this is an argument on the sources and depiction of Jesus, not Jesus outside thereof. So it makes no iota of difference to the argument that I can see.

Disagree again

Extra ordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Anything supernatural falls within such a realm. Jesus claiming He was the Messiah, like many prior and sense, is rather mundane really. Again, the legend pertains to the tales of the supernatural, with the resurrection being the catalyst.

Heck, read Mark, and then read John, to further demonstrate my observation Legend grows, as the stories are retold and re-wrote.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Disagree again

Extra ordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Anything supernatural falls within such a realm. Jesus claiming He was the Messiah, like many prior and sense, is rather mundane really. Again, the legend pertains to the tales of the supernatural, with the resurrection being the catalyst.

Heck, read Mark, and then read John, to further demonstrate my observation Legend grows, as the stories are retold and re-wrote.

What has evidence got to do with anything? Regardless how well documented, the rising of a man from the dead would always remain beyond belief except on faith. This is the crux thereof, that the Christian claim is literally a one-time extraordinary thing - this man was God, died and was raised granting eternal life.

So you either doubt it as lies or trying to pull the wool over your eyes, think those telling it are madmen or deluded by one, or that Jesus was God. The legend aspect adds nothing to the conversation, and you are merely trying to argue for the first two options as opposed to Jesus being God, based on the mistaken idea that Christians aren't aware somehow that the Incarnation is an utterly fantastic and extreme claim.

 

[Southernscotty]

Okay, cool. But this then begs other questions...

If Satan needs permission from God to enforce 'evil' acts, then doesn't this mean God is completely allowing countless other 'evil' acts, which apparently are inflicted by Satan specifically in one respect or another? Because quite frankly, I would assume that as soon as Satan is absent from the equation, there will exist no more sin....?

Which might mean God is approving each and every 'evil' act in which Satan does set into motion - (child rape, rape in general, genocide, murder, assault, kidnapping, etc etc etc....).

Such an answer would then set a stage for Satan's requirement to ask for permission prior to instigating any evil act towards humans. Otherwise, Satan could pull a fast one, and perform such acts without God's approval. Because quite frankly, Lucifer would be 'evil' enough to do so, because he is, after all, Satan

satan can do nothing without God's approval and that we know, he unfortunately is listed as the prince of this world so he does have a measure of power, However he is like a dog on a leash in that he can only go as far as God allows and that is it.
We want to assume "the devil is directly responsible for all the evil and wickedness that happens today " But we live in a fallen world that is tainted with sin and as such we do quite well on our own at creating evil deeds. Let's be careful not to always give him the credit because he doesn't deserve it

 

[cvanwey]

What has evidence got to do with anything? Regardless how well documented, the rising of a man from the dead would always remain beyond belief except on faith. This is the crux thereof, that the Christian claim is literally a one-time extraordinary thing - this man was God, died and was raised granting eternal life.

Going to have to disagree, yet again.... Sorry.

Jesus apparently appeared to multiple people, at multiple places, and at multiple times. Jesus showing up anywhere, postmortem, qualifies as a resurrection occurrence (post human life, or broadcasting from the dead). And when one looks at the earliest written accounts, and sees later additions made to Mark, for example, which later goes beyond Mark 16:8, which also contradicts the prior conclusion; and then later reads John, it is not hard to see a tale of legendary proportions emerging over the decades.

So you either doubt it as lies or trying to pull the wool over your eyes, think those telling it are madmen or deluded by one, or that Jesus was God. The legend aspect adds nothing to the conversation, and you are merely trying to argue for the first two options as opposed to Jesus being God, based on the mistaken idea that Christians aren't aware somehow that the Incarnation is an utterly fantastic and extreme claim.

I'm sorry, but the disagreement continues. The person whom writes down the accounts actually believes what they are writing, as the events get retold, over and over and over again. The author thinks the events in which they are writing of are actually true, but the story has been repeatedly inflated, altered, etc., (like a game of telephone). Couple this with the fact that people of this era were apt to believe, and were highly superstitious, and you have a recipe for an 'amazing' story/stories.

So for this, I can actually very slightly agree, in a very small degree, regarding the 'lies'; as much of it has to do with 'a traditional story sometimes popularly regarded as historical but unauthenticated'. (i.e.) legend. However, by legend, I also mean 'an extremely famous or notorious person, especially in a particular field'.

Please note, we do not know what earliest stories were told, as they were all oral You add a tiny bit here and there, and over decades, you then again compare the original story, with the ones being used to write to paper, and the liar theory is not so simple to accept as black and white. Hence, legend..

 

[cvanwey]

satan can do nothing without God's approval and that we know, he unfortunately is listed as the prince of this world so he does have a measure of power, However he is like a dog on a leash in that he can only go as far as God allows and that is it.
We want to assume "the devil is directly responsible for all the evil and wickedness that happens today " But we live in a fallen world that is tainted with sin and as such we do quite well on our own at creating evil deeds. Let's be careful not to always give him the credit because he doesn't deserve it

A dog on a leash, does not have free will, as the dog is restricted from doing what they want. And in such a case, when the dog is released from the leash, it is the owner's responsibilities for any such actions performed by that dog, (as they had the power to release the dog accordingly). So you are correct. We shall not give the credit to Satan for the rape, murder, genocide, etc. We can then confidently instead give the credit to the one whom has them on the leash Satan was only doing what was in Satan's nature. God has the power to stop or prevent it at any time, and chooses not to, (specifically regulating each and every occurrence). So God gets all the credit apparently.

 

[childeye 2]

This response is in 'stark contrast' to 2 Corinthians 11:13-15

Respectfully, I have acknowledged 2 Corinthians 11:13-15. To be clear, it is obvious to me that the pretense of a lie would be to pretend to be the Truth. To say it another way, obviously there is a knowledge that a lie means to subvert. And in this case it is the Character or Image of God that is being lied about.

The rest of your response appears to be nothing more than a word salad, sorry.

I apologize, perhaps I am not making myself clear. There are two images of God/god being presented to mankind, one by Satan and one by God. One is true and one is false. Satan's image of god is that of a self serving tyrant who reigns on high by using power to hold on to power over all others through fear of death. The Christ Image presented by God is that of a servant unto all, who places Himself at the bottom, using his eternal power to uphold all things through the hope of life. These are the two opposite images of God/god.

These two images create two opposing sets of connotations, or meanings in words, that reveal which image a person believes in through the semantics of words. For example, let us take the word "success". To a person that believes in the image of God presented by Satan, the meaning of success would be to be greater than all others so that success is envisioned as achieving great fame and fortune above all others.

In stark contrast, the person who believes in the Image of God presented by God in the Christ, the meaning of success would be to lift all others up over one's own self so that success is envisioned as enduring poverty in relative obscurity for the sake of all others.

Hence we know which Image Jesus is projecting when he says "the greatest among you is the one who serves the rest". And also we can then understand why Jesus says that many of the first will be last and many of the last will be first.

 

[cvanwey]

Respectfully, I have acknowledged 2 Corinthians 11:13-15. To be clear, it is obvious to me that the pretense of a lie would be to pretend to be the Truth. To say it another way, obviously there is a knowledge that a lie means to subvert. And in this case it is the Character or Image of God that is being lied about.

My apologies, but I feel this still does not address my initial indication. Such verses demonstrate Satan's ability to change form, and to even present as a righteous being. The worst kind of deception, would be to mimic absolute good and fool many. What better way to trick billions, and send them to damnation in droves, than to impersonate a prophet, get many to follow, and as a result, directly sending them or leading them away from the 1st Commandment. And since the Bible seems to also validate such a possibility, I assert that Jesus was instead Lucifer in disguise. How could you disprove it? Honestly, it's no different than the many other claimed prophets, in which you may reject as valid. Maybe the Orthodox Jews have it, in part, correct?.?.?.?.?.?

I apologize, perhaps I am not making myself clear. There are two images of God/god being presented to mankind, one by Satan and one by God. One is true and one is false. Satan's image of god is that of a self serving tyrant who reigns on high by using power to hold on to power over all others through fear of death. The Christ Image presented by God is that of a servant unto all, who places Himself at the bottom, using his eternal power to uphold all things through the hope of life. These are the two opposite images of God/god.

These two images create two opposing sets of connotations, or meanings in words, that reveal which image a person believes in through the semantics of words. For example, let us take the word "success". To a person that believes in the image of God presented by Satan, the meaning of success would be to be greater than all others so that success is envisioned as achieving great fame and fortune above all others.

In stark contrast, the person who believes in the Image of God presented by God in the Christ, the meaning of success would be to lift all others up over one's own self so that success is envisioned as enduring poverty in relative obscurity for the sake of all others.

Hence we know which Image Jesus is projecting when he says "the greatest among you is the one who serves the rest". And also we can then understand why Jesus says that many of the first will be last and many of the last will be first.

You don't think Lucifer has the power to present goodness, to later deceive? I trust you feel the devil has free will? Again, no one knew what the Messiah looked like. How might anyone know what Jesus was suppose to look like? Whatever form Satan presents, as long as it's human form, and stated he is the messiah, while performing magic, would/might sway many. And eventually, cause later authors to write collections, which ultimately comprised of what we now recognize as the NT.

 

[Southernscotty]

A dog on a leash, does not have free will, as the dog is restricted from doing what they want. And in such a case, when the dog is released from the leash, it is the owner's responsibilities for any such actions performed by that dog, (as they had the power to release the dog accordingly). So you are correct. We shall not give the credit to Satan for the rape, murder, genocide, etc. We can then confidently instead give the credit to the one whom has them on the leash Satan was only doing what was in Satan's nature. God has the power to stop or prevent it at any time, and chooses not to, (specifically regulating each and every occurrence). So God gets all the credit apparently.

Yes friend you are correct, satan is restricted as well. he has to ask God's permission to do certain things. I sure am glad our loving God that is so full of grace has the rule here.

 

[cvanwey]

Yes friend you are correct, satan is restricted as well. he has to ask God's permission to do certain things. I sure am glad our loving God that is so full of grace has the rule here.

For clarification, this means that any and every act which Lucifer orchestrates, God must first approve and sanction accordingly. So if a human receives the urge to rape a small boy, because satan persuades him to have such an urge to do so; and then decides to act upon this urge, you are then saying God allowed such an act to take place, and did not restrain Lucifer from doing so? Even knowing, God does apparently restrict some of satan's capabilities, according to you? Interesting...

grace - '(in Christian belief) the free and unmerited favor of God, as manifested in the salvation of sinners and the bestowal of blessings.'

So to reiterate, the restrictions placed upon Lucifer, (binding/restricting his free will), appears not to include the prevention of rape, murder, torture, verbal abuse, theft, etc...

Since it would appear, according to your conclusion, that satan does not have free will, as he is perpetually kept on a leash, you can confidently conclude that the one pulling all the strings of abuse is God, not satan.

Thanks

 

[ViaCrucis]

I'd first argue that "Lucifer" while a popular name for the devil since at least the middle ages is technically incorrect. But that's just because I think it's important to pick at nits sometimes.

Secondly, I have no reason to ascribe all sorts of powers to the devil. I have actively, on these forums, argued against this idea of the devil as some kind of second cosmic power, a god-like being, etc. The devil is a mere creature, like you or me, or like the angels (indeed, Tradition says the devil used to be an angel).

If there is one thing Scripture is pretty clear about, as it pertains to the devil, it is that he's a liar. Whatever powers he may seem to have is nothing more than charlatanism. Indeed, to ascribe god-like power to the devil was condemned as heresy for most of Christian history. It has only been since the late Renaissance/Early Modern Period that belief that the devil is capable of all sorts of cosmic powers has managed to receive any kind of acceptance in mainstream Christian thought.

From the Canon Episcopi, traditionally ascribed to the 4th century Council of Ancyra, and used throughout the middle ages to condemn witch-hunting (belief in witches was, until the early modern period, regarded as Pagan superstition, and the hunting of witches was condemned under penalty of death--you know, because it's murder):

"For an innumberable multitude, deceived by this false opinion, believe this to be true and, so believing, wander from the right faith and relapse into pagan errors when they think that there is any divinity or power except the one God. ... Whoever therefore believes that anything can be made, or that any creature can be changed to better or worse, or transformed into another species or likeness, except by God Himself who made everything and through whom all things were made, is beyond a doubt an [unbeliever]."

With that out of the way:

If so, demonstrate why Jesus was not actually Lucifer in disguise. Along with 'original sin', demonstrate that the Devil did not simply orchestrate yet another point of deception, by getting millions/billions to break the very top commandments, (by worshiping a false god).

The devil can't raise the dead. If Jesus is risen from the dead, then that's that. If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, then it doesn't matter anyway.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[cvanwey]

I'd first argue that "Lucifer" while a popular name for the devil since at least the middle ages is technically incorrect. But that's just because I think it's important to pick at nits sometimes.

Koolio

Secondly, I have no reason to ascribe all sorts of powers to the devil. I have actively, on these forums, argued against this idea of the devil as some kind of second cosmic power, a god-like being, etc. The devil is a mere creature, like you or me, or like the angels (indeed, Tradition says the devil used to be an angel).

Well, the Bible's only mention of satan's physical attributes, or characteristics, are again as mentioned, from 2 Corinthians 11:14. The Bible really does not mention what physical limitations he holds. I would assume that his prior creation, in original form, as an angel, might appear anthropomorphic, as even the Bible expresses God making humans in His image. One may also logically conclude that angels may also follow suit.

Thus concluding, I've established that it seems likely possible that satan could present as a magical human, performing interpreted 'miracles', and lying to individuals about being a God.

If there is one thing Scripture is pretty clear about, as it pertains to the devil, it is that he's a liar.

True. Along with deceitful, as evidence by 'original sin'.

It has only been since the late Renaissance/Early Modern Period that belief that the devil is capable of all sorts of cosmic powers has managed to receive any kind of acceptance in mainstream Christian thought.

So are you then saying that, as stories get retold over and over, through the sands of time, the story inflates? How is that any different then reading Mark, and then reading and comparing to John (written decades or centuries apart)?

The devil can't raise the dead. If Jesus is risen from the dead, then that's that. If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, then it doesn't matter anyway.

Please re-read the response directly above.

And in regards to your direct claim about the devil's inability to raise the dead, are you sure? I think theologians get into quite a twist, on both ends, regarding this conclusion.

Just as a quick reference, in which I do not hold true either way really, but may be of reading interest anywho:

https://www.tms.edu/msj/msj18-1-2/

 

[ViaCrucis]

Koolio

Well, the Bible's only mention of satan's physical attributes, or characteristics, are again as mentioned, from 2 Corinthians 11:14. The Bible really does not mention what physical limitations he holds. I would assume that his prior creation, in original form, as an angel, might appear anthropomorphic, as even the Bible expresses God making humans in His image. One may also logically conclude that angels may also follow suit.

Thus concluding, I've established that it seems likely possible that satan could present as a magical human, performing interpreted 'miracles', and lying to individuals about being a God.

I've never read that passage from 2 Corinthians the way you seem to be doing here. That the devil "appears" as an angel of light isn't about literal appearance, it's about the devil's deceitfulness. But sure, perhaps the devil could literally appear as something in order to delude and deceive the unwary.

So are you then saying that, as stories get retold over and over, through the sands of time, the story inflates? How is that any different then reading Mark, and then reading and comparing to John (written decades or centuries apart)?

What I'm saying is that belief in witches and witchcraft, the attribution of cosmic power to the devil, is a late innovation that is contrary to the ancient orthodox teaching of the Christian Church. I have no idea how you managed to get what you said here out of what I stated.

Please re-read the response directly above.

And in regards to your direct claim about the devil's inability to raise the dead, are you sure? I think theologians get into quite a twist, on both ends, regarding this conclusion.

Just as a quick reference, in which I do not hold true either way really, but may be of reading interest anywho:

https://www.tms.edu/msj/msj18-1-2/

I had a suspicion one might bring up, in some way, the mention of the Beast in Revelation 13. I'm not a Futurist, and I don't read the Apocalypse of St. John literally. So, no, I don't see the revival of the Beast as being an actual resurrection. Instead I would point to the Nero Redivivus Legend as the source of what John is saying here. Nero Redivivus legend - Wikipedia

Again, I'll restate, I don't believe the devil has the power to raise the dead. Such a belief is, frankly, blasphemous.



-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Thus concluding, I've established that it seems likely possible that satan could present as a magical human, performing interpreted 'miracles', and lying to individuals about being a God.

Alright, let's for the sake of argument permit this. I would again simply restate my original response: If Jesus rose from the dead, then that settles this; and if Jesus didn't rise from the dead then it doesn't matter anyway.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[cvanwey]

I've never read that passage from 2 Corinthians the way you seem to be doing here. That the devil "appears" as an angel of light isn't about literal appearance, it's about the devil's deceitfulness. But sure, perhaps the devil could literally appear as something in order to delude and deceive the unwary.

My point being that the Bible mentions very little about Satan in general. The cited verse is practically all one may go by So yes, it is quite possible the devil could achieve complete deception, by mimicking a human claiming to be God, whom performs magic.

What I'm saying is that belief in witches and witchcraft, the attribution of cosmic power to the devil, is a late innovation that is contrary to the ancient orthodox teaching of the Christian Church. I have no idea how you managed to get what you said here out of what I stated.

Thank you for clarifying.

(My) prior point was presented, as to demonstrate when stories get re-told, over and over, tend to increase - (like a fishing story).

Again, I'll restate, I don't believe the devil has the power to raise the dead. Such a belief is, frankly, blasphemous.

Is it possible, that what you state may only be wishful thinking, to assume it cannot be so, to protect your faith? Though differing definitions may exist for 'blasphemous', wouldn't the devil be the epitome of 'blasphemous'?

 

[childeye 2]

My apologies, but I feel this still does not address my initial indication. Such verses demonstrate Satan's ability to change form, and to even present as a righteous being. The worst kind of deception, would be to mimic absolute good and fool many. What better way to trick billions, and send them to damnation in droves, than to impersonate a prophet, get many to follow, and as a result, directly sending them or leading them away from the 1st Commandment.

I don't know about changing form, and I won't say it's not possible. But I do believe that Satan is able to mislead people through thoughts that occur in the mind and subsequently control them accordingly.

And since the Bible seems to also validate such a possibility, I assert that Jesus was instead Lucifer in disguise. How could you disprove it?

Well Lucifer and Satan are actually referencing two different conditions/identities of a single individual. If you're referring to Lucifer as Satan, then respectfully, it's rather pointless for you to say that your assertion cannot be disproved, except perhaps to provide an opportunity to point out that you seem to be unaware that all things are built on faith concerning that which is the Eternal.

Please note that Satan is both a tempter unto mankind to go against God, and also an accuser of mankind as being against God. Hence Satan sows distrust through the very circumstance that all things are built upon faith. But even though temptations and accusations are based on assertions that cannot be disproven, it can still be proven that it's more logical to believe that God is good than to believe that God is bad.

Moreover, I will point out that any reasoning based on falsehood will end in a contradiction. So tell me what did Jesus say or do that made God look bad to mankind, or make mankind look bad to God?

You don't think Lucifer has the power to present goodness, to later deceive?

No I don't think so. I believe as Satan he has the power to present a vain type of goodness that is deceptive, and even the source of his own deception.

I trust you feel the devil has free will?

No, I believe that he's subject to vanity.

Again, no one knew what the Messiah looked like. How might anyone know what Jesus was suppose to look like? Whatever form Satan presents, as long as it's human form, and stated he is the messiah, while performing magic, would/might sway many. And eventually, cause later authors to write collections, which ultimately comprised of what we now recognize as the NT.

It doesn't matter what Jesus looked like, and besides it wouldn't matter if he were the greatest magician ever, since it's the Gospel of the Christ being crucified through which people believe/trust in him. Hence his body is food and his blood is drink in that capacity.

 

[FIRESTORM314]

For clarification, this means that any and every act which Lucifer orchestrates, God must first approve and sanction accordingly. So if a human receives the urge to rape a small boy, because satan persuades him to have such an urge to do so; and then decides to act upon this urge, you are then saying God allowed such an act to take place, and did not restrain Lucifer from doing so? Even knowing, God does apparently restrict some of satan's capabilities, according to you? Interesting...

grace - '(in Christian belief) the free and unmerited favor of God, as manifested in the salvation of sinners and the bestowal of blessings.'

So to reiterate, the restrictions placed upon Lucifer, (binding/restricting his free will), appears not to include the prevention of rape, murder, torture, verbal abuse, theft, etc...

Since it would appear, according to your conclusion, that satan does not have free will, as he is perpetually kept on a leash, you can confidently conclude that the one pulling all the strings of abuse is God, not satan.

Thanks

Try another perspective - Satan is like a Dog on a Leash and he is very limited in what he PERSONALLY can do by himself. In Job , after, asking God to test him, he HIMSELF then calls fire down from heaven and destroys Job's family, and he HIMSELF afflicts Job with an illness. He is Limited in what he can do HIMSELF

Now on the other hand - since he is limited he can get around the limitations by persuading a Man to rape a woman and do other nasty things without doing it himself ( possibly without asking God ) . He's allowed to persuade and manipulate others by lying and influencing to them.

Did Satan ask God if he could tempt Adam and Eve?