Now's good - byHismercy

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Forgive me for being so blunt but you make it sound as if Christ suffered from PTSD. Disillusioned from his experience in the wilderness had a flashback and snapped at Peter mistaking him for Satan.

I think Christ knew exactly who he was speaking to.

You may be right. However, Christ was prone to angry outbursts when distressed, or hungry, for example, the fig tree...and the money changers in the temple. Not PTSD as such but normal human behavior. If Peter was afflicted by Satan or a demon, why did Christ not just cast him out?

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If Peter was afflicted by Satan or a demon, why did Christ not just cast him out?

Probably for the same reason Christ didn't cast him out of the wilderness. Satan had the right to be there as well as having the right to fleetingly operate through a Peter not yet regenerated and sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Probably for the same reason Christ didn't cast him out of the wilderness. Satan had the right to be there as well as having the right to fleetingly operate through a Peter not yet regenerated and sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

The idea of satan having "legal rights" is really unsubstantiated by Scripture.

Satan is a usurper, he takes what he wants by force, he steals, attacks, and overcomes. Satan does not obey the law. He does not do anything legally.

Imagine, if a thief comes into your home, because you left the door unlocked, and the law then gives her a "legal right" to be there because you left the door unlocked. That's what this doctrine of "legal rights for Satan" is like. It not only does not make sense according to any laws of the land, it is not supported by the Bible.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The idea of satan having "legal rights" is really unsubstantiated by Scripture.

Satan is a usurper, he takes what he wants by force, he steals, attacks, and overcomes. Satan does not obey the law. He does not do anything legally.

Imagine, if a thief comes into your home, because you left the door unlocked, and the law then gives her a "legal right" to be there because you left the door unlocked. That's what this doctrine of "legal rights for Satan" is like. It not only does not make sense according to any laws of the land, it is not supported by the Bible.

I didn't say anything about it being "legal". We have the right through free will to commit sin but that doesn't make sinning "right".

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

I didn't say anything about it being "legal". We have the right through free will to commit sin but that doesn't make sinning "right".

Rights are either moral or legal - the definition of a right is "a moral or legal entitlement to have or do something."

Satan having a "right to be there" implies he was entitled to oppress Peter.

Isn't that like saying a thief has the right to be in your home? A thief has the ability to enter your home, but he does not have the right. Satan had the ability to affect Peter, but he did not have the right.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Rights are either moral or legal - the definition of a right is "a moral or legal entitlement to have or do something."

Satan having a "right to be there" implies he was entitled to oppress Peter.

Isn't that like saying a thief has the right to be in your home? A thief has the ability to enter your home, but he does not have the right. Satan had the ability to affect Peter, but he did not have the right.

You missed my point. Free will is the right.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

You missed my point. Free will is the right.

How does Satan's free will prevent Christ from casting him out?