Free Willism or God's Soeveignty in Salvation of All

[Origen]

This cartoon illustrates correlation variables. Eusebius believes everything is a causality variable. But that raises many questions:

How many causality variables are there, that influence a given decision?
What statistical percentage does each one represent (something that experiments in psychology, social psychology, etc., can give you)?
How do you know each person will respond to a given causality variable, in the same way? And if not, how do you explain the difference?
How do you know something you think is a causality variable, is not a correlation variable?

Re Q1, there are a multitude of possible variables re causes of behaviour in biblical deterministic theory, if one wants to break it down in detail.
More generally you have the will of man/will of the flesh, the workings of demonic or evil spirits, environmental influences, heredity, the presence of holy angels, the power and word of God, His Son, the Holy Spirit, etc.

Re Q2, this is a question for an Omnipotent Being & those He confides in who are, if any, on a need to know basis, not human beings. Though i
question that any of these would have any interest in such scientific data.

Re Q3/4 see Q2…Crooked [is] the heart above all things, And it [is] incurable – who doth know it? I Jehovah do search the heart,(Jer.17:9-10a)

[Origen]

More from Martin Zender on free will:

"Live as if It All Depends on You
Q: To what extent is our free will? God chooses us and gives us belief. Do we make any choices at all? When I used to wup my brother on the basketball court, was that talent and free will?

A: There is no such thing as free will. Nobody makes any decision at any time that is not ultimately dictated by God.

Now, forget I just said that and live your life. Live as if you have all the free will in the world. This is how God wants us to live. We are to live like we have control, but we are to believe the truth that we have no control. The two are not mutually exclusive. One is the relative perspective (our day-to-day life as we relate with other people and ourselves), and the other is the absolute perspective. The relative is not absolutely true. Only the absolute is absolutely true. And the absolute is: we have no free will in anything. Nothing. Zip.

The talent that caused you to wup your brother in basketball was a gift of God. Everything you have and do is a gift of God. God GAVE all these things to you, and He continues to give them. As Paul writes, “What do we have that we have not obtained?” You have not originated anything, but have merely obtained it. "

martinzender.com/QA.htm

[Origen]

Now I need to start the morning, by drinking a Red Bull and chewing on some hot peppers.

Coffees (pl) for me, thanks! Low fat milk, hold the sugar & extra caffeine. Cheers.

As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, (Eph. 2:1)

Zombie, this verse refers to those who were living yet dead, i.e. the living dead, zombies ;

“living dead. living dead - Dictionary definition and meaning for word living dead. (noun) a dead body that has been brought back to life by a supernatural force. Synonyms : zombi , zombie.”

[davo]

And that is free will—the ability to choose between alternatives.

Yep that’s exactly what it is… a complete no-brainer!

[maintenanceman]

Davo, some people reject God their entire lives, even after AD 70.

And that is why free will is confined, IMO, to the temporal since the cross, being one who believes in actual redemption. When we leave this temporal body, I have a suspicion that every knee will bow and tongue confess.

I still like the ice cube and the sun

[Eusebius]

Asking if causality exists is like asking if air exists.

Denying free will is like denying the existence of humanity.

Hi Paidion,
I would say denying will is like denying the existence of humanity.
We all have will. The Bible says so. However the bible never says it is free. It does say it is the will of the flesh.

Joh_1:13 who were begotten, not of bloods, neither of the will of the flesh, neither of the will of a man, but of God."
Eph_2:3 (among whom we also all behaved ourselves once in the lusts of our flesh, doing the will of the flesh and of the comprehension, and were, in our nature, children of indignation, even as the rest),

I don’t know if you see it or not but in John 1:13 it shows that no one can be begotten by the will of the flesh or will of man. So how is man free to will to be begotten by God?

The entire universe is built on cause and effect.

Humanity itself is founded on the ability to choose.

Yes and what a travesty its choices have been. “All avoid Him.” “Together they were useless.” Why would all avoid Him? Because the Bible says the flesh is enmity to God and cannot please God. So the will of man is not free to please God and is not free to be friendly with God. God has to overwhelm our will with His will to change our will. Get it?

Something caused you to write your response. It was not a causeless response. You didn’t just write a response due to no cause whatsoever.

I know you were addressing someone else, but I will respond as if it were addressed to me.
Yes, there was a cause of my written response. I, myself, was the cause. You might claim that your statements were the cause. But that is not the case. I could have refrained from responding to your statements. And that is free will—the ability to choose between alternatives.

That is oversimplistic to state “I myself, was the cause.” The force to try to correct my idea was greater than your desire to just let it go. So there was a force which acted upon you which caused you to respond. Nothing is causeless. We often say to someone “You couldn’t just let it go, could you?!” Well, actually that is true due to the forces acting upon them.

Will is not an illusion. we see it every day. People have the illusion they are free. But we are not free from causality. Everyone chooses. The question is “Why?” Why does one person quit smoking while another continues and goes to the grave with cancer? Because the one who quit had a force bearing down on him to quit due to the threat of cancer while the other enjoyed smoking greater or was addicted greater than the threat of getting cancer. But in both cases the choice was not a free will choice.

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

This cartoon illustrates correlation variables. Eusebius believes everything is a causality variable. But that raises many questions:

How many causality variables are there, that influence a given decision?
What statistical percentage does each one represent (something that experiments in psychology, social psychology, etc., can give you)?
How do you know each person will respond to a given causality variable, in the same way? And if not, how do you explain the difference?
How do you know something you think is a causality variable, is not a correlation variable?

Re Q1, there are a multitude of possible variables re causes of behaviour in biblical deterministic theory, if one wants to break it down in detail.
More generally you have the will of man/will of the flesh, the workings of demonic or evil spirits, environmental influences, heredity, the presence of holy angels, the power and word of God, His Son, the Holy Spirit, etc.

Re Q2, this is a question for an Omnipotent Being & those He confides in who are, if any, on a need to know basis, not human beings. Though i
question that any of these would have any interest in such scientific data.

Re Q3/4 see Q2…Crooked [is] the heart above all things, And it [is] incurable – who doth know it? I Jehovah do search the heart,(Jer.17:9-10a)

Many believe that thoughts and feelings shape reality:

The Health and Prosperity movement (i.e.Joel Osteen)
Eastern thought
Christian Science and New Thought movement (i.e. Emmet Fox, Joel Goldsmith)
The visions of certain mystics - even Christian - like Tiffany snow
Positive thinking (i.e. Norman Vincent Peale)
Appeal to a particular saint
Scientific prayer
Etc

It’s easy to use the scientific method and test the waters for yourself. So no matter what the variables (heredity, environment) and how they determine my destiny, if I can influence (or bring into existence) - a particular outcome. Like:

A healing of particular disease
A financial healing
A child to a childless couple
etc

, I have an element of free will. Now we have to attribute all this, to the grace of God. But I am still making an effort - to invoke that grace.

Of course, after sharing this, if folks wish to believe they are helpless, subject to all kinds of deterministic variables, etc. without testing the waters for themselves - so be it. Rest assured, I will not stop you.

Or Take my Protestant Christian mom - now deceased at 92.5 - having the lifelong gift of prophesy. She never “advertised”, “charged money”, nor “sold tickets”, but she was always right. And she told me as a Boy Scout teenager, to take an umbrella to a parade. None of the weather TV or radio services forecast rain. And I got ribbed by fellow scouts. Until there was a downpour, in the middle of the parade. And I was the only one - with an umbrella. No matter what the deterministic variables were, she saw the final outcome, and warned me about it. I believed her and took an umbrella (while not believing the scientific weather experts). How does her gift of prophesy, fit into a deterministic model? Was I avoiding determinism, by bringing an umbrella?

Suppose you asked God for wisdom, like he requests you do in scripture. And it develops into a full blown intuition, which is always right. Or you are born with the gift - like my mom was. If you follow it and avoid an unpleasantness outcome, is that circumventing determinism?

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

Martin Zender offers some Scriptures that he sees as refuting free will:

martinzender.com/Zenderature … _creed.htm

There are theologians and Christian philosophers, who use scripture to argue for both determinism and free will. It shows nothing, but the problems and issues in Sola Scriptura.

Here’s an interesting experiment in psychology at There’s No Such Thing as Free Will:

In 2002, two psychologists had a simple but brilliant idea: Instead of speculating about what might happen if people lost belief in their capacity to choose, they could run an experiment to find out. Kathleen Vohs, then at the University of Utah, and Jonathan Schooler, of the University of Pittsburgh, asked one group of participants to read a passage arguing that free will was an illusion, and another group to read a passage that was neutral on the topic. Then they subjected the members of each group to a variety of temptations and observed their behavior. Would differences in abstract philosophical beliefs influence people’s decisions?

Yes, indeed. When asked to take a math test, with cheating made easy, the group primed to see free will as illusory proved more likely to take an illicit peek at the answers. When given an opportunity to steal—to take more money than they were due from an envelope of $1 coins—those whose belief in free will had been undermined pilfered more. On a range of measures, Vohs told me, she and Schooler found that “people who are induced to believe less in free will are more likely to behave immorally.”

It seems that when people stop believing they are free agents, they stop seeing themselves as blameworthy for their actions. Consequently, they act less responsibly and give in to their baser instincts. Vohs emphasized that this result is not limited to the contrived conditions of a lab experiment. “You see the same effects with people who naturally believe more or less in free will,” she said.

Edmon de Haro
In another study, for instance, Vohs and colleagues measured the extent to which a group of day laborers believed in free will, then examined their performance on the job by looking at their supervisor’s ratings. Those who believed more strongly that they were in control of their own actions showed up on time for work more frequently and were rated by supervisors as more capable. In fact, belief in free will turned out to be a better predictor of job performance than established measures such as self-professed work ethic.

Another pioneer of research into the psychology of free will, Roy Baumeister of Florida State University, has extended these findings. For example, he and colleagues found that students with a weaker belief in free will were less likely to volunteer their time to help a classmate than were those whose belief in free will was stronger. Likewise, those primed to hold a deterministic view by reading statements like “Science has demonstrated that free will is an illusion” were less likely to give money to a homeless person or lend someone a cellphone.

Further studies by Baumeister and colleagues have linked a diminished belief in free will to stress, unhappiness, and a lesser commitment to relationships. They found that when subjects were induced to believe that “all human actions follow from prior events and ultimately can be understood in terms of the movement of molecules,” those subjects came away with a lower sense of life’s meaningfulness. Early this year, other researchers published a study showing that a weaker belief in free will correlates with poor academic performance.

The list goes on: Believing that free will is an illusion has been shown to make people less creative, more likely to conform, less willing to learn from their mistakes, and less grateful toward one another. In every regard, it seems, when we embrace determinism, we indulge our dark side.

Let’s repeat the conclusions, of the experiments. Drum roll, please

The list goes on: Believing that free will is an illusion has been shown to make people less creative, more likely to conform, less willing to learn from their mistakes, and less grateful toward one another. In every regard, it seems, when we embrace determinism, we indulge our dark side.

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

So how would Eusebius respond, to these 3 distinguished professors? What is presented in the 3 previous scientific examples are facts. They are current scientific positions that many scientists hold. They would say that:

Free will illusion is caused by neural brain transmitters, according to current brain research
At the level of Quantum physics, the Uncertainty principle and Quantum indeterminacy, would undermine or neutralize the principle of causality.
You can get people to respond via operand conditioning or behavior modification

Re the last sentence above, i’d say if you tried to get a demon possessed person to respond as you wish, you may have extreme
difficulties or even complete failure.

I think perhaps we all have the feeling (or illusion) that we have free will.

What is an illusion? The impression that as we look out over an ocean or miles of farmlands in the country that the earth is flat?
Or as we observe the sun it appears to be moving & the earth standing still?

Freewill is an illusion if the inerrant inspired Scriptures say it is.

Demons are really difficult to control. You don’t control them. But you have more power over them then you realize, just by invoking the name of Christ. However, if a person is possessed, then it needs a full blown Catholic exorcism. But first, a psychiatrist must rule out mental illness and a general practitioner organic disease.

Freewill is an illusion if the inerrant inspired Scriptures say it is.

And who on this forum, will give the correct interpretation, understanding and Biblical exegesis ? You? Someone else? Or for that matter, who outside this forum (I.e. Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, some Protestant denomination, some TV evangelist, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, etc.), will give the correct interpretation, understanding and Biblical exegesis?

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

Now I need to start the morning, by drinking a Red Bull and chewing on some hot peppers.

Coffees (pl) for me, thanks! Low fat milk, hold the sugar & extra caffeine. Cheers.

As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, (Eph. 2:1)

Zombie, this verse refers to those who were living yet dead, i.e. the living dead, zombies ;

“living dead. living dead - Dictionary definition and meaning for word living dead. (noun) a dead body that has been brought back to life by a supernatural force. Synonyms : zombi , zombie.”

Of course, I call myself a P-Zombie - rightly so. Anything that frees me, is due to the grace of God, the redemption of Christ, the help of the Holy Spirit, the intercessions of saints and holy angels, and faith.

[davo]

Maintenanceman, I think there’s a very good chance that every knee will bow and every tongue confess. I just, unlike Davo, don’t believe it’s happened yet.

qaz… where have you read me saying that’s already happened

[Eusebius]

The list goes on: Believing that free will is an illusion has been shown to make people less creative, more likely to conform, less willing to learn from their mistakes, and less grateful toward one another. In every regard, it seems, when we embrace determinism, we indulge our dark side.

Then that proves that people are not free to not be less creative, less likely to conform, less willing to learn from their mistakes and less grateful toward one another who have been taught to believe free will is an illusion.

Since when did the Bible writers ever use philosophers to prove the truths of the Bible?

Let’s look at a definitive verse:

Gal 5:17 For the flesh is lusting against the spirit, yet the spirit against the flesh. Now these are opposing one another, lest you should be doing whatever you may want."

The above verse seems unassailable to me. The flesh is at enmity to God. The spirit is friends with God. Christians have the spirit and live in the flesh. We have this warfare going on in us between the flesh and spirit. We can’t really do what we want to do due to this. Either the spirit is going to win any given battle or the flesh is going to win any given battle. These forces are beyond our control and therefore we are not free.

Just because people use different sets of verses to defend their position of free will or non-free will does not prove either side one way or the other.
One needs to find definitive verses concerning the will of mankind.

One such verse is the one telling us the will of man is the will of the flesh and the other definitive verse tells us the flesh is at enmity to God and cannot please God. Therefore, combining these two definitive verses, we can arrive at the truth that the will of man is not free to be friendly toward God and is not free to please God.

Even God’s will is not free. God is defined as “love.” Therefore God’s will is dictated by love and cannot go against the dictates of love.

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

The list goes on: Believing that free will is an illusion has been shown to make people less creative, more likely to conform, less willing to learn from their mistakes, and less grateful toward one another. In every regard, it seems, when we embrace determinism, we indulge our dark side.

Then that proves that people are not free to not be less creative, less likely to conform, less willing to learn from their mistakes and less grateful toward one another who have been taught to believe free will is an illusion.

Since when did the Bible writers ever use philosophers to prove the truths of the Bible?

Just because people use different sets of verses to defend their position of free will or non-free will does not prove either side one way or the other.
One needs to find definitive verses concerning the will of mankind.

One such verse is the one telling us the will of man is the will of the flesh and the other definitive verse tells us the flesh is at enmity to God and cannot please God. Therefore, combining these two definitive verses, we can arrive at the truth that the will of man is not free to be friendly toward God and is not free to please God.

Even God’s will is not free. God is defined as “love.” Therefore God’s will is dictated by love and cannot go against the dictates of love.

They are not philosophers. These are academic psychologists - with PhD degrees - conducting scientific experiments. Those in academic circles, other scientists and any member of the general public (i.e. forum members), are free to interpret the scientific findings, anyway they like.

And back to what I previously said, in a prior post.

And who on this forum, will give the correct interpretation, understanding and Biblical exegesis ? You? Someone else? Or for that matter, who outside this forum (I.e. Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, some Protestant denomination, some TV evangelist, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, etc.), will give the correct interpretation, understanding and Biblical exegesis?

[Eusebius]

The list goes on: Believing that free will is an illusion has been shown to make people less creative, more likely to conform, less willing to learn from their mistakes, and less grateful toward one another. In every regard, it seems, when we embrace determinism, we indulge our dark side.

Then that proves that people are not free to not be less creative, less likely to conform, less willing to learn from their mistakes and less grateful toward one another who have been taught to believe free will is an illusion.

Since when did the Bible writers ever use philosophers to prove the truths of the Bible?

Just because people use different sets of verses to defend their position of free will or non-free will does not prove either side one way or the other.
One needs to find definitive verses concerning the will of mankind.

One such verse is the one telling us the will of man is the will of the flesh and the other definitive verse tells us the flesh is at enmity to God and cannot please God. Therefore, combining these two definitive verses, we can arrive at the truth that the will of man is not free to be friendly toward God and is not free to please God.

Even God’s will is not free. God is defined as “love.” Therefore God’s will is dictated by love and cannot go against the dictates of love.

They are not philosophers. These are academic psychologists - with PhD degrees - conducting scientific experiments. Those in academic circles, other scientists and any member of the general public (i.e. forum members), are free to interpret the scientific findings, anyway they like.

And back to what I previously said, in a prior post.

And who on this forum, will give the correct interpretation, understanding and Biblical exegesis ? You? Someone else? Or for that matter, who outside this forum (I.e. Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, some Protestant denomination, some TV evangelist, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, etc.), will give the correct interpretation, understanding and Biblical exegesis?

Okay then, where in the Bible did any of the writers look to academic psychologists to prove or disprove the truths of the Bible?

Who will give the correct interpretation? If no one else will, I will. There, that settles that.

I get the idea that you seem to think we can’t rely on the Scriptures for any given truth. Correct me if I am wrong in that summation.

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

Okay then, where in the Bible did any of the writers look to academic psychologists to prove or disprove the truths of the Bible?

Who will give the correct interpretation? If no one else will, I will. There, that settles that.

I get the idea that you seem to think we can’t rely on the Scriptures for any given truth. Correct me if I am wrong in that summation.

The big picture, yes. Like Christ died for our sins, etc. But for other things:

Is Christ proesent in the water and wine?
Is infant Baptism necessary?
Should Christians drink wine?
Should we practice peace or enlist and fight?
Are we free or determined?
etc.

It depends on your take on science. If God gave us reason and we use it to develop scientific understanding, the first place we would hit a stumbling block, is Genesis and modern science. Should we dismiss all scientific findings? Should we forsake modern medicine and it’s healing capacities, because it’s not in the Bible? Luke saw all the healing miracles, of Paul and the apostles. But he never renounced, being a physician.

We are a house divided. And no - I don’t put much stock, in you spin on things. No offensive met, by the way.

See In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity

And here is the Protestant site Got Questions spin - with scriptural interpretation:

Do human beings truly have a free will?

And yes. If it boiled down to the **Got Questions ** spin and your spin, I’ll go with the Got Questions spin.

[Eusebius]

Who will give the correct interpretation? If no one else will, I will. There, that settles that.

I get the idea that you seem to think we can’t rely on the Scriptures for any given truth. Correct me if I am wrong in that summation.

The big picture, yes. Like Christ died for our sins, etc. But for other things:

Is Christ proesent in the water and wine?
Is infant Baptism necessary?
Should Christians drink wine?
Should we practice peace or enlist and fight?
Are we free or determined?
etc.

We are a house divided. And no - I don’t put much stock, in you spin on things. No offensive met, by the way.

See In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity

And here is the Protestant site Got Questions spin - with scriptural interpretation:

Do human beings truly have a free will?

And yes. If it boiled down to the **Got Questions ** spin and your spin, I’ll go with the Got Questions spin.

That is because you are not free to go with my spin.

Why do you trust the Bible for, as you say “the big picture” but not other matters? How can you trust your version of “the big picture”?

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

Okay then, where in the Bible did any of the writers look to academic psychologists to prove or disprove the truths of the Bible?

Why do you trust the Bible for, as you say “the big picture” but not other matters? How can you trust your version of “the big picture”?

I run as best, as I understand it. And I see how it stacks up, with a Anglo-Orthodox understanding. In other words, I consult theologians in the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Anglican traditions (sometimes the Protestant traditions). And I see how it stacks up with what the mystics and saints say and experience, And what I have discovered, from spiritual experience (as long as it aligns, with Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition, as I understand it). And in regards to the big picture, besides theology, I also look at philosophy and science (after all, God created us with reason).

Should we ignore a development in technology and science, because it’s not in the Bible? Some historical group did that - with the umbrella. They refused to use it. Because it says somewhere, that:

Matthew 5:45: that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

It depends on your take on science. If God gave us reason and we use it to develop scientific understanding, the first place we would hit a stumbling block, is Genesis and modern science. Should we dismiss all scientific findings? Should we forsake modern medicine and its healing capacities, because it’s not in the Bible? Luke saw all the healing miracles, of Paul and the apostles. But he never renounced, being a physician.

[Eusebius]

Okay then, where in the Bible did any of the writers look to academic psychologists to prove or disprove the truths of the Bible?

Why do you trust the Bible for, as you say “the big picture” but not other matters? How can you trust your version of “the big picture”?

I run as best, as I understand it. And I see how it stacks up, with a Anglo-Orthodox understanding. In other words, I consult theologians in the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Anglican traditions (sometimes the Protestant traditions). And I see how it stacks up with what the mystics and saints say and experience, And what I have discovered, from spiritual experience (as long as it aligns, with Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition, as I understand it).

Should we ignore a development in technology and science, because it’s not in the Bible? Some historical group did that - with the umbrella. They refused to use it. Because it says somewhere, that:

Matthew 5:45: that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

It depends on your take on science. If God gave us reason and we use it to develop scientific understanding, the first place we would hit a stumbling block, is Genesis and modern science. Should we dismiss all scientific findings? Should we forsake modern medicine and it’s healing capacities, because it’s not in the Bible? Luke saw all the healing miracles, of Paul and the apostles. But he never renounced, being a physician.

Doesn’t science say it is impossible for Lazarus to be dead 4 days and be brought out of that death? or say it is impossible for Christ to be dead three days and brought back to life? I don’t put much stock in science when it comes to the Bible.

Why would you trust RCC, Orthodox etc. when Paul said that:

“Now the spirit is saying explicitly, that in subsequent eras some will be withdrawing from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and the teachings of demons, in the hypocrisy of false expressions, their own conscience having been cauterized;” forbidding to marry, abstaining from foods, which God creates to be partaken of with thanksgiving by those who believe and realize the truth, seeing that every creature of God is ideal and nothing is to be cast away, being taken with thanksgiving, (1Ti 4:1-4)." ?

And:

“Now I am aware that, after I am out of reach, burdensome wolves will be entering among you, not sparing the flocklet.” And from among yourselves will arise men, speaking perverse things to pull away disciples after themselves." Wherefore watch, remembering that for three years, night and day, I cease not admonishing each one with tears." (Act 20:29-31)

They have been wrong so often i.e. indulgences etc.

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

@Eusebius

Doesn’t science say it is impossible for Lazarus to be dead 4 days and be brought out of that death? or say it is impossible for Christ to be dead three days and brought back to life? I don’t put much stock in science when it comes to the Bible.

Of course. Go back and read my previous posts, on this thread.

Where folks are healed of incurable diseases, after the medical tests and specialists, said their diseases are incurable. But real healers and real heading modalities, don’t always have instant success. Sometimes it is instantaneous, sometimes it takes a while, sometimes it is partial and sometimes not at all. If you always want the “instantaneous cure”, watch those healers that do that, and solicit money - on TV. You know. The one where the older lady, comes in on a wheelchair. The next minute, she is playing football with the staff.

Where the weather experts said it would not rain and all is nice and sunny. But My mom, with the gift of prophesy, told me to take an umbrella.

How do the above items, fit into your Biblical model of determinism

@Eusebius

I don’t put much stock in science when it comes to the Bible.

Do you go to see a doctor, when you have a pressing health problem? Why, when the Bible shows all the healing miracles of Jesus, Paul and the apostles? After all, modern medicine is based on science. But Luke was a physician and saw the same miracles. And he never renounced being a physician.

For me, I’ll take the best of both worlds - I’m pragmatic.

I’ll go to the specialists and physicians and get all the necessary medical tests and opinions.
But I’ll also go to complimentary medicine, spiritual healers and modalities and prayer help

Or do you take an umbrella with you, if the weather forecasters say it will rain? After all, they neither had umbrellas nor weather forecasters, in the Bible.

Remember:

Matthew 5:45: that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

@Eusebius

Why would you trust RCC, Orthodox etc. when Paul said that:

“Now the spirit is saying explicitly, that in subsequent eras some will be withdrawing from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and the teachings of demons, in the hypocrisy of false expressions, their own conscience having been cauterized;” forbidding to marry, abstaining from foods, which God creates to be partaken of with thanksgiving by those who believe and realize the truth, seeing that every creature of God is ideal and nothing is to be cast away, being taken with thanksgiving, (1Ti 4:1-4)." ?

And:

“Now I am aware that, after I am out of reach, burdensome wolves will be entering among you, not sparing the flocklet.” And from among yourselves will arise men, speaking perverse things to pull away disciples after themselves." Wherefore watch, remembering that for three years, night and day, I cease not admonishing each one with tears." (Act 20:29-31)

They have been wrong so often i.e. indulgences etc.

I don’t trust the RCC, par say. I trust certain Catholic writers, mystics, saints and theologians, from the Catholic tradition. But to be fair, there are some current or former RCC members here, on this forum. And I do know an RC priest, who has the gift of healing and hearing God speak. I have been to many of his healing services and fell down from his touch.

When I say I am Anglo-Orthodox, that means (in the words of WIki)"

"A movement among Anglicans toward incorporating some elements of Eastern Orthodox spirituality, theology or worship into the Anglican church

What the psychologists and their experiments at There’s No Such Thing as Free Will tell us - is this. It’s the same thing as believing the fundamental building blocks of the universe, follow an indeterminate pattern, at the **Scientific American **article The Quantum Physics of Free Will. It’s the same thing that TV preachers like Joel Osteen - have told us. It’s better to believe in free will, if you want a happier, more productive life, where you are also concerned with lending a helping hand - sometimes. Just as if you believe God responds to our prayers and faith - like Joel Osteen says - we will live a more fuller life.

If you wish to believe in determinism and be “as miserable as possible”, then take it to the limit. Embrace John Calvin theologically and Arthur Schopenhauer philosophically.

[Eusebius]

If you wish to believe in determinism and be “as miserable as possible”, then take it to the limit. Embrace John Calvin theologically and Arthur Schopenhauer philosophically.

Obviously the psychologists study if flawed because I do believe in the will of humanity but believe it is caused and therefore not free and yet I am not in any way miserable. In fact, I am quite happy and enjoying life in Christ Who is the Head of the body and which Head tells the body what to do rather than giving the body autonomy apart from its Head.

I doubt your body has autonomy or free will apart from your physical head. Maybe I’m wrong? But normally a body having a free will apart from its head not how things work.