Does man have a libertarian free will?
- Thread starter UnitedWithChrist
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I posted the meme because it displays the reason why I use the phrase "free willers".
If someone makes it the constant topic of their theology, then it's appropriate to label them with this term.
By the way, I said that I do not think it is worthwhile for me to respond to rude individuals. I didn't claim I was never rude myself. In fact, I tend to word some of my comments in a very blunt way because my position is that people often don't get the point if they aren't bluntly addressed sometimes.
Scripture says this:
Proverbs 26:4-5
4 Answer not a fool according to his folly,
lest you be like him yourself.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly,
lest he be wise in his own eyes
(ESV Strong's)
There's sometimes that I don't answer a fool in a rude way, because it brings me down to their level. There are other times I do answer a fool in a rude way, because I don't want him to think he's right when he is wrong.
So, there are times I ignore a fool, and there are times I don't.
If interaction with him is going to cause me to be like him in terms of rudeness, I ignore him.
If avoiding interaction with him is going to make him think he's right, I don't ignore him and I speak bluntly to him. Others may also be swayed by his view.
If someone makes it the constant topic of their theology, then it's appropriate to label them with this term.
By the way, I said that I do not think it is worthwhile for me to respond to rude individuals. I didn't claim I was never rude myself. In fact, I tend to word some of my comments in a very blunt way because my position is that people often don't get the point if they aren't bluntly addressed sometimes.
Scripture says this:
Proverbs 26:4-5
4 Answer not a fool according to his folly,
lest you be like him yourself.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly,
lest he be wise in his own eyes
(ESV Strong's)
There's sometimes that I don't answer a fool in a rude way, because it brings me down to their level. There are other times I do answer a fool in a rude way, because I don't want him to think he's right when he is wrong.
So, there are times I ignore a fool, and there are times I don't.
If interaction with him is going to cause me to be like him in terms of rudeness, I ignore him.
If avoiding interaction with him is going to make him think he's right, I don't ignore him and I speak bluntly to him. Others may also be swayed by his view.
You don't "only use Scripture".
You use a lot of philosophical assertions.
In fact, I have seen posts where you glorify philosophy.
And, you aren't limiting philosophy to critical reasoning skills.
But, I will give you this..if you want to argue for libertarian free will and rejecting predestination, you had better depend on philosophy to do that, because the Bible certainly won't support that point of view.
You use a lot of philosophical assertions.
In fact, I have seen posts where you glorify philosophy.
And, you aren't limiting philosophy to critical reasoning skills.
But, I will give you this..if you want to argue for libertarian free will and rejecting predestination, you had better depend on philosophy to do that, because the Bible certainly won't support that point of view.
By the way, there are multiple people on this site that want a piece of me.
For instance, you certainly do. A Oneness guy also has asked me a lot of questions. And a Word of Faith guy also has attacked my posts.
So, you are really only one of many
Free-willers, non-Trinitarians, continuationists dispensationalists, and egalitarians all have pretty good reason to attack my posts.
I find the most annoying ones to be free-willers by the way
For instance, you certainly do. A Oneness guy also has asked me a lot of questions. And a Word of Faith guy also has attacked my posts.
So, you are really only one of many
Free-willers, non-Trinitarians, continuationists dispensationalists, and egalitarians all have pretty good reason to attack my posts.
I find the most annoying ones to be free-willers by the way
By the way, there are multiple people on this site that want a piece of me.
For instance, you certainly do. A Oneness guy also has asked me a lot of questions. And a Word of Faith guy also has attacked my posts.
So, you are really only one of many
Free-willers, non-Trinitarians, continuationists dispensationalists, and egalitarians all have pretty good reason to attack my posts.
I find the most annoying ones to be free-willers by the way
For instance, you certainly do. A Oneness guy also has asked me a lot of questions. And a Word of Faith guy also has attacked my posts.
So, you are really only one of many
Free-willers, non-Trinitarians, continuationists dispensationalists, and egalitarians all have pretty good reason to attack my posts.
I find the most annoying ones to be free-willers by the way
-
1
- Show all
As I have said, my position regarding this came from Scripture.
My only exposure was free-willers until about age 30. After I read the book of Romans in great detail, I came to accept justification by faith alone and eternal security. But, then comes Romans 9-11. And, it clearly teaches predestination in a Reformed sense.
I asked my free-willer pastor about this, and he told me what I was conveying was "Calvinism". That's the first time I heard the guy's name.
So, if you want to claim I was indoctrinated by reading Scripture, I'm happy with that
I know you guys really want to believe others were indoctrinated, but you were taught by God directly. You probably aren't even aware of all the free-willer indoctrination you received through your Sunday School teachers or parents.
My only exposure was free-willers until about age 30. After I read the book of Romans in great detail, I came to accept justification by faith alone and eternal security. But, then comes Romans 9-11. And, it clearly teaches predestination in a Reformed sense.
I asked my free-willer pastor about this, and he told me what I was conveying was "Calvinism". That's the first time I heard the guy's name.
So, if you want to claim I was indoctrinated by reading Scripture, I'm happy with that
I know you guys really want to believe others were indoctrinated, but you were taught by God directly. You probably aren't even aware of all the free-willer indoctrination you received through your Sunday School teachers or parents.
There's no such thing as pre-election.
There is election, period. God really chooses and man does not.
Actually you are the first person I've heard use the phrase "pre-election".
And what you really means is this:
I deny that God elects anyone.
Which is basically just a plain lie. I don't care who tells the like, it is simply a lie.
There is election, period. God really chooses and man does not.
Actually you are the first person I've heard use the phrase "pre-election".
And what you really means is this:
I deny that God elects anyone.
Which is basically just a plain lie. I don't care who tells the like, it is simply a lie.
As I have said, my position regarding this came from Scripture.
My only exposure was free-willers until about age 30. After I read the book of Romans in great detail, I came to accept justification by faith alone and eternal security. But, then comes Romans 9-11. And, it clearly teaches predestination in a Reformed sense.
I asked my free-willer pastor about this, and he told me what I was conveying was "Calvinism". That's the first time I heard the guy's name.
So, if you want to claim I was indoctrinated by reading Scripture, I'm happy with that
I know you guys really want to believe others were indoctrinated, but you were taught by God directly. You probably aren't even aware of all the free-willer indoctrination you received through your Sunday School teachers or parents.
My only exposure was free-willers until about age 30. After I read the book of Romans in great detail, I came to accept justification by faith alone and eternal security. But, then comes Romans 9-11. And, it clearly teaches predestination in a Reformed sense.
I asked my free-willer pastor about this, and he told me what I was conveying was "Calvinism". That's the first time I heard the guy's name.
So, if you want to claim I was indoctrinated by reading Scripture, I'm happy with that
I know you guys really want to believe others were indoctrinated, but you were taught by God directly. You probably aren't even aware of all the free-willer indoctrination you received through your Sunday School teachers or parents.
As for scripture it is poor interpretation and harmony of all scripture.
Philosophy is based on humanistic attempts, outside of God, to define man and his nature. Christianity is based on the word of God and allowing it to define man and his nature.
Libertarian free will is a philosophical assertion which is not biblical, because God does in fact control men, within the context of complementarianism.
I gave you an example of that, by stating that you have no biblical basis for believing in inerrancy of Scripture. If you don't believe that God controlled the words of the biblical writers, causing them to be inspired at the word level, within the context of their creaturely free will, then you don't have a biblical basis for inerrancy.
And, the control that is evidenced by inerrancy goes far beyond the Bible itself.
And, by the way, you must think pretty highly of yourself to think that I was in any way intimidated or brought to doubt by interaction with you
I was not. I don't even think I've brought up anything regarding your posts to my Reformed friends. If you really want to know what I've discussed with them in the last few days, we've discussed the book of Exodus, from chapters 1-4. Because those are the things Reformed people talk about amongst themselves...the Bible IN CONTEXT.
We talk some about free-willer claims but I personally would rather get away from that. Why allow our time to be intruded upon by their misunderstandings?
It's worthwhile to use some limited time here in order to torpedo the free-willer claims so others can see that the Reformed view has a reasonable basis, though.
By the way, the more you keep posting stuff, the harder it's going to be to get back to your #690.
Libertarian free will is a philosophical assertion which is not biblical, because God does in fact control men, within the context of complementarianism.
I gave you an example of that, by stating that you have no biblical basis for believing in inerrancy of Scripture. If you don't believe that God controlled the words of the biblical writers, causing them to be inspired at the word level, within the context of their creaturely free will, then you don't have a biblical basis for inerrancy.
And, the control that is evidenced by inerrancy goes far beyond the Bible itself.
And, by the way, you must think pretty highly of yourself to think that I was in any way intimidated or brought to doubt by interaction with you
I was not. I don't even think I've brought up anything regarding your posts to my Reformed friends. If you really want to know what I've discussed with them in the last few days, we've discussed the book of Exodus, from chapters 1-4. Because those are the things Reformed people talk about amongst themselves...the Bible IN CONTEXT.
We talk some about free-willer claims but I personally would rather get away from that. Why allow our time to be intruded upon by their misunderstandings?
It's worthwhile to use some limited time here in order to torpedo the free-willer claims so others can see that the Reformed view has a reasonable basis, though.
By the way, the more you keep posting stuff, the harder it's going to be to get back to your #690.
This is your claim.
And your claims are affected by the people you are listening to.
My position is that Reformed people pay closer attention to the Scripture than free-willers.
In fact, free-willers don't even look at catechisms and confessions for the most part. Most of them practice proof-texting.
Besides this, if you understood church history, you would know that Reformed believers are the primary reason for the exodus from Rome.
Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk. John Calvin was instrumental in early Reformed thought as well. Most of the Reformers were Reformed.
By the way, modern Lutheranism doesn't really reflect Martin Luther's teachings. Philip Melanchton led Lutherans away from his teachings. Luther wrote a prominent book called Bondage of the Will where he supported the concept of radical corruption (total depravity) which you would not agree with.
A large number of Christian scholars and authorities were Reformed up until Charles Finney's generation. And, Christianity has shown a horrible decline as a result of free-willer thought. A number of aberrant movements, including cults and those claiming weird spiritual manifestations, are essentially free-willers.
And your claims are affected by the people you are listening to.
My position is that Reformed people pay closer attention to the Scripture than free-willers.
In fact, free-willers don't even look at catechisms and confessions for the most part. Most of them practice proof-texting.
Besides this, if you understood church history, you would know that Reformed believers are the primary reason for the exodus from Rome.
Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk. John Calvin was instrumental in early Reformed thought as well. Most of the Reformers were Reformed.
By the way, modern Lutheranism doesn't really reflect Martin Luther's teachings. Philip Melanchton led Lutherans away from his teachings. Luther wrote a prominent book called Bondage of the Will where he supported the concept of radical corruption (total depravity) which you would not agree with.
A large number of Christian scholars and authorities were Reformed up until Charles Finney's generation. And, Christianity has shown a horrible decline as a result of free-willer thought. A number of aberrant movements, including cults and those claiming weird spiritual manifestations, are essentially free-willers.
-
1
- Show all
I believe that God foreknows those he elects. "Foreknowledge" means that he loved them first, with a distinguishing love.
I have given Scriptures to support this view.
Foreknowledge is not merely knowing in advance their faith decision.
He knows they will respond in faith and repentance because he gives them the new heart, and faith and repentance are produced from it. It is in the giving of the heart that assures their faith and repentance response.
God predestines or pre-determines who will receive this heart. The rest he allows to go to their own destruction.
Same as he allowed the vast majority of mankind to go to their destruction in the flood.
I have given Scriptures to support this view.
Foreknowledge is not merely knowing in advance their faith decision.
He knows they will respond in faith and repentance because he gives them the new heart, and faith and repentance are produced from it. It is in the giving of the heart that assures their faith and repentance response.
God predestines or pre-determines who will receive this heart. The rest he allows to go to their own destruction.
Same as he allowed the vast majority of mankind to go to their destruction in the flood.
I don't necessarily probe for a reaction.
I realize that people with aberrant theologies come here to teach their theology.
One group that comes here to teach their theology are free-willers of various stripes. They come here not only to teach their theology, but also to degrade Reformed believers with their propaganda.
I have seen it over and over again here.
They really don't meet much resistance here, though, since the site is mostly dominated by other free-willers. And, usually Reformed people get tired of responding to the same claims over and over and over again, and they leave.
And, I believe that's their intention. They win the battle by attrition. They tire out the Reformed response.
When I started doing jail ministry, I stopped coming here for the longest time. Since I'm not doing the ministry anymore, I am amusing myself with spending some time here. However, I won't let it dominate my personal study time and prayer time like I have done sometimes in the past.
It is more or less an amusing past time.
I think you mentioned that you and I are "ministry partners". I can tell you how that goes. Did you know that George Whitfield allowed John and Charles Wesley to shepherd converts that he made in England, while he journeyed to the USA to preach?
While he was gone, those two vipers started degrading Reformed theology. John Wesley was the worst of the two. By the time George Whitfield returned, he found that the congregations were alienated from him due to the efforts those two.
Yet, George Whitfield did not move against the Wesley brothers in this regard. He considered them to be friends and co-laborers.
I would not be so gracious as George Whitfield, nor would I leave two free-willer vipers in charge of congregations. And, I don't plan on working with free-willers anymore in ministry. I have a few free-willer friends that I think have been fairly cordial, but it's been a very few.
I realize that people with aberrant theologies come here to teach their theology.
One group that comes here to teach their theology are free-willers of various stripes. They come here not only to teach their theology, but also to degrade Reformed believers with their propaganda.
I have seen it over and over again here.
They really don't meet much resistance here, though, since the site is mostly dominated by other free-willers. And, usually Reformed people get tired of responding to the same claims over and over and over again, and they leave.
And, I believe that's their intention. They win the battle by attrition. They tire out the Reformed response.
When I started doing jail ministry, I stopped coming here for the longest time. Since I'm not doing the ministry anymore, I am amusing myself with spending some time here. However, I won't let it dominate my personal study time and prayer time like I have done sometimes in the past.
It is more or less an amusing past time.
I think you mentioned that you and I are "ministry partners". I can tell you how that goes. Did you know that George Whitfield allowed John and Charles Wesley to shepherd converts that he made in England, while he journeyed to the USA to preach?
While he was gone, those two vipers started degrading Reformed theology. John Wesley was the worst of the two. By the time George Whitfield returned, he found that the congregations were alienated from him due to the efforts those two.
Yet, George Whitfield did not move against the Wesley brothers in this regard. He considered them to be friends and co-laborers.
I would not be so gracious as George Whitfield, nor would I leave two free-willer vipers in charge of congregations. And, I don't plan on working with free-willers anymore in ministry. I have a few free-willer friends that I think have been fairly cordial, but it's been a very few.
Philosophy is based on humanistic attempts, outside of God, to define man and his nature. Christianity is based on the word of God and allowing it to define man and his nature.
Libertarian free will is a philosophical assertion which is not biblical, because God does in fact control men, within the context of complementarianism.
I gave you an example of that, by stating that you have no biblical basis for believing in inerrancy of Scripture. If you don't believe that God controlled the words of the biblical writers, causing them to be inspired at the word level, within the context of their creaturely free will, then you don't have a biblical basis for inerrancy.
And, the control that is evidenced by inerrancy goes far beyond the Bible itself.
And, by the way, you must think pretty highly of yourself to think that I was in any way intimidated or brought to doubt by interaction with you
I was not. I don't even think I've brought up anything regarding your posts to my Reformed friends. If you really want to know what I've discussed with them in the last few days, we've discussed the book of Exodus, from chapters 1-4. Because those are the things Reformed people talk about amongst themselves...the Bible IN CONTEXT.
We talk some about free-willer claims but I personally would rather get away from that. Why allow our time to be intruded upon by their misunderstandings?
It's worthwhile to use some limited time here in order to torpedo the free-willer claims so others can see that the Reformed view has a reasonable basis, though.
By the way, the more you keep posting stuff, the harder it's going to be to get back to your #690.
Libertarian free will is a philosophical assertion which is not biblical, because God does in fact control men, within the context of complementarianism.
I gave you an example of that, by stating that you have no biblical basis for believing in inerrancy of Scripture. If you don't believe that God controlled the words of the biblical writers, causing them to be inspired at the word level, within the context of their creaturely free will, then you don't have a biblical basis for inerrancy.
And, the control that is evidenced by inerrancy goes far beyond the Bible itself.
And, by the way, you must think pretty highly of yourself to think that I was in any way intimidated or brought to doubt by interaction with you
I was not. I don't even think I've brought up anything regarding your posts to my Reformed friends. If you really want to know what I've discussed with them in the last few days, we've discussed the book of Exodus, from chapters 1-4. Because those are the things Reformed people talk about amongst themselves...the Bible IN CONTEXT.
We talk some about free-willer claims but I personally would rather get away from that. Why allow our time to be intruded upon by their misunderstandings?
It's worthwhile to use some limited time here in order to torpedo the free-willer claims so others can see that the Reformed view has a reasonable basis, though.
By the way, the more you keep posting stuff, the harder it's going to be to get back to your #690.
My position is scripture which I have defended. You dont even address what I post have the time. Mostly ignore all scriptures against your belief. That is evident enough not to take you seriously.
Particularly what Scripture are you using?
I have addressed many of your Scriptures.
For instance you claimed I did not address John 3:16 when in fact I addressed it TWICE. Same with John 12:32.
I have addressed both of those.
You use typical free-willer arguments which are meaningless. For instance, with regards to John 3:16, Reformed theology is not inconsistent with it. What causes the person to believe is the issue. For you, you claim it is something the person creates within themselves. For us, we understand that God regenerates the person in order to create belief and repentance. And, this position is contextually proveable because Christ covers regeneration (being born again) with Nicodemus prior to John 3:16.
With regards to John 12:32, I explained this as well. John 6:44 teaches that all those who are drawn are resurrected on the last day, which is speaking about the resurrection of the just. So, if you claim all men are drawn by God, then in effect you must believe universalism in order to be consistent.
However, our position is that "all men" refers to both Jew and Gentile. Again, this is a valid contextual argument because it is in the context of a number of Greek Christians which come to the Feast and want to speak to Christ.
Apparently he did not speak to them, but following this, he indicates that all men will be drawn once he is "lifted up".
We would place this in the context of the idea that only Jews would be saved. Christ was telling the disciples that "all men" would be drawn in the context of the Jew/Gentile distinction.
John 12:20-26 20 Now among those who went up to worship at the feast were some Greeks. 21 So these came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, and asked him, “Sir, we wish to see Jesus.” 22 Philip went and told Andrew; Andrew and Philip went and told Jesus. 23 And Jesus answered them, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. 24 Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. 25 Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. 26 If anyone serves me, he must follow me; and where I am, there will my servant be also. If anyone serves me, the Father will honor him.
(ESV Strong's)
John 12:32 32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”
(ESV Strong's)
Notice the context. Greeks come to see Jesus. He says when he is lifted up he will draw "all people" to himself. He is talking about the Jew/Gentile distinction. This will be eliminated after his resurrection.
If you deluge me with a ton of free-willer claims at once I am not going to be able to respond quickly. Like I have said, I believe you are trying to win the discussion by a "war of attrition"..simply tiring me out with answering the same questions over and over again.
If you want a good discussion, though, allow me to ask you questions, and you give me your responses. The first one I would have is this: what do you understand total depravity to teach, in regards to Reformed theology?
You claim it is a false doctrine. I wonder if you understand what it teaches accurately. So, present your understanding of what total depravity teaches, carefully avoiding straw mans, because you know that is what I am going to be looking for. That would be an interesting starting point.
And don't deluge me with multiple posts before I have responded to your previous post. This would be an orderly conversation that will help me to understand what you understand regarding Reformed theology.
By the way, your appreciation of philosophy is not limited to critical reasoning. What I am talking about is "humanism". I am not primarily talking about use of critical reasoning or logic. Maybe that is the word I should use, but that is somewhat cloudy as well, because humanism is used to describe the study of looking at original documents related to man's wisdom. In that sense, Erasmus was a humanist.
Here's a definition of humanism:
1) an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems. 2) a system of thought criticized as being centered on the notion of the rational, autonomous self and ignoring the unintegrated and conditioned nature of the individual.
If anyone claims to believe in libertarian free will, they are simply denying what the Bible teaches, and believing humanistic teachings. Scripture does not teach autonomous (libertarian) free will.
I have addressed many of your Scriptures.
For instance you claimed I did not address John 3:16 when in fact I addressed it TWICE. Same with John 12:32.
I have addressed both of those.
You use typical free-willer arguments which are meaningless. For instance, with regards to John 3:16, Reformed theology is not inconsistent with it. What causes the person to believe is the issue. For you, you claim it is something the person creates within themselves. For us, we understand that God regenerates the person in order to create belief and repentance. And, this position is contextually proveable because Christ covers regeneration (being born again) with Nicodemus prior to John 3:16.
With regards to John 12:32, I explained this as well. John 6:44 teaches that all those who are drawn are resurrected on the last day, which is speaking about the resurrection of the just. So, if you claim all men are drawn by God, then in effect you must believe universalism in order to be consistent.
However, our position is that "all men" refers to both Jew and Gentile. Again, this is a valid contextual argument because it is in the context of a number of Greek Christians which come to the Feast and want to speak to Christ.
Apparently he did not speak to them, but following this, he indicates that all men will be drawn once he is "lifted up".
We would place this in the context of the idea that only Jews would be saved. Christ was telling the disciples that "all men" would be drawn in the context of the Jew/Gentile distinction.
John 12:20-26 20 Now among those who went up to worship at the feast were some Greeks. 21 So these came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, and asked him, “Sir, we wish to see Jesus.” 22 Philip went and told Andrew; Andrew and Philip went and told Jesus. 23 And Jesus answered them, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. 24 Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. 25 Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. 26 If anyone serves me, he must follow me; and where I am, there will my servant be also. If anyone serves me, the Father will honor him.
(ESV Strong's)
John 12:32 32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”
(ESV Strong's)
Notice the context. Greeks come to see Jesus. He says when he is lifted up he will draw "all people" to himself. He is talking about the Jew/Gentile distinction. This will be eliminated after his resurrection.
If you deluge me with a ton of free-willer claims at once I am not going to be able to respond quickly. Like I have said, I believe you are trying to win the discussion by a "war of attrition"..simply tiring me out with answering the same questions over and over again.
If you want a good discussion, though, allow me to ask you questions, and you give me your responses. The first one I would have is this: what do you understand total depravity to teach, in regards to Reformed theology?
You claim it is a false doctrine. I wonder if you understand what it teaches accurately. So, present your understanding of what total depravity teaches, carefully avoiding straw mans, because you know that is what I am going to be looking for. That would be an interesting starting point.
And don't deluge me with multiple posts before I have responded to your previous post. This would be an orderly conversation that will help me to understand what you understand regarding Reformed theology.
By the way, your appreciation of philosophy is not limited to critical reasoning. What I am talking about is "humanism". I am not primarily talking about use of critical reasoning or logic. Maybe that is the word I should use, but that is somewhat cloudy as well, because humanism is used to describe the study of looking at original documents related to man's wisdom. In that sense, Erasmus was a humanist.
Here's a definition of humanism:
1) an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems. 2) a system of thought criticized as being centered on the notion of the rational, autonomous self and ignoring the unintegrated and conditioned nature of the individual.
If anyone claims to believe in libertarian free will, they are simply denying what the Bible teaches, and believing humanistic teachings. Scripture does not teach autonomous (libertarian) free will.