A Careful And Strict Inquiry Into The Modern Prevailing Notions Of That Freedom Of The Will: Which Is Supposed To Be Essential To Moral Agency, Virtue ... Reward And Punishment, Praise And Blame ...

The Works of Jonathan Edwards: With a Memoir of His Life and Character

by Jonathan Edwards

This is a reproduction of a book published before 1923. This book may have occasional imperfections
such as missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. that were either part of the original artifact,
or were introduced by the scanning process. We believe this work is culturally important, and despite the imperfections,
have elected to bring it back into print as part of our continuing commitment to the preservation of printed works
worldwide. We appreciate your understanding of the imperfections in the preservation process, and hope you enjoy this valuable book.



++++

The below data was compiled from various identification fields in the bibliographic record of this title. This data is provided as an additional tool in helping to ensure edition

++++


A Careful And Strict Inquiry Into The Modern Prevailing Notions Of That Freedom Of The Which Is Supposed To Be Essential To Moral Agency, Virtue And Vice, Reward And Punishment, Praise And Blame ...

Jonathan Edwards

R. Carter & brothers, 1875

Free will and determinism

Genres: Theology, Christian, Philosophy, Christianity, Religion, Nonfiction, Classics

202 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1754

About the author

Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database named Jonathan Edwards.

Jonathan Edwards was the most eminent American philosopher-theologian of his time, and a key figure in what has come to be called the First Great Awakening of the 1730s and 1740s.

The only son in a family of eleven children, he entered Yale in September, 1716 when he was not yet thirteen and graduated four years later (1720) as valedictorian. He received his Masters three years later. As a youth, Edwards was unable to accept the Calvinist sovereignty of God. However, in 1721 he came to what he called a "delightful conviction" though meditation on 1 Timothy 1:17. From that point on, Edwards delighted in the sovereignty of God. Edwards later recognized this as his conversion to Christ.

In 1727 he was ordained minister at Northampton and assistant to his maternal grandfather, Solomon Stoddard. He was a student minister, not a visiting pastor, his rule being thirteen hours of study a day. In the same year, he married Sarah Pierpont, then age seventeen, daughter of Yale founder James Pierpont (1659–1714). In total, Jonathan and Sarah had eleven children.

Stoddard died on February 11th, 1729, leaving to his grandson the difficult task of the sole ministerial charge of one of the largest and wealthiest congregations in the colony. Throughout his time in Northampton his preaching brought remarkable religious revivals.

Yet, tensions flamed as Edwards would not continue his grandfather's practice of open communion. Stoddard believed that communion was a "converting ordinance." Surrounding congregations had been convinced of this, and as Edwards became more convinced that this was harmful, his public disagreement with the idea caused his dismissal in 1750.

Edwards then moved to Stockbridge, Massachusetts, then a frontier settlement, where he ministered to a small congregation and served as missionary to the Housatonic Indians. There, having more time for study and writing, he completed his celebrated work, The Freedom of the Will (1754).

Edwards was elected president of the College of New Jersey (later Princeton University) in early 1758. He was a popular choice, for he had been a friend of the College since its inception. He died of fever at the age of fifty-four following experimental inoculation for smallpox and was buried in the President's Lot in the Princeton cemetery beside his son-in-law, Aaron Burr.

Reviews

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 5 out of 5]

Edwards’ argument, despite the close logic and dense prose, is fairly simple. The will is that by which the mind chooses. It chooses by its perception the greatest. The will isn’t the cause of action. It is the effect. The will isn’t just a faculty. It is the mind choosing. Every act of the will presupposes a cause. This cause is the “motive.” The strongest motive determines the action of the will.

That’s the argument in a nutshell. The trick, however, is seeing how this cashes out. Edwards anticipated the discipline of analytic and philosophical theology. He gives extended treatments concerning necessity and identity. He uses the concepts (if not the language) of Possible Worlds Semantics that we would later see in Plantinga, Chisholm, and Lewis.

Edwards sees our actions, if not all of reality, as a string of necessary connections. A thing is necessary when it cannot be otherwise. Necessity is a fixed connection between things (e.g., the subject and predicate of a proposition). Contingency is when something has no previous connection. If we deny necessity, then we will have something like atoms in the universe which aren’t connected to each other.

For Edwards, to even speak of free will is a category confusion. Liberty is the power to do as one pleases. It doesn’t belong under the category of “Will,” but agency. Agents are free, wills are not. Here is where he begins his refutation:

JE sees a chain of causes in each act of the will. The key question: is this first act of the Will free or not? If it is free (in the sense of uncaused), then we have an uncaused Cause (God). If it isn’t free, then the Will is not free.

Even if the Arminian wants to salvage some aspect of free will, for Edwards he must come to grips that even that (relatively) free will is still determined by something, so it can’t be truly free. He won’t let the Arminian claim indifference as the necessary (!) condition of free will. If the mind or will is indifferent between two options, then it cannot choose between two options, for it has no reason to choose either! Further, it entails a contradiction; namely, that the mind is both in a state of inclination and a state of equilibrium.

In the last section of the book Edwards rebuts final Arminian charges about authorship of sin, morality, etc. He does give one interesting observation: an Arminian will say that we can’t be held responsible for our actions if they are necessarily caused. Edwards counters: We condemn or praise an act, not in its cause, but in the nature of the act. If we blame the cause of an act, then we have to ask why that Cause is evil, which moves the discussion back to a previous cause, and so on. When someone does wrong, it is because he is doing as he pleases, and we blame him for doing as he pleases. We do not speculate on the Causes of his actions (at least not immediately).

Conclusion

This book rightly established Edwards as the greatest philosopher from American soil. True, some of his arguments need more elaboration and discussions of free will have advanced, but Edwards must be dealt with in any discussion of the issue.

[Don Incognito · Rating 4 out of 5]

This treatise is highly insightful, and stimulated me to consider ideas that had not occurred to me. However, due to the now-archaic language combined with the inherently abstract nature of the subject matter, Freedom of the Will is extremely difficult to read. A headache. Especially because Edwards spends probably half the essay (or more) defining terms. As Edwards is a metaphysician discussing abstract ideas here, it sounds like what I remember of the work of Gottfried von Leibniz when I read some of it, a long time ago. As an English major with training in technical writing, I suspect that if I rewrote it in contemporary English but took care to preserve all Edwards' thought, the new essay might be half the length of the original (25 pages in my book).

What I learned, and the conclusions I drew from its implications, relates mainly to the nature of the phrase "free will" as commonly understood. Essentially, Edwards points out that phrase is nonsensical (if taken literally, not sneaking any other meanings into the words). He defines "will" as the ability to choose (a definition shared by John Locke, he says). But he defines "free" almost identically--as simply having the ability to choose. Therefore, "free will" taken literally (as "will that is free") means "the ability to choose has the ability to choose." In other words, it means the will has a will of its own.

Thinking at length about the implications of this, I wondered who invented (or, probably more significantly, popularized) the phrase "free will," and also wondered what phrase we used before that to describe human volition. I don't know; but whoever popularized the phrase long ago, I guessed what they really meant. The key is the meaning of "free," and whoever it was did not have Edwards' definition in mind. They evidently meant "free" as in "free agent": the idea of one's choices being self-determined, uncaused and uninfluenced has been read into the word "free" and attached to the word "will." It's a certain soteriological position: whether to call that "Arminian," "semi-Pelagian" or even "Pelagian," I'm not sure anymore, since I learned that soteriology is a much broader spectrum than I thought. All I know it that it's the polar opposite of Calvinism and that's why Edwards puts so much effort into dissecting it.

In opposition to this phrase "free will" that he has exposed as being theologically loaded, Edwards argues that human will, choice, exists but is not self-determining; God's will acts on it. In support of this idea, he states that a man is free but his will is not free. Freedom is a property of a man, not his will. I think this idea is less simple than it sounds, but if one wraps one's mind around it--a man is free but his will is not free--it may loosen any certainty one may feel that man is a free agent, and help one consider with an open mind the idea of election.

That's why I found this essay illuminating, once I teased the salient points out of the archaic language and the extensive space given to mere definitions. I was delighted.

[Mike Reynolds · Rating 5 out of 5]

Edwards excellently argues for the validity of Calvinistic theology. He demonstrates through cause and effect that the human will is not self-originating or self-determining; that God's foreknowledge demands determinism; that the present world is the best possible world for the purpose of the greatest possible good and that though God is the permitter and designer of sins existence He is neither the fountain, agent, or promoter of sin. His permission of sin is ONLY for the greatest possible good (such as Acts 4:27-28 plainly states). He also demonstrates many other truths and successfully argues for the freedom of God to do that which is most glorifying to Himself.

Blessed to have read this and strongly recommend it to anyone who may want to know more about God's sovereign rule over all things.

[James Smith · Rating 5 out of 5]

Just finished teaching a doctoral seminar on this text. It should be regarded as one of the classics, not only of American theology, but American literature.

[Ian Bennett · Rating 5 out of 5]

I’m officially an Edwards fan boy

[Joshua · Rating 5 out of 5]

A difficult read as far as immediate comprehension goes. I will definitely be reading it again to help solidify my understanding. The arguments, as laid out by Edwards, seem to hold sufficient weight as far as the concept of compatibilism goes. It was very helpful for furthering my understanding of human will in contrast to God's perfect divine sovereignty.

[Kofi Opoku · Rating 4 out of 5]

A profound but challenging read. Edwards’ treatise on the will proves that he was not just a brilliant preacher but also an astute philosopher. He reasonably defends the Calvinistic doctrine of God’s foreknowledge against the inconsistent and corrupted version held by the Arminians. My only reservation was how seemingly airtight his arguments were, which sometimes made him sound repetitive. I wish he were slightly more elliptical in his reasoning to make it more readable—still a masterpiece.

[Scott Roper · Rating 1 out of 5]

I wonder if those wearing "Jonathan Edwards is my Homeboy" t-shirts have ever actually read him. Edwards writing is the exact opposite of John Owen. With Owen, if you blink, you miss at least one idea. Edwards, it seems, would never write one hundred words when one thousand would do. I found myself skimming if I got the idea of the argument from the first few sentences of a paragraph.

Putting his laborious writing style aside, there is not a whole lot to commend here. Edwards presents a mechanical determinism that has no room for contingency. This is in contrast to the balance of earlier Reformed confessional orthodoxy. It is hard to see how Edwards is "compatible" with the nuance of Chapter 3.1 or Chapter 5.2 of the Westminster Confession. Those seeking a Reformed understanding of the will should look elsewhere.

[Christian Barrett · Rating 4 out of 5]

Edwards offers a biblical and logical critique of Arminian notions concerning the “freedom of the will” or simply the notion of libertarian free will. He starts off by first defining many words concerning “the will.” He then moves to the argument that he is critiquing. Finally he presents his own alternative and defends the Arminian critiques of his own thought.

Bondage of the Will by Martin Luther was written with a notion of arrogance. This is not the case for Jonathan Edwards. Edwards writes with such humility, and he relies heavily on the Word of God to depend his position. A great read and a necessary one for those interested in the Calvinist and Arminian divide.

4 stars because the version I read this in was in old English and small print. I hope you can find a better issue of this great Christian work.

[Bailey Marissa · Rating 4 out of 5]

(3.8)

It's really good, but it is written in response to another book, so if you want the full effect you'd need to read that first.

Recommended 12+ for topics younger readers may not understand.

[Chad · Rating 3 out of 5]

In "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God," Jonathan Edwards famously declares "The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked. His wrath towards you burns like fire..."

In his scientific writings, Edwards investigates the alleged phenomenon of flying spiders, and discovers that they merely float on air while dangling from a thread. By capturing flying insects, he concludes that spiders "[carry off and bury] the corrupting nauseousness of our air...[to] the bottom of the ocean where it will do no harm..."

_Freedom of the Will_ is itself something of a spiderweb: constructed of myriad finely-weaved arguments, systematically enlarged through relentless repetition, with which to ensnare and dispose of his nauseating Arminian prey.

Such formidable close-knitting is effective, yet tedious. I strongly recommend reading the online version edited by Jonathan Bennett. He eliminates much of the monotony without sacrificing the quality of the argument. Find it here: https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/asse...

In any case, I submit that the entire beautiful edifice comes unraveled in part 4, section 9. It is here that Edwards attempts to explain the origin of evil. The fundamental conceit that he had methodically attacked throughout the preceding (unedited) 300 pages--the central premise of the entire Arminian philosophy--is that man possess a power of free will beyond God's control. In the Calvinist scheme of things, such exemptions are impossible: everything has been predetermined by God and every effect follows necessarily from its prior cause.

But in this section, Edwards makes a fatal concession by introducing the concept of "permission." God, he says, "permits" evil without actually causing it. In what does this permissiveness consists, if not in some sort of derogation of power?

Edwards attempts to illustrate his point with a metaphor: the sun is "the source of light and heat"; its absence does not "cause" cold and darkness. Fair enough. But the plausibility of the metaphor rests on the fact that the sun is finite (unlike God), and therefore naturally (or willfully) hindered in its ability to illuminate all bodies simultaneously. He effectively adopts the Arminian position, and (in the same section) unironically dismisses the difficulty he is in by saying the Arminians suffer from it equally.

He also argues that sin is allowed to exist only insofar as it is a means to a greater good, i.e., "wise, holy, and most excellent ends and purposes." From this perspective, evil is a relative illusion, since all is part of God's plan (for example, the crucifixion of Christ). However, this is inconsistent with his notion of moral virtue and vice, and his claim that evil is "infinitely to be abhorred." It is consistent, however, with his reputation as a fire-and-brimstone preacher. The loathsome spider, he believes, deserves its tortured fate, and we should even adjust our expectations so as to take delight in its burning.

[Ty · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is probably the greatest book I've ever read(excluding the Bible). I wish there was a button for more stars, because I think this book deserves it. I don't think I can do this book justice with a short review. One could probably write several books solely based on this one book. That being said here's a short review.

In this book Edwards argues against the Arminianism belief that man has free will. He clearly shows that Calvinism is more logical and clearly more biblical. His main logical point is that an act of the will would have prior acts that have followed, there by making the first act not free. a long line of prior acts would logically prove there to be no free will.

Some of Jonathan Edwards greatest thoughts and arguments are the idea of "moral and natural inability, virtue and vice, and that the will is always, and in every individual act, necessarily determined by the strongest motive and so was always unable to go against the motive which all things considered has now the greatest strength and advantage to move the will". He defines philosophical concepts and terms like “necessity,” “contingency,” and “ability”throughout.

"A strong habit of virtue, and a great degree of holiness, may cause a moral Inability to love wickedness in general, and may render a man unable to take complacence in wicked persons or things; or to choose a wicked in preference to a virtuous life". In the end, Edwards gives reasons why man in still morally and ethically responsible. while maintaining the view of Gods sovereignty. I think this book helped me to see more of Gods mercy on his elect. Very insightful and helpful in my faith. I Also think that I believed some thoughts about arminianism, and now would say that I am definitely a Calvinist.

Again defiantly not a worthy review of such a heavy book. would most definitely recommend the read.

[Rod Innis · Rating 2 out of 5]

I debated giving this book only one star because, in reality, I did not enjoy this book. But it did have some good things to say so I gave it two stars. Most of my review, however, will be critical of the book. I have written down some of my comments as I was reading. I record them here in some sort of order but not really in an organized critique.

In the first 15 chapters, the author quotes a good deal from his opponents - Arminians. He holds a Calvinist viewpoint but he does not define or defend his Calvinist views as much as he attacks, as against common sense, the Arminian view. He quotes his opponents a lot but makes almost no use of Scripture. In fact, rarely does he quote the Bible in the whole book, seemingly using his attacks against the Armenian view as against common sense. So he uses reason and logic to make his point, not Scripture.

His arguments are so long and obscure that at the end of a chapter, it is not clear what was his point. Entire chapters are used to define terms. Sometimes at the end of a chapter, I am unsure what he is for and what he is against!

Some of the things that he seems to be arguing against are things that make no sense at all and I have never heard anyone state them. He also seems, at times, to express the views of his opponents without actually quoting them.

He uses very long sentences so often at the end of a sentence, I can't remember how it started. He repeats the same arguments over and over, at times belaboring a point to the point of silliness.

Jonathan Edwards was a great man, who had a great influence on American Christianity. Many very godly men have learned a lot from his writings. Perhaps some of the problem that I had with this book lies in my failure to understand what he was saying. But for most modern readers, this book will not really be helpful.

[Ryan Hawkins · Rating 5 out of 5]

I finished this late in January, but I have been working on a more complete review and summary of the book, which is why I didn't mention it here yet. This work was so interesting and solid that I want to summarize all his arguments and points, and then regurgitate them for others. I am fully Reformed soteriologically, and yet I heard so many new (and extremely compelling) arguments in the book that I'd never read before. This was surprising. In my opinion, he completely shows why Arminianism cannot be true, and he does so not only through Scripture, but mainly through logic in this work. In other writings of his, he of course shows that Reformed theology is clearly biblical, but here he wants to focus simply on the philosophical reasons Arminians hold, and he shows that their logic, especially concerning 'free will,' simply does not work—again, not merely biblically (which 'free will' isn't found anywhere in the Bible), but logically as well.

In short, it was phenomenal. Not easy to read, but that is why I want to write a summary and review.

So a review/summary will be coming, most likely on my site (seekingformore.com). I wanted it to be done by now, but I'd rather take my time and do it well—for my own sake, for my future ministry, and for anyone who wants to know his brilliant arguments without reading the book.

But as for now, here is a jumbled list of his main points and arguments. If they make no sense to you, that's okay and sort of expected. That's why I'm writing the longer review and summary. But maybe they'll intrigue you—and you might even pick up Edwards' book!

Important New Terms and Ideas
1. Moral vs natural inability
2. Freedom, choosing without constraint and restraint
3. Moral and natural causes and effects
4. Preference and lack of indifference
5. Moral vs natural necessity, relating to responsibility, to praise and to blame

Numbered Main Ideas
1. There is a true and important difference between moral inability and natural inability
2. Freedom is to do as one pleases, according to their choice, without constraint or restraint upon their choice.
1. The Will isn’t free, the person is; the will is used to execute his freedom.
3. Nothing occurs without a cause. Therefore, there is no such thing as a neutral, non-connected act of the will.
4. There are moral and natural causes.
5. To will is to have a preference based upon some sort of understanding.***(reword?)
6. There is no such thing as indifference in the will, which is foundational for the notion of ‘free will.’
7. Therefore, ’free will’—meaning, a self-determining, non-connected, and/or indifferent will—does not exist. Instead, our will is connected morally to many causes, effects, and moral bents in our heart.
8. Freedom consists in acting according to our choosing, not as acting from neutrality or indifference
9. Yet isn’t this sort of ‘freedom’ (meaning, at least morally able to choose both sides) necessary for moral agency, for praise and blame? Not at all. This ‘freedom’ doesn’t exist anywhere (see points above), and it clearly does not exist in God, in Christ. It is not that God just does not sin. He cannot (it is morally impossible) according to Scripture.
10. But why responsible is morally necessary? There is a manifest and clear difference between natural inability and responsibility compared to moral inability and responsibility.
11. Therefore, the idea of moral ‘free will’—as defined by indifference, self-determination, non-connectedness, and/or the moral ability to always choose between good or bad—is not needed in order for someone to be responsible. God is not free like this—he is morally unable to sin, and we aren’t either—we are morally unable to do good on our own.
12. What if God gives them up. Are they then not responsible? No. It is their moral evil in it, even if it is necessary due to bent. See Judas.
13. But if we’re bent like this, and say it is necessary for one to do good, then why do they deserve praise? There is a manifest and clear difference between natural and moral necessity. Natural necessity brings no praise. Moral necessity does bring praise.
14. In fact, moral necessity adds to one’s praise and to one’s blame.
15. Are we then machines because of our moral inability and God’s sovereignty. By no means. We instead are very bent—so bent that we are unable to choose God and good. In this way, we act freely, without constraint or restraint. But we do not have self-determining, indifferent wills. Instead, we are bent. Hence, the biblical and Calvinistic idea of fallen man isn’t illogical, but in fact is more logical than the idea of a ‘free will’
16. Overarching Argument: God is said to be totally sovereign, doing all he pleases and more. If ‘free will’ were real in the sense many talk about it (which it manifestly isn’t) then God himself (even foreseeing everything) would be subject to man’s will ultimately. This is totally unbiblical and is impossible with statements about his sovereignty over all things and time.
17. Defenses: Is God then the author of sin? No. He may permit evil and sin to occur for a greater good.
18. Defenses: What about what God wills, like all to be saved? There are evidently (as all who hold to belief in the Bible must agree) two “wills” in God in Scripture.
19. Defenses: Why does God command things we cannot then do? All agree that he commands obedience, and all agree that we cannot attain that.
20. Practically, this idea of ‘free will’ is not only unbiblical, but leads men to think they can will whatever whenever they want, when in fact they can’t (are truly, morally unable)
21. Concluding: Arminianism, not Calvinism, is founded upon abstract ideas, about ‘free will’ that does not exist in reality as we all know.
22. Concluding: Total depravity, irresistible grace, personal election, limited atonement, and perseverance of the saints all are not only eminent in Scripture, but because of who God is and our moral inability, they therefore must follow.
23. Concluding: Calvinism (surprising to some, maybe) actually is more agreeable to reason. To claim that we are self-determining and not affected by causes, or to claim that we are morally neutral in every decision, or to claim that one must be able to choose both good and right to be responsible (since God cannot), is actually not reasonable.
24. Concluding: Calvinism alone leads no one to boast in God’s presence.

[Chase Cohee · Rating 5 out of 5]

Classic treatment highlighting the philosophical issues of the Arminian ideas of liberty and the self-determining will. Edwards’ analysis of the Arminian idea that the will’s determinisms are “uncaused” provides an interesting parallel to naturalists who speak of the natural realm being self-existent and without an ultimate cause. He also vindicates the idea of “moral necessity”, i.e. a will being naturally inclined in a certain direction by virtue and vice inherent in one’s nature. In response to the Arminian charge that this view of man negates the legitimacy of praise or reprimand (“how can a man be praised or condemned for what is inherent in his nature?”) Edwards reminds the reader that God is justly praised for what is inherent in His nature. Might be helpful to begin by reading Chapters 28 & 29 for the distinction he provides between “natural necessity” and “moral necessity”. As a whole, the book is a highly philosophical work - a lot of this discussion will probably never come up in a dialogue with the run-of-the-mill Arminian, but the basic ideas are important for understanding the essential differences between biblical Calvinism and Arminianism.

[Nate Bate · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm glad to have finally read this book (er, I mean listen to). I recently read Calvin's handling of the will, and I was was somewhat disappointed. Jonathan Edwards, in my semi-informed opinion, does a much better job of handling the topic. I listed to this book in 2x speed, not trying to totally master the book. I plan to actually read it sometime soon as well. I also look forward to reading some of the Arminian sources that Edwards references.

Edwards is brilliant for sure; however with my cursory listening of this book, my opinion is that the basic premise is very simple. Perhaps that contributes to Edwards' brilliance - he takes this simple premise and applies it doggedly and exhaustively. This book is not a biblical exposition, however it does pull from theology. The book is throughly a logical application of theology with logical refutations of those who hold the Arminian view.

On a personal note, as I listened to this book, it was interesting how my brain responded - it kept on producing visual images and interrelations.

[Nicholas Abraham · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a thick read, there is no doubt. It is such not so much in length but in depth. Edwards was deep into conversation with a number of his contemporaries regarding the nature of liberty and the will. I’m very thankful for his frequent summary statements, because I found it easy to get lost in his argumentation. He makes a clear case for a biblically rich, metaphysically informed, and philosophically conversant defense of the true nature of the will and it’s freedom as well as the effect the Fall has on the will.

[Matthew Bonzon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Best argument/defense for a reformed understanding of predestination. He addresses everything and his argument is truly airtight, though this is easily the hardest book I’ve read. It can be hard to follow, but if you’re up for the challenge it’ll be a truly edifying experience!

If you are going to read this. Know that the seemingly wolfish clothing of the doctrines of grace have a tender lamb under them. It’s also good not to forget the intense enjoyment Jonathan Edwards wants the reader to have and a vibrant pursuit of personal holiness.

[Matthew · Rating 4 out of 5]

A well-reasoned treatise on the nature of liberty and self-determination. I particularly enjoyed Edwards' discussion toward the end of the book about whether we can say that God is the author of sin.

[Brandon Vaughan · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was so intrigued by this book. Edwards was a BRILLIANT Man of God. This book was deep yet readable for the most part (A couple of times he lost me). One thing is for sure, he obliterates the Pelagian concept of Libertarian free will. There’s a reason this book is considered a classic, as well as Edwards most sought after work. I plan on reading it again in the future to try to get a full grasp of his finer points.

[Ronni Kurtz · Rating 5 out of 5]

On the short list of "must read" for any theology student.

Was my third time through the book, get's better every time.

[Willem Hanssen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Once again, if you think you are smart at all, pick up this book and be humbled.

I mean wow. Starting at tending the flames of revival in America, and in his spare time, writing a treatise on Free Will, with an understanding that surpasses everyone alive, and perhaps everyone dead?

[C · Rating 2 out of 5]

I skimmed this. I almost gave up, but I've heard good things about it from R.C. Sproul and others, so I continued skimming. It's difficult to understand due to its age and Edwards being a metaphysician. Edwards defends the view that humans have free will, and thus deserve rewards or punishment for their free actions.

Notes
A person wills that which is most pleasing at the time, all things considered.

"moral Inability consists in the opposition or want of inclination. For when a person is unable to will or choose such a thing, through a defect of motives, or prevalence of contrary motives, it is the same thing as his being unable through the want of an inclination, or the prevalence of a contrary inclination."

"Liberty" simply means the power and opportunity for one to do what he wills or chooses, regardless of the cause of that choice.

Bible teaches God has an absolute and certain foreknowledge of the free actions of moral agents. In Bible, God predicts events that depend on moral conduct of particular persons. In Bible, God predicts moral actions of people, as individuals, groups, nations.

Past events by definition necessarily exist (they must have happened), because they can't now be changed. If God can truly, infallibly foreknow events, they must necessarily exist prior to their occurrence (they must happen). The things connected with those necessary events are also necessary, to ensure necessary existence of necessary events. Similarly, the free actions of moral agents connected with those necessary events are also necessary.

If God can certainly know future events, they must certainly be. How could God have certain knowledge of future events if the events aren't certain?

God is immutable, and it's impossible that His knowledge should change. So a future event of which He has certain knowledge can't change, because that would change His knowledge. "Nothing is more impossible than that the immutable God should be changed, by the succession of time; who comprehends all things, from eternity to eternity, in one, most perfect, and unalterable view."

If all free acts of will are determined by will itself (by previous choice), they are all fixed by previous act (their cause) and thus necessary (they must occur). So all free acts of will are also necessary. Thus necessity isn't inconsistent with liberty.

Some say there can be no virtue or vice, reward or punishment for actions that are necessary. God's character is holy and His will is necessarily determined to good, yet that does not make him unworthy of praise. While on earth, Christ's holy behavior was necessary (it could not be otherwise), yet He received praise and rewards.

A wish to be good for the purpose of avoiding consequences is not a sincere desire or will to be good.

A person who does the best they can without having morally good intentions doesn't get moral "credit" for that action because of the lack of good intentions, regardless of their actions. Nothing in reason or nature tells us that God will grant salvation to those who are sincere (do the best they can) but lack morally good intentions.

There is as real a difference between acting and being caused to act as between living and being made to live. Action may be the effect of some other cause besides the agent/being that acts, as life may be the effect of some other cause besides the being that lives.

A person can't wish they were good and loved God yet lack the will, because the will can't be against itself.

Some try to excuse bad behavior by saying, "he can't help it," yet when that person's bad behavior has a negative effect on them, suddenly they blame the one who behaved badly. This is inconsistent.

If a rebel is in prison and a prince opens the prison and commands the rebel to come out, but the rebel refuses the offer out of his vile temper, it's not fair to say the rebel was unable to obey the command. It's not the same situation as if a man in prison repented and wanted to come out, but the prince didn't open the prison for him.

A human isn't a machine; he has reason, understanding, will, volition, choice. He has liberty to act according to his choice, and do what he pleases, and is capable of moral acts which are worthy of praise or punishment.

[John Lunger · Rating 4 out of 5]

Disclaimer: this is my first read through. I will eventually come back to this, but in the meantime these are my initial thoughts.

I am writing this as I have just finished the last page. Probably the most challenging book I have ever read, which is commonly accepted by most readers of Edward’s work.

Based on the limited understanding that I have, this book was broken in 4 main parts:
1. Definitions (laying the foundation),
2. The debunking of Free Will
3. The defense of the Calvinist position of “necessity” in humans and how we are still responsible
4. How God is still righteous in a “necessary” universe.

3 of the 4 sections were very clear to me, while one of the sections intellectually hit me in the face with a frying pan and then promptly continued to kick me while I was down.

The book isn’t really like a difficulty curve, as some have expressed it to be, starting with simple definitions and then slowly diving into the crux of the argument, - it’s more a difficulty staircase. Though I never found any of it “light reading” per se, the first half of the book (part 1 and 2) seemed straightforward enough that I could stick with the topics as long as I was actively thinking.

So part 3, was difficult. And it was also all of the synonyms for difficult. While Edward’s overarching themes are very clear, he doesn’t hesitate to dive straight into the weeds to flesh these themes out while also leveraging all of the metaphysical lexicon. Due to this, I continuously had an on-rush of ideas so strong that I found it incredibly difficult to continue to read as well as comprehend Edward’s justifications.

I did find, what I call part 4 of the book, the sections on God’s righteousness, VERY illuminating and as eloquent and encompassing as one can be in just a few sections. I highly recommend this part of the book - as it rides the fine line of challenging the reader intellectually while still not crushing him.

Definitely a book to return to and one that is a necessary read - as the ideas addressed are ones that weigh heavily on the mind but are ones that cannot be, in their full detail and entirety, held in the mind for an extended period of time for an average person.

[Brent · Rating 5 out of 5]

Edwards was a wonderfully prolific theologian - surely America's greatest, and arguably the greatest of them all, and Freedom of the Will is not exempt from his theological genius. With someone who is also so well written, one could hardly call this his magnum opus (surely Religious Affections surpasses it), but notwithstanding, Freedom of the Will is a phenomenal treatise on God's divine foreknowledge, and sovereignty; human bondage, and volition; all the while serving as a forthright rebuttal to Arminian claims floating around during this time in the 18th century.

The attack is philosophical, the foundation is theological, and the sword is exegetical (Heb 4:12, 2 Tim 2:15), Edwards destroys any notion of libertarian free-will, thereby planting a firm foot in determinism, and drawing the scripture to support the tenable claim. With so much sophomoric Christian literature floating around these days, this is a must read for all Christians.
Brent McCulley (10/26/13)

[Aaron Irlbacher · Rating 5 out of 5]

Edwards is brilliant. I have read this book several times now, and each time the material is helpful, and each time the content seems a little easier to handle. The truth hammered home is that our wills are not free in a libertarian sense because our natures are corrupt, and God’s nature is perfect. His knowledge is perfect. His power is perfect. His wisdom is perfect. These two understandings of man’s nature and God’s nature preclude “libertarian freedom”.

[Shanna · Rating 2 out of 5]

There were a few sections I thought were helpful. Overall, Edwards seemed to attack Arminians more than defend his own position. So I'm still not very clear on all the hangups I had with Calvinism to begin with.

[Douglas Wilson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant.

[Jay Risner · Rating 4 out of 5]

Laying the smack down.

[Chuck · Rating 4 out of 5]

People make massive assumptions about what the will is and what condition it is in. Few have sought to define the issues and treat them biblically: Edwards has done both.