Review of the Freedom of the Will by Jonathan Edwards

Jonathan Edwards’ book, the Freedom of the Will, is often cited by Calvinists as the definitive work on the topic. I enjoyed reading it. Edwards demonstrates in depth knowledge of scripture, church fathers, scholastics, and Arminian theologians on the topics of freewill, putting him in an ideal position to address the subject. Although I disagree with Edwards’ conclusions, I have no hesitation in recommending the book as an excellent primary source for understanding the Calvinist position on the will.

Edwards’ book on the Will and Owen’s book on Christ’s death are considered key pillars within Calvinist systematic theology. Unlike Owen, Edwards’ style is quite readable. Sure, at times he’s long winded and repetitive, but he’s not as tough a read as Owen. For the most part he’s articulate and engaging. Additionally, unlike Owen, Edwards is not hostile towards Arminians, just Arminianism.

Edwards broke his book down into 4 parts, with multiple sections each. The first part defines some key terms and lays out Edward’s views on the will. In the second and third parts, which comprises the lion’s share of the work, Edwards critiques libertarian freewill (LFW). In the second part, Edwards attempts to demonstrate that LFW is incoherent and in the third part Edwards endeavors to show that LFW isn’t necessary for responsibility. In the fourth and final part, Edwards provides what he sees are the reasons people mistakenly adopt LFW and he also further defends his views on the will.

I plan on critiquing Edwards’ view of the will first and then responding to Edwards’ arguments. For more on Edwards, here’s a good site. (link) For his book, the Freedom of the Will, here’s a site. (link)

Comments

Rev. said…
Edwards just regurgitated Augustine. :)
April 24, 2008 at 3:05 PM
Anonymous said…
"Edwards just regurgitated Augustine."

And would that be the **early** Augustine who held the correct view on the will, LFW. The view which the vast majority of Christians have held throughout church history, whether they be Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, or Independents.

Or would that be the **later** Augustine who in fighting againt Pelagius went to the extreme and denied LFW and invented calvinistic doctrines? The later position which was adopted and regurgitated by the reformers like Calvin and Luther and later defended by Edwards? The position which is false and unbiblical and divides the church today?

Robert
May 6, 2008 at 10:00 AM
Godismyjudge said…
Dear Robert,

I confess I'm not an expert on the "latter Augustine", but I am somewhat familiar with him. On my to do list there's a comment Arminius made about Augustine that I wanted to follow up on. Arminius said:

"4. Are those who are thus the reprobate necessarily damned, because either no grace at all, or not sufficient, has been destined to them, that they may assent to it and believe,

5. Or rather, according to St. Augustine, Are those who are thus the elect assuredly saved, because God decreed to employ grace on them as he knew was suitable and congruous that they might be persuaded and saved; though if regard be had to the internal efficacy of grace, they may not be advanced or benefited by it"

Arminius on Augustine

Arminius described Augustine's view of grace in Molinisitic terms. I don't know if that's right, but at some point in life I would like to check into it. If Arminius was right, it would go a long way to reconcling Augustine's use of the term freewill with his understanding of election.

God be with you,
Dan
May 6, 2008 at 9:29 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,
Read more

John Owen - Death of Death in the Death of Christ

For those who may have suffered through my review of John Owen's classic work the Death of Death in the Death of Christ, I have wonderful news. You get to do it all over again!!! I compiled it into 5 articles available here . I also added a link on the left side of my blog. I also now have a left side of my blog. :-) God be with you, Dan
Read more

The Equivocation of Regeneration

In the order of salvation, which comes first, faith or regeneration? Before we can answer that, don't we first need to understand what regeneration is? In this post I plan on contrasting Hodge's view with Arminius'. Hopefully, in the process we can clarify the issue of monergism vs. synergism. Hodge’s Order of Salvation Common Grace – a “moral suasion” that brings good works, but is insufficient to enable justifying faith Regeneration – God’s supernatural and immediate change of a person’s nature Vocation – same Gospel as the one in common grace, but it’s effectual on the changed man. Conversion – faith and repentance “first conscious exercise of the renewed soul” Justification Two Definitions of Regeneration Hodges provides two alternative definitions of regeneration. Sometimes regeneration means just the imparting of life, other times it means the whole process including the things coming before and after the imparting of life. 1 Hodge says these two difference sense
Read more