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

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens...
Read more

Scripture and the Common Man

Paul seems to missunderstand my view on scripture. He states: Crucial to Dan’s argument is the claim that “common man” are all, each and every, libertarians. If Dan claims that some “common men” are not indeterminist, but determinist, then he defeats one of his premises, or makes the Bible speak in contradictions. To spell this point out, recall that Dan says, “The Bible is written by and to the common man, it means what they mean, since they mean certain words libertarianly, then the Bible so means those words.” Yet if we allow some (even one?) of the “common men” to whom the Bible was written to be determinists, then it must mean what they mean by the words that are the topic of our discussion. However, since there are indeterminist “common men”, then the Bible must also mean what they mean by the words we are discussing! Therefore, Dan must assume that each and every “common man” is a libertarian, which I find highly implausible. ( link ) It was not said what was said I said. The b...
Read more