"Freedom of the Will" by Jonathon Edwards

Edwards begins his argument giving the modern definition of his day of freedom and liberty as the ability to do whatever he or she pleases. Likewise, the opposite of freedom and liberty is to be forced to do something else, or to be robbed of the ability to choose based on one's own ability. Edwards' argumentation's premise is the fact that what "pleases" individuals is predetermined by his or her sinful nature; in other words, every decision of the will is laced with sin for sin is what please us; and is our wills' beginning and can only therefore be its end as well.

He further argues that in order to have freedom or liberty, an object must also have a will. Also, in order to have a will, an object must have the power to choose. The will in and of itself does not have freedom or liberty, but the object which possesses the will, possesses freedom or liberty as well. If freedom or liberty is possessed by the will itself, then the will must be alive and autonomous apart from any outside force. It must then be "living on its own". A will can't be self-supporting; for it is useless without an informant or motivator.

Edwards continues by sarcastically applying the unlivable notion of freedom and liberty of his day. He argues that those who believe freedom and liberty are the freedom to choose autonomously or sovereignly do not take into consideration the fact that the will isn't "alive" for it is a property, possessing nothing in and of itself; and the will is acted upon by the presuppositions or desires of he or she who possesses it. In the reality of humanity's sinfulness, born saturated in sin, we cannot but choose sinfulness. Even when sinners choose to "do good things" they choose to do these things apart from Christ; and therefore, are trying to appease God based on their own merit; and thus, are still sinning! A lost person and I can live the same moral lives; and yet I am accepted and he or she is rejected because my works were empowered by and washed in the blood of Christ! Jesus' blood must motivate our wills for they aren't morally neutral, but morally sinful; and even though His blood motivates us, our wills will still produce sin; and therefore, we also need His blood to cleanse our resultant sinful actions.

Edwards then seeks to refute the Arminians and Pelagians who define the will in this way. Their notion of freedom and liberty is 1) it consists of autonomy and being alive, which makes it independent of any outside notions or forces; it is self-governing or sovereign. 2) It consists of a morally neutral state, neither holy nor evil in foundation, but determines whether to be good or evil on its own. Before its act of volition, it is neither good nor evil. 3) It consists of no "likely" resulting decision. Due to its proposed neutrality, its decisions are based on nothing before itself; and therefore, its liberty isn't contingent upon its reason for existence. Edwards argued that the Arminians and Pelagians believed that if freedom and liberty didn't consist of these three things, then man wasn't truly free; and didn't possess true liberty. The bottom line is what God's Word says concerning the subject. The Apostle Paul in Romans 3:10-18 is very clear concerning the state of mankind if left to himself. We would never please God or come to Christ if God the Holy Spirit didn't draw us; not only this, but if He wasn't determined "to finish the good work He began in us", then we wouldn't remain in Him either. Salvation is God's work alone; and yet, man must respond.

He then argues concerning the definition of a moral agent which acts upon the will. A moral agent is a being that is capable of actions that have a moral quality. The moral agency also possesses a moral faculty which is a sense of moral good or evil. Furthermore, the moral agent has the capacity to be influenced in his actions by moral motives, perceived by understanding and reason, to engage in conduct agreeable to the moral faculty. Edwards illustrates this truth by referencing the sun, fire, and animals as doing both positive and negative things, but their actions aren't moral or immoral due to their lack of a moral faculty and thus they are not considered moral agents. Due to humanity being moral agents, and not morally neutral, every decision is therefore morally good or evil based on a moral law which is pressing down on us all. Our wills are subject to God's moral law. C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity argues this point well when he references a man who steals, that he will be the first to whine when someone steals from him. There is a moral law above the will; which is greater than the will. Also, due to our sin, this moral law, God's standard of perfection, stands condemning us, which should send all sinners running to Jesus Christ! Unfortunately, due to man's sinful motives which direct his will, the moral law often becomes a checklist instead of condemnation, thus this sinful arrogance sends men running to the mirror instead of to Christ.

Edwards concludes his argument by explaining the circumstantial difference between the moral Agency of a ruler and a subject. A ruler isn't influenced by the rewards and punishments of a moral law as a subject is though both of them are influenced by a knowledge of moral good and evil. Likewise, the Supreme Being, God, who acts only as ruler and never as a subject differs in the respect that He isn't influenced by His own rewards or punishments for obedience or disobedience to moral laws. God's actions are morally good because His nature is morally good; and morality flows from His nature. God is holy, sovereign, and supreme, which makes His moral influence come from within Him. This means that He isn't subject to anything outside of Himself; but is subject to Himself. These abilities to morally choose and determine what is good and evil, God has given to humanity as His image-bearers. Man too then is capable of moral Agency. In the beginning before the fall of man, mankind was made with moral excellency. The fall of man forever changed man's moral excellency, and has skewed his moral faculty, tainting it with sin. This makes the neutrality of Arminians an impossibility after the Fall. Mankind's thoughts, actions, etc. aren't neutral and therefore this non-neutrality forms Edward's argumentation for the "necessity" of the will; in other words, sin has ruined humanity to the point that in and of themselves, they can only choose to sin; mankind isn't sovereign in his will for sin has ruined his motives which govern his will. Mankind will always rebel against God, apart from the power and enabling of God the Holy Spirit to reconcile sinners to God the Father through the blood and finished work of God the Son. If God didn't snatch sinners out of Satan's kingdom and place them in His own, then there would be no human in heaven.

In conclusion, Edwards' arguments concerning God's sovereignty are compelling; however, the only hesitation on my part is in his desire to define every nook and cranny of how God is sovereignly involved in all things, including the sin of His creation. Hyper-Calvinism is knocking on the door of this book. Not only this, but indirectly affirming that God wants sin to happen in His Sovereignty is border-line blasphemy. I'm not saying that I don't agree with Edwards; however, God must be absolutely sovereign over all things, including all decisions and choices of men, and yet, not be the author of sin and men must choose to respond. I struggle though with trying to define both sides in such detail. I only know this that God is 100% sovereign and man is 100% responsible. I'm also a redeemed bastard, abandoned by my father the Devil, determinately adopted by God the Father without any foreseen merit in me; and yet, my faith and repentance was my own.