Jonathan Edwards - Free Will and Moral Responsibility

For Edwards, the human will is the power or even the principle of the mind that provides the capacity to make a choice. (Edwards, Part I Section I - Concerning the Nature of the Will) The problem with this view is that if God expresses his power over all things, then human choice perhaps would not be able to escape the choices that God has already determined by his own ability to choose. In other words no one can independently choose to be president of the United States if God has already made the choice in whom he will have do the job.

For Edwards both the Will and the Desire that a person would have are very much different in that the will refers to both things present and absent whereas desire only refers to things that are absent. (Edwards, Part I Section I - Concerning the Nature of the Will) Oddly enough if a person has the Will to follow God's command, then that may not mean that the person has any desire to follow God's command as seen in Edward's reasoning. In this regard a person that is presently following God's command would be willing to follow God's command because that is just what they are doing, but they may not have any desire to do it because following God's command has never been absent from them and they do not realize the need for it.

For Edwards Freedom and Liberty means that a person can do as one pleases, and in this regard such a person would be free from their will being hindered or impeded in any way. (Edwards, Part I Section V - Concerning the Notion of Liberty, and of Moral Agency) The problem with this view is that freedom for a man about to jump off of a bridge means that he has the ability to express his will even if he has no desire to jump (if following the reasoning of the previous paragraph). Why should a person be given the liberty to take their own life if they do not even have the desire to do so?

For Edwards the will is possessed by the person that the will belongs to, and power and liberty for Edwards are presented to the will as freedom is a personal priority. (Edwards, Part I Section V - Concerning the Notion of Liberty, and of Moral Agency) The problem with this view is that some people may desire to destroy themselves, and although they may believe that their will is given the freedom to do so, the consequence of such actions is not liberty. Freedom thus is not the road that the Will drives upon, but instead freedom is a destination that the will can arrive at.

For Edwards moral agents have a moral faculty to sense both the good and the evil as well as an ability to be influenced by moral motives along with reason and conduct that is in line with a moral faculty. (Edwards, Part I Section V - Concerning the Notion of Liberty, and of Moral Agency) The problem with this view is that it makes the definition of moral agents so strict that a person that receives divine revelation of the cross of Jesus Christ without the ability to sense evil would not be considered to be a moral agent even if influenced by the crucifixion of Christ. A mentally retarded person in a care center that is thus saved not by reason but by God's grace would not even be considered a moral agent by Edwards if that person only had the sense of the good but not also of evil (Satan tempting Christ should be enough for all of us).

For Edwards kings are not subject to punishments, rewards, and promises of moral law as what citizens are, but both kings and citizens are influenced by a knowledge of moral good and evil. (Edwards, Part I Section V - Concerning the Notion of Liberty, and of Moral Agency) Clearly Edward's view follows among with the doctrine of the divine rite of kings. In this regard God, the supreme ruler differs from created intelligent beings. (Edwards, Part I Section V - Concerning the Notion of Liberty, and of Moral Agency) The problem with this view is that Jesus washed the feet of the disciples as he demonstrated the importance of service, but this does not mean that he had to follow the rules. The fact however that Jesus followed the Word of God despite the tempting of Satan (Matthew 4:1) shows not that he obeyed the Word of God as much as it showed that instead he was the Word of God. For Christ to do something outside of his nature to do would show that he is not the Word of God, and Edward's reasoning would almost suggest that Christ could do something outside of his nature to do.

Bibliography:

Edwards, Jonathan. On the Freedom of the Will. Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Concerning the Nature of the Will. (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/will.ii.i.html, accessed March, 3rd, 2011)

Edwards, Jonathan. On the Freedom of the Will. Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Concerning the Notion of Liberty, and of Moral Agency. (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/will.ii.v.html, accessed March, 3rd, 2011)