Is man free to do whatever he chooses, or are all his paths both foreknown and forechosen, predetermined by the Almighty hand of Providence?
On the one hand Arminian theology says that man must be free to choose in order to be held accountable. How else could God punish sin unless the sinner were personally able to choose to sin and to not sin? And how else could man truly be saved except by choosing to accept the gift of salvation in Christ?
On the other hand, Calvinist theology says that the sovereignty of God necessitates a corresponding forechoosing of all events to the foreknowing and foretelling of events. How else could it be said that God is the one who saves us except that every facet of the offering and receiving of the gift of salvation is attributed solely to God?
Into this debate Jonathan Edwards wrote 'The Freedom of the Will' in 1754.
Born in East Windsor, Connecticut in 1703, Edwards is regarded as the foremost philosopher and theologian at the center of what we now refer to as the 'First Great Awakening' of the 1730's and 1740's.
I just recently finished Edwards' 1754 work about election and free will, and I am not embarrassed to admit that it was a challenge.
Previously I read Martin Luther's much less appealing title, 'The Bondage of the Will.' Covering much the same topic two centuries earlier, I found Luther deserving his reputation as a witty brawler unafraid to throw a jab and taunt and insult at those he disagreed with.
By contrast, Edwards is disciplined, rigorous, organized, logical, and restrained. But all the more rather than less, what 'Freedom of the Will' lays out is more challenging in some ways because of the lack of entertaining quips to distract from the meat of the subject.
Of course I'm not saying Edwards was smarter than Luther, though he may have been. But I am saying that Edwards was far more disciplined. And in his discipline I think we find sterner and more sober stuff, and a better example to follow.
Who could argue with the logic of Edwards? They will find themselves hard-pressed. He does not leave much daylight between one point and the subsequent counterpoint he presents. But from the standpoint of focusing on ideas and truths he rains down blows in the process of elimination.
This is simultaneously more helpful and harder to keep up with because the only way you really catch your mental, emotional, and spiritual breath is by taking a break from the book to consider the substance of his claims.
The long and short of it is this - the freedom of man is nothing compared to the freedom of God. And both alike are free to do what is in their nature. When we are talking about God, the Almighty is the only entirely and wholly free being who has ever existed, does now exist, or ever will exist. But when we are talking about man, freedom in the abstract is something of a moot point unless we also consider what is in the heart of man that he will freely choose one thing instead of another.
And who presides over all the factors internal and external which might persuade or influence man toward freedom of one kind or freedom of another, whether free to live or freely choosing to destroy himself? As Edwards argues forcefully, only God is sovereign, and therefore only God is free in the purest sense.
But this is just another way of saying that only God is actually free. Everyone else is limited to being free on God's terms. And this itself is just another way of saying that freedom for life and goodness can only be had for those made free by God.
I stop short of saying more than that in specificity because I am still mulling it over. But you should do yourself a favor and read Edwards here for yourself.
