What do you think?
Rate this book
The Freedom of the Will
This eBook has been formatted to the highest digital standards and adjusted for readability on all devices. The Freedom of the Will is a work by Christian reformer, theologian, and author Jonathan Edwards which uses the text of Romans 9:16 as its basis. It was first published in 1754 and examines the nature and the status of humanity's will. The book takes the classic Calvinist viewpoint on total depravity of the will and the need of humanity for God's grace in salvation. Although written long before the modern introduction and debate over Open Theism, Edwards' work addresses many of the concerns that have been raised today over this view. Edwards responded that a person may freely choose whatever seems good, but that whatever it is that seems good is based on an inherent predisposition that has been foreordained by God.
187 pages, Kindle Edition
Published December 21, 2018
53 people are currently reading
136 people want to read
About the author
Jonathan Edwards
1,604 books524 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database named Jonathan Edwards.
Jonathan Edwards was the most eminent American philosopher-theologian of his time, and a key figure in what has come to be called the First Great Awakening of the 1730s and 1740s.
The only son in a family of eleven children, he entered Yale in September, 1716 when he was not yet thirteen and graduated four years later (1720) as valedictorian. He received his Masters three years later. As a youth, Edwards was unable to accept the Calvinist sovereignty of God. However, in 1721 he came to what he called a "delightful conviction" though meditation on 1 Timothy 1:17. From that point on, Edwards delighted in the sovereignty of God. Edwards later recognized this as his conversion to Christ.
In 1727 he was ordained minister at Northampton and assistant to his maternal grandfather, Solomon Stoddard. He was a student minister, not a visiting pastor, his rule being thirteen hours of study a day. In the same year, he married Sarah Pierpont, then age seventeen, daughter of Yale founder James Pierpont (1659–1714). In total, Jonathan and Sarah had eleven children.
Stoddard died on February 11th, 1729, leaving to his grandson the difficult task of the sole ministerial charge of one of the largest and wealthiest congregations in the colony. Throughout his time in Northampton his preaching brought remarkable religious revivals.
Yet, tensions flamed as Edwards would not continue his grandfather's practice of open communion. Stoddard believed that communion was a "converting ordinance." Surrounding congregations had been convinced of this, and as Edwards became more convinced that this was harmful, his public disagreement with the idea caused his dismissal in 1750.
Edwards then moved to Stockbridge, Massachusetts, then a frontier settlement, where he ministered to a small congregation and served as missionary to the Housatonic Indians. There, having more time for study and writing, he completed his celebrated work, The Freedom of the Will (1754).
Edwards was elected president of the College of New Jersey (later Princeton University) in early 1758. He was a popular choice, for he had been a friend of the College since its inception. He died of fever at the age of fifty-four following experimental inoculation for smallpox and was buried in the President's Lot in the Princeton cemetery beside his son-in-law, Aaron Burr.
Jonathan Edwards was the most eminent American philosopher-theologian of his time, and a key figure in what has come to be called the First Great Awakening of the 1730s and 1740s.
The only son in a family of eleven children, he entered Yale in September, 1716 when he was not yet thirteen and graduated four years later (1720) as valedictorian. He received his Masters three years later. As a youth, Edwards was unable to accept the Calvinist sovereignty of God. However, in 1721 he came to what he called a "delightful conviction" though meditation on 1 Timothy 1:17. From that point on, Edwards delighted in the sovereignty of God. Edwards later recognized this as his conversion to Christ.
In 1727 he was ordained minister at Northampton and assistant to his maternal grandfather, Solomon Stoddard. He was a student minister, not a visiting pastor, his rule being thirteen hours of study a day. In the same year, he married Sarah Pierpont, then age seventeen, daughter of Yale founder James Pierpont (1659–1714). In total, Jonathan and Sarah had eleven children.
Stoddard died on February 11th, 1729, leaving to his grandson the difficult task of the sole ministerial charge of one of the largest and wealthiest congregations in the colony. Throughout his time in Northampton his preaching brought remarkable religious revivals.
Yet, tensions flamed as Edwards would not continue his grandfather's practice of open communion. Stoddard believed that communion was a "converting ordinance." Surrounding congregations had been convinced of this, and as Edwards became more convinced that this was harmful, his public disagreement with the idea caused his dismissal in 1750.
Edwards then moved to Stockbridge, Massachusetts, then a frontier settlement, where he ministered to a small congregation and served as missionary to the Housatonic Indians. There, having more time for study and writing, he completed his celebrated work, The Freedom of the Will (1754).
Edwards was elected president of the College of New Jersey (later Princeton University) in early 1758. He was a popular choice, for he had been a friend of the College since its inception. He died of fever at the age of fifty-four following experimental inoculation for smallpox and was buried in the President's Lot in the Princeton cemetery beside his son-in-law, Aaron Burr.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
March 5, 2022
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 possesses free will in that he is able to choose of himself good and evil. More specifically man must be free to choose in order to be held accountable for his choice to accept or reject the gift of salvation. To believe or not to believe? That is the question.
How else could God punish sin unless the sinner were personally able to choose either to sin or 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 all 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?
When God promises a thing, or tells us that a thing is going to happen well ahead of its time which involves the choices of man – especially what would seem to be a great many choices of man – the fulfillment of the promise or the prophecy necessitates that a purely faithful and powerful God will bring it to pass, even by molding and shaping the will of man to suit the unchangeable character of the Almighty’s purpose.
Into this debate Jonathan Edwards wrote ‘The Freedom of the Will’ in 1754.
Born in East Windsor, Connecticut in 1703, Edwards is with good reason 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 for me.
Previously to ‘The Freedom of the Will’ I read Martin Luther’s ‘The Bondage of the Will’ – a much less flattering title, if I may say so. And covering this 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 more 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 its lack of entertaining barbs and put-downs distracting from the meat of the subject.
Of course I’m not saying Edwards is smarter than Luther, though he may have been. But I am saying that Edwards is far more disciplined and polite. And in the self-discipline and restraint of Edwards 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, not least because they cannot dismiss him out of hand so easily for having offended them by personal attacks on opponents.
Besides that, Edwards 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 rhetorical blows in the process of elimination until seemingly only one possibility remains – that of the Calvinist view of salvation and grace.
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 according to Edwards is this, then – 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.
Just 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 explains, only God is sovereign. And therefore only God is free in the purest and fullest sense of what we could possibly mean by ‘freedom.’
But this is just another way of saying that only God is really and truly 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. Anything outside of freedom on God’s terms is the other side of the coin which Luther titled his work after – what we should more accurately call the bondage of the will.
For more thoughts on 'The Freedom of the Will' by Jonathan Edwards, check out this episode of The Garrett Ashley Mullet Show podcast.
https://thegarrettashleymulletshow.co...
On the one hand Arminian theology says that man possesses free will in that he is able to choose of himself good and evil. More specifically man must be free to choose in order to be held accountable for his choice to accept or reject the gift of salvation. To believe or not to believe? That is the question.
How else could God punish sin unless the sinner were personally able to choose either to sin or 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 all 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?
When God promises a thing, or tells us that a thing is going to happen well ahead of its time which involves the choices of man – especially what would seem to be a great many choices of man – the fulfillment of the promise or the prophecy necessitates that a purely faithful and powerful God will bring it to pass, even by molding and shaping the will of man to suit the unchangeable character of the Almighty’s purpose.
Into this debate Jonathan Edwards wrote ‘The Freedom of the Will’ in 1754.
Born in East Windsor, Connecticut in 1703, Edwards is with good reason 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 for me.
Previously to ‘The Freedom of the Will’ I read Martin Luther’s ‘The Bondage of the Will’ – a much less flattering title, if I may say so. And covering this 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 more 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 its lack of entertaining barbs and put-downs distracting from the meat of the subject.
Of course I’m not saying Edwards is smarter than Luther, though he may have been. But I am saying that Edwards is far more disciplined and polite. And in the self-discipline and restraint of Edwards 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, not least because they cannot dismiss him out of hand so easily for having offended them by personal attacks on opponents.
Besides that, Edwards 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 rhetorical blows in the process of elimination until seemingly only one possibility remains – that of the Calvinist view of salvation and grace.
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 according to Edwards is this, then – 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.
Just 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 explains, only God is sovereign. And therefore only God is free in the purest and fullest sense of what we could possibly mean by ‘freedom.’
But this is just another way of saying that only God is really and truly 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. Anything outside of freedom on God’s terms is the other side of the coin which Luther titled his work after – what we should more accurately call the bondage of the will.
For more thoughts on 'The Freedom of the Will' by Jonathan Edwards, check out this episode of The Garrett Ashley Mullet Show podcast.
https://thegarrettashleymulletshow.co...
June 3, 2025
I first became aware of this book several years ago when I read three different books back-to-back, each on a different topic and each by a different author, all of which referenced this work and it’s arguments as foundational to the ideas of their own books. It made me aware of just how influential this work is—perhaps the most influential work from the Puritan movement.
I must say, this is probably the most difficult book I’ve ever read. This is not written in the pastoral style so familiar in Edward’s other works; it is purely academic. If it were not for already having a framework for Edward’s arguments in this book from summaries found in more modern books, I doubt I could have followed his arguments. Certainly a masterful work and a cornerstone of Reformed thought, but not a book I’d recommend everyone read.
The focus of this book is refuting the Arminian view of free will that believes the will is at all times able to chose anything without being determined by anything. Edwards refutes this, believing this makes the will completely irrational, making choices for no reason. He alternatively argues that the free will is that will which can always choose the thing it most desires in that moment. Since the desires of the man determine the strongest desire, he sees no contradiction between God sovereignly influencing a man’s desires and that man still retaining a free will, thus allowing for God’s complete sovereignty over man and man’s free will.
I must say, this is probably the most difficult book I’ve ever read. This is not written in the pastoral style so familiar in Edward’s other works; it is purely academic. If it were not for already having a framework for Edward’s arguments in this book from summaries found in more modern books, I doubt I could have followed his arguments. Certainly a masterful work and a cornerstone of Reformed thought, but not a book I’d recommend everyone read.
The focus of this book is refuting the Arminian view of free will that believes the will is at all times able to chose anything without being determined by anything. Edwards refutes this, believing this makes the will completely irrational, making choices for no reason. He alternatively argues that the free will is that will which can always choose the thing it most desires in that moment. Since the desires of the man determine the strongest desire, he sees no contradiction between God sovereignly influencing a man’s desires and that man still retaining a free will, thus allowing for God’s complete sovereignty over man and man’s free will.
July 14, 2022
Extremely demanding, and yet manifestly worth it, for perhaps the ultimate defence of the compatibilism of human freedom with determinism. Beyond that, it is a vital piece of psychology: understanding motive, inclination, habit, and nature. Read alongside Religious Affections, I think it is the fullest account of human behaviour possible.
April 23, 2022
Defend against Armenian doctrines
A classic defend against Armenian doctrines on free will, Sins, and other theology interconnected. Its rather philosophical and many things need for further studies when you read this book.
A classic defend against Armenian doctrines on free will, Sins, and other theology interconnected. Its rather philosophical and many things need for further studies when you read this book.
July 6, 2025
This is a must read for biblical counselors seeking to help others with addictions. We must understand the nature and extent of our "will power" if we hope to help others be freed from the things they sinfully love the most.
September 29, 2020
Looking for articles on freedom of the human will, in connection with philosophical questions on what is human consciousness and will, (and AI).
November 30, 2021
The hardest book I have ever read in my life.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews