Jonathan Edwards (1) (1703–1758)

This treatise is highly insightful, and stimulated me to consider ideas that had not occurred to me. However, due to the now-archaic language combined with the inherently abstract nature of the subject matter, Freedom of the Will is extremely difficult to read. A headache. Especially because Edwards spends probably half the essay (or more) defining terms. As Edwards is a metaphysician discussing abstract ideas here, it sounds like what I remember of the work of Gottfried von Leibniz when I show more read some of it, a long time ago. As an English major with training in technical writing, I suspect that if I rewrote it in contemporary English but took care to preserve all Edwards' thought, the new essay might be half the length of the original (25 pages in my book).

What I learned, and the conclusions I drew from its implications, relates mainly to the nature of the phrase "free will" as commonly understood. Essentially, Edwards points out that phrase is nonsensical (if taken literally, not sneaking any other meanings into the words). He defines "will" as the ability to choose (a definition shared by John Locke, he says). But he defines "free" almost identically--as simply having the ability to choose. Therefore, "free will" taken literally (as "will that is free") means "the ability to choose has the ability to choose." In other words, it means the will has a will of its own.

Thinking at length about the implications of this, I wondered who invented (or, probably more significantly, popularized) the phrase "free will," and also wondered what phrase we used before that to describe human volition. I don't know; but whoever popularized the phrase long ago, I guessed what they really meant. The key is the meaning of "free," and whoever it was did not have Edwards' definition in mind. They evidently meant "free" as in "free agent": the idea of one's choices being self-determined, uncaused and uninfluenced has been read into the word "free" and attached to the word "will." It's a certain soteriological position: whether to call that "Arminian," "semi-Pelagian" or even "Pelagian," I'm not sure anymore, since I learned that soteriology is a much broader spectrum than I thought. All I know it that it's the polar opposite of Calvinism and that's why Edwards puts so much effort into dissecting it.

In opposition to this phrase "free will" that he has exposed as being theologically loaded, Edwards argues that human will, choice, exists but is not self-determining; God's will acts on it. In support of this idea, he states that a man is free but his will is not free. Freedom is a property of a man, not his will. I think this idea is less simple than it sounds, but if one wraps one's mind around it--a man is free but his will is not free--it may loosen any certainty one may feel that man is a free agent, and help one consider with an open mind the idea of election.

That's why I found this essay illuminating, once I teased the salient points out of the archaic language and the extensive space given to mere definitions. I was delighted. show less

The book is setup as 16 lectures on the subject of love but reads much more like as a series of sermons Edwards may have given in his church.

Edwards spends all 16 chapters teaching on the nature of love from 1 Corinthians 13. He begins (ch1) making the argument that all true virtue (what he calls grace in the heart) is summed up in love. Love is the nature of God and is the ingredient on all true and living faith. As a result it is the most essential thing.

In subsequent chapters he goes on show more to explain positively and negatively what love is and is not and finally concludes with a moving chapter on the nature of heaven, which will be a world of love.

As a preacher, I learnt a lot from analysing the structure of each chapter. Each chapter generally follows a similar structure:
- he begins with the doctrine, looking to the nature of the subject (eg Christian love is a humble spirit)
- he then contrasts this doctrine with other subjects, its opposite or how impressive the subject is given the world we know
- following this he offers proofs and evidences for the doctrine, answering objections to the doctrine along the way
- finally he concludes each sermon with application to the reader

Edwards preaches Christ throughout the book. He realises that true change is worked in our hearts when we see how Christ has acted toward us. As an ethical method this is striking. Instead of moralising the text, saying “just do it”, he calls the reader to look to one who lived this way and poured out his love like this unto us. See pp.107-108, 118-120, 145, 149-152. And yet at the same time, Edwards never backs off telling us it is necessary to live this way.

Edwards finishes most chapters with an appeal to the believer and at times the non believer (pp.92ff). He makes an earnest, direct, practical appeal to the will to act on what the mind has just heard and what the affections have been moved to value. In almost every chapter, his application (in part) is for the reader to examine themselves. As such he preaches as a pastor and evangelist.

At times I was personally challenged and rebuked by my lack of love. At other times my heart was made glad as I reflected on God’s own love for me which meets perfectly every aspect of love described in 1 Corinthians 13.

I highly recommend this book for all pastors and for all Christians and even for sceptics. It is not always easy reading, and I did get bogged down and left the book aside for months on end. But every time I picked it up again I was deeply moved in reading. For those who are slow readers or find reading difficult, this may also be your experience, but persevere as the rewards are great. show less

I listened to this as an audio book. It is hard to think of something that could've been more depressing. Brainerd is known for having been a weary soul--constantly battling the trials of life and suffering periods of melancholy and depression. I was amazed that he managed to accomplish anything at all. His personal discipline in devotions was an inspiration particularly as he frequently didn't feel close to God. His obedience at these times was impressive. His humility and recognition of show more his own sinfulness before a Holy God is something that we should probably all dwell on. This was often the reason for his misery.

The book itself was hard to listen to. It is, as the title suggests, a series of diary entries, and not much else. The entries are all remarkably similar describing how Brainerd was feeling spiritually that day and with brief details of his activities and how he felt about them. There is little of his actual work with the Indians--it wasn't possible to get a feel for any of the ministry/characters that he ministered to from his diary.

This was worth listening to in an age of charismatic emotional experiences and people claiming all sorts of things in the name of God. In a day when we are told that if we don't feel like worshiping God we should repent and go home. Brainerd demonstrated the biblical response which was obedience despite his feelings. (John 14 vs 15) This was an encouragement to persevere in the hard times and struggles. show less

Nothing like starting the New Year with a bowl of wrath! The 18th Century Puritan divine, Jonathan Edwards, is probably best known for this sermon which vividly paints God's righteous anger at humanity for their sin. Fire and brimstone are keywords in this sermon and it has served as a template for lesser lights.

I think it is unfortunate that this sermon is what most people today know of Edwards. Other aspects of his theology are more amenable to contemporary tastes. His descriptions of show more nature and beauty are almost mystical. He was also a panentheist before panentheism was cool (and way more orthodox than the likes of Matthew Fox).

But this sermon is worth reading. From a literary standpoint, I think it is brilliantly constructed. While I don't like the tone of the sermon (especially as it draws to a close), I appreciate the main theological point, that there is nothing holding back God's righteous judgement on us, but his Sovereign pleasure and that a day of reckoning is sure.

I remember George Marsden making a comment in his Edwards biography that the gospel remedy was well known across Protestant New England, but that people needed to be moved to seek it. This means that I can appreciate this sermon for its time and the effect it had, used by God, to help usher in the first Great Awakening in America. show less