Jonathan Edwards

Once I was able to comprehend the flow of Jonathan Edwards’ arguments, I began to understand the reason why he is categorized as one of the greatest American theologians. His discourses on religious affection and the freedom of the will are complex and enlightening, as well as very relevant for me today.

In the former discourse, Edwards states that true religion consists in part of holy affections which are governed by the mind and the will: the mind is the faculty of perception and understanding, and the will governs how the person responds to life’s situations. Affections are housed in the soul or heart of a person, and are excited and exercised by the mind and will, allowing us to experience life in all its fullness. True God-honoring religion, then, requires that we be full of life and vigor in our service.

These affections are more than just feelings: they must necessarily be followed by action. Although these affections stem from God’s work of grace in a person, they are often mixed with natural human emotion and desire; therefore, these affections must be distinguished from each other because of the danger of assuming God is at work in a person’s heart solely based on what turns out to be natural human emotion. A display of much affection is not evidence enough to presume salvation; however, a lack of affection is evidence of no spiritual life.

Due to the Fall, man’s affections are wholly bent on seeking self. In regeneration, the heart and will of a person are renewed so that the person begins to seek after God and all things spiritual. The Spirit of God renews the heart and will of man; the same faculty of the will is exercised spurring new affections, and results in new and godly fruit in the person’s life.

That the will of man is naturally inclined to do what is evil and self-seeking has been contested by many theologians and their followers throughout the ages. In his discourse on the freedom of the will, Edwards refutes the thoughts postulated by the Arminians. In short, the Arminians held to the view that the will was wholly neutral and unbiased to any stimuli which may be claimed to have bearing on the determining thereof, and, therefore, is completely free to choose one path of action over another as a person faces every encounters of choice.

If there is true freedom of the will, Edwards contends, this will must be totally indifferent, having neither natural nor moral inclinations. Therefore, the will must maintain an equilibrium concerning virtues and vices. If this is true, the further one travels down the spectrum in either direction (towards virtue or vice), the less freedom one has. Moreover, if the maintenance of this equilibrium (i.e. true freedom) is both praiseworthy and blameless, then the further one travels away from the center toward vice, the less blameless, and on the flip side, the further toward virtue, the less praiseworthy. One must necessarily conclude, then, that God, who is the epitome of virtue, is the furthest anyone can be from being praiseworthy, which is an incredulous heresy.

Furthermore, Edwards proves from the laws of cause and effect that true freedom of the will is a philosophical impossibility. At its origin, the will must have begun with a predetermined choice, causing all others to be consequently determined by each preceding choice. Moreover, Edwards develops a third argument. According to the Arminians, in order for the actions of the will to be praiseworthy, they must be completely free from all necessity. If this is true, then God must not be praiseworthy because He cannot de otherwise than that what is good, right, just, and merciful. This conclusion, of course, is utterly false, as must be the premises of this free-will theology.

These discourses were not only helpful in understanding the liberal free will religions of today, but they gave me a deeper understanding of my own heart, especially in regard to the workings of the will. I grew up in a church that stresses caution when experiencing deep emotion and conviction because a person can so easily deceive himself and be led astray by them, assuming God was working in that person’s life when He may, in fact, not be. To gain a logical appreciation for the necessity of the affections determined by the heart and will has allotted for a healthier, more balanced view of affections.

Furthermore, understanding the nature and outworking of the will has been effectual in my life as well. The motivations that drive my will necessarily drive my affections as well. (I am reminded of Jesus’ words in Matthew 6:21: “Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”) Given a choice between two actions, I will choose the option that I deem best at that time, perhaps taking into consideration secondary motivations beyond the scope of the immediate choice, sometimes not. The things I choose to do I set my affections on; and those things I set my affections on will often be deemed the best option for the will to choose. Therefore, I need a power outside of me to change the natural bent of my mind and will, so I can begin to choose what is truly good. This, I have been told, is what the Puritans called the expulsive force of a new affection.

Although I found Edwards’ lofty writing and highly philosophical argumentation difficult to read, I gained an appreciation for his work and the insights I gained through this reading. Undoubtedly, his writings had great impact in the transitional era in which he was writing. Edwards, in my opinion, was truly a genius of a scholar and a marvelous theologian.