Free Will and Original Sin

Scripture focus

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

Romans 5:12 KJV

At a glance

Summary of the chapter

Edwards regarded the debate over free will as the hinge on which nearly every other theological controversy turned, since, as he put it, “all virtue and religion have their seat more immediately in the will.” Arminian writers such as Daniel Whitby and Isaac Watts held that moral responsibility requires a will that is genuinely “self-determining” — able, in any given moment, to have chosen otherwise, uncaused by anything outside itself.

Edwards countered with a definition drawn from the older voluntarist tradition running back through Augustine: the will simply is “that by which the mind chooses,” and it always chooses according to its perception of “the greatest apparent good.” Because a choice always follows the strongest inclination or motive present to the mind, what Arminians called “necessity” is, for Edwards, no different from ordinary certainty — the same kind of cause-and-effect connection that governs the rest of the created world.

This redefinition let Edwards affirm that fallen human beings are truly free — they do exactly what they most want — even though, apart from grace, what they most want is always sinful, a real bondage of inclination rather than of physical restraint. Original sin, on this account, is not an external imposition overriding free choice but a corrupted heart whose free choices are reliably, necessarily sinful until God gives it a new inclination.

Key points

• Edwards saw the free-will controversy as foundational to theology, since “all virtue and religion have their seat more immediately in the will.”
• Arminian opponents defined freedom as an uncaused “self-determining power” able to choose otherwise in identical circumstances.
• Edwards redefined the will as the mind's own act of choosing “the greatest apparent good,” always following its strongest present inclination.
• He redefined Arminian “necessity” as mere certainty — the same causal connection that links motive and choice throughout the created order.
• This let Edwards hold both that fallen humanity is genuinely free (choosing what it wants) and genuinely sinful by nature (wanting only sin apart from grace).

A line worth remembering

all virtue and religion have their seat more immediately in the will.

McClymond & McDermott The Theology of Jonathan Edwards, ch. 22

Related Scripture

• Romans 3:23
• Psalm 51:5
• John 8:34
• Romans 9:16

For reflection and discussion

1. How does Edwards's definition of freedom as 'choosing the greatest apparent good' differ from the common modern idea that freedom means being able to choose otherwise?
2. Why did Edwards think the Arminian view of the will, taken to its logical end, undermined prayer and the very idea of conversion?
3. If the will always follows its strongest inclination, what role does that leave for grace in changing a sinner's heart?