Edwards's premise is that will and its choice are identical; the aim of such a claim is to avoid any consequence of sinking into an infinite cycle of searching for a guiding will that precedes an act of will. He used common sense reasoning to support the freedom of human will, but denied the autonomous power of an independent will because it has no way to break from the predestination of divine will. Wesley, appealing to the concept of prevenient grace, distinguished the will from the free choice to exercise the will. He grounded his ideas in the Christian doctrine of original sin, acknowledging that divine aid is indispensable for the autonomy of the will. He criticized Edward's idea of divine determination because it renders the existence of free will untenable, shaking the foundation of moral virtues. This article concludes that Edwards's attempt to discredit the Arminian view of free will, by uniting will and its choice, is unconvincing. Both Edwards and Wesley are unable to solve the ultimate question of a possible mode of interaction between divine and human will. However, Wesleyan Arminianism accords more with contemporary thinking that emphasizes interaction and choice.