The aforementioned statements provide a sufficient explanation of the concept of Liberty as understood by the general population, according to its common and primary definition. However, when used by those who oppose Calvinists, such as Arminians and Pelagians, the term takes on a completely different meaning. These individuals believe that Liberty entails a self-determining power of the Will, wherein it possesses a certain sovereignty over itself and its actions. This means that the Will is not influenced by external factors or predetermined by any preceding causes. Additionally, they emphasize the importance of indifference, whereby the mind is in a state of equilibrium prior to making a volitional decision. Furthermore, they assert that contingency is an essential aspect of Liberty, not in the conventional sense of the term, but rather as a rejection of all forms of necessity or predetermined connection to a prior cause. They believe that these elements are so integral to the essence of Liberty that unless an individual's will is free in this sense, they do not possess genuine freedom, regardless of their ability to act according to their own will. A moral agent, on the other hand, refers to a being that is capable of engaging in actions that possess moral qualities and can be categorized as either good or evil, virtuous or vicious, commendable or faulty, in a moral sense. To be a moral agent, one must possess a moral faculty or a sense of moral good and evil, as well as an understanding of concepts such as deserving or being worthy of praise or blame, reward or punishment. Additionally, moral agency involves the capacity for an agent to be influenced in their actions by moral incentives or motives that are presented to their understanding and reason, with the aim of guiding them towards a conduct that aligns with their moral faculty.

The sun's influence on the earth, in terms of warming and promoting growth, is highly beneficial. However, it is important to note that the sun is not capable of moral actions. While its effects are positive, they are not driven by virtue or deserving of praise. Similarly, a fire that ravages a city may cause great harm, but it is not morally responsible for its destructive behavior. The actions of animals, though some may be advantageous or harmful, cannot be labeled as morally right or wrong. Since they lack the capacity for moral reasoning and do not act out of choice or understanding, their actions do not warrant moral judgment or treatment.