As I've described over the last few posts, free will is often invoked to rebut visions of universal reconciliation. Two points I've made over the last two posts concern the liberationist vision of free will invoked in these debates, and the plausibility, if that view is true, of a human will rebelling against God for all eternity.
In this post I want to turn to a different issue: Reformed appeals to free will in debating universalism.
Recall, both Luther and Calvin held to what is called the "bondage of the will." Opposed to the Arminian view, that sinful humanity still possesses free will, the Reformed (Calvinistic) stream of Protestantism subscribes to the doctrine of election. Specifically, since the human will is in "bondage" humans lack the capacity to even choose God. The will itself is broken. Our apparatus of choice is non-functional. Consequently, God has to act, unilaterally, to rehabilitate and regenerate human volition. The capacity of "choice" is wholly a gift of grace. In short, since we cannot choose God, God has to choose us. This is the doctrine of election. God, and God alone, chooses who to save.
In short, the Reformed tradition doesn't believe in free will. And yet, here's the curiosity: I've seen many Reformed believers resort to the free will defense to argue against universalism. To which I can only say, "Wait a minute. You're Reformed. You can't appeal to free will, because y'all don't believe in free will."
Here's an interesting thing. Universalists and the Reformed actually have a lot in common. Both believe that God gets what God wants in the end, that God's will is sovereign and cannot be thwarted. The only difference between the universalist and the Reformed is arithmetic. The Reformed believe God only wants to save a few. The universalist believes God wants to save all.
Of course, this isn't exactly correct. The Reformed don't believe in post-mortem movement. By contrast, many visions of universal salvation do subscribe to post-mortem movement. And this contrast highlights another irony. Many visions of universal reconciliation posit post-mortem movement precisely because they want to preserve free will, or at least a view of human volition capable of being responsive to the work of God in a synergistic, collaborative way. To make room for free (or synergistic) will in a universalist account, you have to extend the timeline of salvation to infinity and beyond, to borrow from Buzz Lightyear. If infinity is the timeline, it is argued, all of humanity will eventually--freely or synergistically--come to God. God's infinite patience creates space for human choice, either free or synergistic. In the Reformed view, by contrast, there is no free or synergistic will, only God's unilateral election.
So, it is not quite fair to suggest that the Reformed and universalist visions are basically the same. But it is fair to point out that it is quite odd for Reformed believers to use free will to rebut universalism, given that the Reformed tradition doesn't believe in free will. And it's also true that both the Reformed and universalists believe that God will get what God wants. On that point, that if God wants to save you--gosh darn it--God is going to save you, the two visions of salvation really do just boil down to a question of math.
