Free Will
This issue has been raised by all of the authors we've reviewed to date as a major potential stumbling block to universalism, the argument being that there is no guarantee people will choose to be saved or perhaps remain so. Here are some thoughts on this issue.
Traditional View
‘Free will’ is defined by the dictionary as ‘the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate’. ‘Fate’ is defined as, ‘the development of events outside a person’s control, regarded as predetermined by a supernatural power’.
The traditional view is that, as God is entirely without sin, He cannot be the cause of sin. As a result, it is impossible for there to be any cause-and-effect relationship between God and mankind’s sins. Although God created us and could foresee how we were going to misuse our free wills, He did not, and never has, caused us to sin: we…
One example that is offered as a clear contradiction is given as follows.
…did Jesus say, ‘those who are not with me are against me’ or ‘those who are not against me are for me’? Either one of the evangelists is in error or Jesus said both and so contradicted himself’. (Hell to Pay, page 339).
The facts are that Jesus said, ‘those who are not with me are against me’ in Matthew 12:30 and Luke 11:23. He said this in response to challenges from the pharisees that He cast out demons by the power of Beelzebub. Jesus replied that a kingdom that is divided cannot stand. He then added the above words, which are identical in Matthew and Luke. Jesus was making the point here that, in relation to Him, there is no divided house or half-way house. People are in either one of two mutually exclusive houses: (A) with Him or (B) against Him.
Jesus did not quite say, ‘those who are not against me, are for me?’ What He actually said in Mark 9:40 was, ‘who is not against us, is for us’., and in Luke 9:50 He said, ‘he is not against you, is for you’. In the first version Jesus used the word, ‘us’ and in the second He used the pronoun, ‘you’. However, this is not a contradiction. Jesus may have simply reinforced this message by repeating the point, something He often did, in this case to make it clear to the disciples that this principle applied as much to them as group as it did to Him personally.
In this second passage, Jesus spoke these words to His disciples in relation to a man who was casting out demons in Jesus’s name, but who decided not to join the disciples at that time. Making the point He made to the pharisees in Matthew 12:30 and Luke 11:23, Jesus said that there were only two camps: (A) with Him or (B) against Him. There was no mixing of this position, no divided houses and nothing outside of (A) and (B).
Even if Jesus had said exactly what was quoted above, therefore, no contradiction would arise. If there are only two groups (A) and (B), saying that you are not in (B) must mean you are in (A) and vice versa. Far from being a contradiction, this is actually a logical necessity.