According to Gregory MacDonald (aka Robin Parry) “Given Revelation 21:27, it is clear that a universalist interpretation of Revelation will only work if a non-Calvinist interpretation can be given to the Book of Life (BOL)” (The Evangelical Universalist, 2nd ed, p.192).
See pages 192-194:
One of the problems is how we define “free will” because usually biblically speaking it refers to the ability to make choices. As L Ray Smith has said “computers make choices” and animals make choices , one by programming and the other by instinct. But our “will” is heavily influenced by a million factors including culture ,education, family and friends and media, So I think we have limited free will .
Id agree with that but my main argument has always been if it is limited, and so severely limited, it seems an oxymoron to call a severely limited will a free will. if any will apart from Gods subjection even be true.
The B.O.L is before the consummation if I remember correctly. And the B.O.L. only foretells whos been destined to be given eonian life. I may be wrong on this.
Dont get me wrong. Im no biblical scholar. And Im not here to teach by any means. But to me, God being the subjector and counseling ALL things according to His will makes a lot more sense than limited free will.
To be honest, even though I have my views on certain subject, the only thing I stay rooted in and wont ever say Im wrong on is that I am saved by grace alone through Christs righteousness and faith, by a measure faith given to me, and that God will reconcile ALL things at the consummation of the ages.
Anything other than that, to me, is speculation and opinions of interpretation. Though I do heavily believe in dispensations too and pretty stern on that idea.
Yes Steve, very true so many will see their ‘free will’ as changing as they go through life.
And anything defiling, and those practicing abomination and a lie, never shall enter into it; only those having been written in the Lamb’s book of life. (Rev.21:27)
So your view is that some will - never - have their names in the BOL & will - never - enter the New Jerusalem? Yet still be saved?
This is admittedly not my forte. However Ive always distinguish that saved is dependent upon the subject. Those in faith have a different quality of salvation from those who arent.
All are saved from death, the corruption of sin, and eternal separation from God.
Not all are saved from eonian death, the second death, and tribulation (though I know some preterists my disagree on that last point.
So to me the B.O.L. could be about eonian life. They wont ever into eonian life. During the kingdom age they wont enter new jerusalem. But after, the life given at the consummation of the ages, they will enter the and new earth.
Im not the smartest guy, and ill be the first to tell you I dont know everything. Im trying to reconcile it the best I can with what I do claim to know.
To me, ill be honest, sometimes this back and forth of interpretation really weighs heavily on me. If I lean one way Im told Im wrong and why Im wrong, if they convince me so I lean their way I have another group of people who tell me Im wrong. So I just stick to what I know as my own personal beliefs and never tell people they are wrong but try to start a dialogue. If this feels like a cop out Im sorry. But, at this time, its simply above my understanding.
I think sometimes that no one will ever know the full mystery, but are given glimpses and insight. Those who believe in the salvation of all and reconciliation of all thing could very well know them to be true, and they be true, without us being able to explain every single verse. And,to me, such is my beliefs about being subject to Gods will.
Also I dont like to identify as a calvanist, I know you only meant it in the context of fore-ordainement, but it seems to muddy the waters. Not here of course. But if someone asked if i was a calvanist out on the street Id say no. Although I do think they were pretty close. If they dropped the “P” (partial attonement) from t.u.l.i.p. I believe they wouldve been right on the dot.
Also how would new jerusalem be defined? Is it the entirety of the new earth? Or a part of it where some have extra spiritual blessings? Could it not be taken as an allotment on the new earth?
I agree that “freewill” is a misleading phrase & L Ray Smith’s contention was that if we don’t have freewill then how can we be responsible for not believing? Smith’s contention was that we are accountable but not responsible yet God himself takes responsibility in the end.
Ive watched a few of his videos but not all of them.
The good stuff is on his website including a series called “The Myth of Freewill”
Ill check it out for sure. Like DaveB said earlier free will vs Gods sovereignty has been a debate for a long time and I doubt Im the man smart enough to end it 
Or would it be the L, not the P, in TULIP, that you would drop:
T otal Depravity (also known as Total Inability and Original Sin)
U nconditional Election
L imited Atonement (also known as Particular Atonement)
I rresistible Grace
P erseverance of the Saints (also known as Once Saved Always Saved)
BTW, there was a long discussion here not long ago re freewill where i took the side of “Calvinistic Universalism”, as in a sort of 3 or 4 point Calvinism:
See also Four Point Calvinism or, if you prefer, Amyraldism:
Dang it! I always mix up the L and the P for some reason. haha. And yeah I have no problem with 4 point calvanists. Its the 5 point calvanists who make no sense to me.
Ive always seen the debate between calvanist and armenians like this.
Calvanist believe God is able but not willing to save all
And armenians believe God is willing but not able
But both ignore the verses stating that God is willing and able to save all.
That is good food for thought, along with your other posts on the BOL.
Thank you.
Anytime! I always enjoy civil discussion 
Further to the BOL, you might be interested sometime in reading how some conccordant.org authors, who are dispensationist deterministist (anti libertarian freewill) universalists, handle the topic. I’ve posted extensive notes on the topic here: Book of life
Ill definitely check it out. Ive been reading more concordant publishing since you nudged me in their direction.
"That the other nations are not within its walls
is further shown by the statements that the nations will
be walking by means of its light, and that their glory and
confined to the Circumcision 147
honor will be carried into it (Un. 21:24, 26). The situ
ation here seems very clear. Israel within the city, the
nations without. One written in the scroll of life, the
other kept out by the lack of such an honor."
So Im assuming from that passage, unless Im misunderstanding it, that the concordant publisher also see the new jerusalem as an allotment and honor but not the end all be all of life .