Let me start off by saying that I don't have a theological axe to grind here. I'm wrestling with Calvinism and trying to figure out where I stand, but I happened to think of this in church today. Romans 10:13-14 (NIV) 13"for, 'Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.' 14How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?" I think that this scripture basically establishes that one must hear the gospel to be saved. Given that, then those ignorant of the gospel (e.g. unreached people groups) are without hope of salvation. Ok, the true, non-semi-Pelagian view of Arminianism holds to total depravity that is overcome by the enabling power of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, an individual has "free will" to choose what is good in this scenario. However, if said individual never receives the gospel, effectually the person does not have free will to choose to accept the gospel. Since God is sovereign, he could send an angel directly to these individuals to give them the gospel, but he does not. Ergo, we have an example within Arminianism where free will is denied. The remedy to such a situation would be to preach the gospel to them, right? As soon as I agree to that, then I must realize to what I am giving my assent. Preaching the gospel to them would enable their "free will" in Arminianism, but this would mean that the work of man produced "free will" in an individual, so man would get the credit, not God. This doesn't seem correct. Anyway, those are my thoughts. I look forward to further discussion.