Anyone who has followed this ministry long enough knows that I am by no means an Arminian. In fact, ironically, while I am no Calvinist either, Arminians often accuse me of being a Calvinist. Likewise, many Calvinists, at first, assume I am an Arminian. I had the displeasure recently to debate one such Calvinist. I say displeasure because, in spite of numerous corrections, he insisted I am an Arminian. The conversation quickly deviated from the correct context of John 6:37 to whether I, personally, am an Arminian, which, if he was honest, should never have happened. One correction should have been enough, but unfortunately it was not.
I warned this Calvinist that continuing to deliberately misrepresent me would result in me ending the conversation. As a result, he again deliberately misrepresented me, but asked the question "When the gospel (sic) is preached, why do some believe and others don't? What makes the difference?" Of course, as promised, because he deliberately misrepresented me again, I told him I would not answer him to his face, but would instead do so in an article.
In true internet troll fashion, he scoffed. "Thanks for not answering the question. I actually didn't expect you to. It would undermine your foundation." But the great thing about not being a Calvinist is that my foundation is not John Calvin, and the great thing about not being an Arminian is that my foundation is not Jacob Arminius. By rejecting man made philosophies like Calvinism and Arminianism, I am free to accept the Bible as my foundation. Thus, contrary to the assertions of this Calvinist, who should have expected me not to answer him because I promised him I would not answer him if he continued to deliberately misrepresent me, I can answer this question from a non-Calvinist perspective, and will spend the rest of this article doing so.
Of course, the Calvinist would simply answer "God". God is the reason some receive the Gospel, whereas others reject it. But this answer is inadequate, simply because Calvinism and Arminianism are extreme ends of a spectrum, with both being able to provide out-of-context Scriptures to support their view, while ignoring Scriptures that seem to contradict it. In the case of Calvinism, there are Scriptures such as 1 Timothy 2:3-4, which clearly say God wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. The only way Calvinists can circumvent this Scripture is by adding to it.
Aside from adding to Scripture to avoid the fact it says God wants all men to be saved, Calvinists must also remove from Scripture in order to suggest God forces some people to accept the Gospel while also stopping others. Ironically, the Scripture they must remove from happens to be one of their favorite "proof texts".
There are two chapters of the Bible every Calvinist loves to cite: Romans 8 and 9. Yet, in Romans 8:29, we read "For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren." Did you see what I see? That word "foreknew" makes all the difference.
See, a strange behavior among Calvinists is that, when it is convenient for them, they forget that God is omniscient. They forget that God declares the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10), that He knows a word before it is on our tongue (Psalm 139:4), and that even when none of the days of our lives had yet happened, God has them written in His book (Psalm 139:16).
But God's foreknowledge of what will be also factors in what could be. This is why God, knowing full well what will happen, can also say "perhaps this will happen" without lying. God cannot lie (Titus 1:2), and so if He says "perhaps this will happen", that thing can happen, even if God knows it won't happen.
Now, pay attention to Jeremiah 26:3: "Perhaps everyone will listen and turn from his evil way, that I may relent concerning the calamity which I purpose to bring on them because of the evil of their doings.’" This, of course, is God speaking. In this verse, God knows the people will not listen and turn, and so He will not relent. Yet, He still says "perhaps they might". There are two possibilities: 1. God lied, 2. the people could have relented.
Conclusion number 1 is utterly precluded by the very character of God, for God cannot lie. Therefore, God foreknew that of the two possibilities, the one He said might happen wouldn't happen.
This is further demonstrated by Christ, when He condemned the cities of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum. These three cities, He compared with Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom. Observe: "Then He began to rebuke the cities in which most of His mighty works had been done, because they did not repent: “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you.”" (Matthew 11:20-24).
Now, a Calvinist is forced to say to Jesus "no Jesus, you're wrong, for it is God who grants repentance". Note that I am not disagreeing with the phrase, but with the Calvinist interpretation thereof. But since I am not a Calvinist, I am free to agree with Jesus. If He had performed His mighty works in Tyre, or Sidon, or Sodom, each of these cities would have repented. Who am I to disagree with Jesus?
So God not only tells us He has foreknowledge, but also gives us a bit of insight into it. To deny God's foreknowledge is to deny Scripture. To deny that God can see alternative futures, likewise, is denying Scripture.
So, with that in mind, what are we to think when we read Romans 8:29-30? "For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified." The first step in this process is not predestination. Rather, it is foreknowledge. God foreknows every tiny little detail of every possible timeline. He knows what would happen if He did His miracles in Sodom instead of Capernaum.
Now, Scripture tells us quite plainly that God does not show partiality (Romans 2:11; Acts 10:34). Thus, He is not up in Heaven saying "I like this one, I'll add him to the elect. This one I find particularly detestable, so I'm just going to destroy him". We see this even in Romans 9, another Calvinist favorite: "What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?" (Romans 9:14-24).
Of course, a Calvinist would read that and say it proves their point. Whom God wills, He shows mercy, and whom God wills, He hardens. But note that term "harden". What does this mean? Suppose God hardened a Christian. What would happen to that Christian? Would the Christian suddenly become a radical atheist, or a more faithful Christian? The obvious answer is a more faithful Christian. To become hardened does not mean to become more rebellious to God, it means to become more solid. As a hardened egg is a hardened egg, so is a hardened sinner a hardened sinner.
The passage in question mentions Pharaoh. Let's have a look at what we read in Exodus about this particular man: "But I am sure that the king of Egypt will not let you go, no, not even by a mighty hand. So I will stretch out My hand and strike Egypt with all My wonders which I will do in its midst; and after that he will let you go." (Exodus 3:19-20). Note, then, that before any hardening has occurred, God is already sure that Pharaoh will need some... convincing... before he obeys God. Pharaoh, therefore, is already on this sinful path.
We actually see more of this in Romans 1. Reading from verse 18 onwards, we read "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who [d]suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them."
Note that the rejection comes before the hardening. They knew God, but did not honor Him as God, "Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness...". "For this reason God gave them up to vile passions." "...even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind..."
So why are these people being hardened? Not because Paul was wrong when He told Timothy God wants all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:3-4). Not because Peter was wrong when he says God doesn't want anyone to perish (2 Peter 3:9). Not because, in spite of what He told Ezekiel, God is pleased when the wicked die (Ezekiel 33:11). It is not even because the only people in the world who have ever been able to resist God's will are the lawyers and Pharisees in Luke 7:30. No, all of those Scriptures I just cited are 100% true, and are in no need of alteration, nor should we feel safe in discarding them. Rather, these people said to God "not your will, but ours be done". And so God simply locks them into that choice.
So why do some accept the Gospel and others reject it? It has never been a simple question, and the answer is precisely why I can neither be a Calvinist, who would say "because God chooses whom to save and who to condemn", nor an Arminian, who would say "because they chose to". The answer is both and.
With God's foreknowledge, He knows the outcome of every choice made by anyone and everyone, including Himself. He knew Sodom would repent if He did the signs and wonders there, yet chose not to, "...making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly;" (2 Peter 2:6). So why didn't Sodom repent? Because they chose not to, and because God chose not to show them mercy.
We are no different than Sodom when it comes to God's foreknowledge. Before He even said "let there be light", He knew if you would repent, and how to make it so. Then, He chose whether to provide those conditions. There are many things you have no control over. Where and when you were born, for example, are not in your control. If your parents taught you the Gospel, it's because God gave you to those parents, where He could have made your mother barren, or given you to another couple, had He chosen. There is so much within God's control that even with what little control God does give you, it can still only be said that "We love Him because He first loved us." (1 John 4:19).
So, the simplest answer to why some people accept the Gospel and others reject it is "For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified." (Romans 8:29-30). My foundation for this belief is Scripture, and as you can see, though I am neither a Calvinist, nor an Arminian, that foundation is not undermined by the question. Rather, the question has been answered by a stronger foundation than either Calvin or Arminius provide us.