Traditionally,
Arminians subscribed to conditional election based on foreseen faith. That
understanding of election would still involve individual election as well as
soteriological election.
In
dealing with Rom 9, another tactic was election to service, which would be a
non-soteriological category.
Contemporary
Arminian scholarship generally favors corporate election. That would still be
soteriological election, but somehow avoids individual election (according to
Arminian proponents).
Let’s
play along with the Arminian corporate elective interpretation for the sake of
argument. It would still be the case that, in OT times, God corporately elected
Israel, in contrast to not electing the Gentile world.
Wouldn’t
that still be discriminatory? By Arminian standards, if God’s corporately
elected Israel, while he conspicuously did not corporately elect the pagan
world at the same time, isn’t that unfair? You still have God conferring a
soteriological opportunity on one people-group, while passing others by.
No comments:
Post a Comment