Corporate election

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.