To the swarm, this would be a work; unless they have changed.
Where they would disagree is on election. I believe they would say that God chose Abraham out of all the millions of people on earth at that time because God knew Abraham would act in faith upon the promise. That is probably where the two theologies would disagree.
Quite the contrary, this is one point on which there is likely much agreement. Most Arminians, and I am not one, would agree that some things were predestined and God's choice of Abraham was most likely one of them (personally, I would say he was predestined) whether is was based merely on foreknowledge or something more.
I, and Arminians, simply do not think it is Biblical to claim that all events, including all sins committed by all men, were predestined/foreordained. Ironically, I don't thik Calvin would have had much of a dispute with this statement. What many people don't know was that John Calvin was very troubled by his conclusions regarding election and predestination. Even he has serious reservations, so why is it that some of today's Calvinists/hyper-Calvinists are so sure of issues that Calvin stated with not nearly the confidence?