I think the Arminian (and perhaps the Catholic?) position sees election as some kind of ratification of the foreseen choice, whereas Calvinists see election as causative of conversion.
Ok, but what's the purpose of this Ratification-Election? Why does God need to ratify anything if the choice was going to be made?
At least in Calvinism Election serves a purpose. Without it no one would "choose" God.
>> I think the Arminian (and perhaps the Catholic?) position sees election as some kind of ratification of the foreseen choice, whereas Calvinists see election as causative of conversion. <<
I think this is Arminian issue is a substantial source of the misunderstanding between Calvinists and Catholics (and Kosta, I'd probably lump Orthodox in with the Catholics on this one, but let me know if you have a problem with what I write.)
The Catholic position is not the Calvinist position, but it is not the Arminian position either. The Catholic position is this: God, having created us, loves us. He created us so that it is our nature to respond to his love for us. But, because of the stain of sin, we cannot detect this love for us, and we have become ignorant of it. Through grace, God removes the stain of sin, and we once again can experience that love.
I'm inventing this metaphor, so there will probably be many legitimate problems with it pointed out, but here goes:
Our closest ability to understand God's unconditional love for us comes from our unconditional love for our own child; In fact, God gives us the grace of taking part in the creation of another so that we may understand him better.
The newborn child: Has it given birth to itself? No.
When a child becomes filthy, the child will stink. The Father will clean the child. Does the child want to be cleaned? Probably not. Can the child clean itself? No.
As the child grows, the Father will teach the child to clean itself. Can the child clean itself without the father? No, the father has provided everything the child needs to clean itself: the home, the plumbing, the towels, the clean clothes. If the child does not clean itself, will the parent not make sure the child is cleaned? Of course.
But as the child grows older, how foolish would the child be to say, "I will mess in my pants, and I will not clean myself. For my Father loves me, and if I have faith in that love, I will become clean." Rather, the child, knowing that the Father has taught him good things, obeys the father by cleaning himself. And when the child's younger siblings mess themselves, the child helps his siblings to become clean also.
Does the Father want the child to have messy pants? No. Will the Father not love the child who messes his pants? Of course he will. Will the Father hug the child with messy pants? Yes. But he may ask the child to clean himself first. If the child believes that the Father would not love him because he messed his pants, though, would the Father not run after the child, messy pants and all, and warmly hug the child? Yes.
Is it not our duty as older siblings to help younger siblings stay clean? Yes. Does that mean the Father cannot keep our siblings clean without our help? Of course not.
The "Armenian" position (at least as presented by Calvinists) is that the child must accept the love of the father in order to be loved. That is absurd.
The position with the Catholic Church rejected is not that we need to choose God, nor that we can save ourselves; what the Catholic Church simply rejects is the notion that the Father doesn't want us to clean our own backsides when we take a dump. Through the church, God has provded us a toilet, toilet paper, a shower, cleaning cloths, soap, a warm house, warm water, etc. He expects us to use them.
The problem with that is that if God looks down the tube of time and elects based on his foreknowledge it is a salvation as wages due. God is our debtor because he rewards us for choosing correctly . There is no mercy or grace, just our earned wage .
Ou song
We are worthy , we are worthy , we are worthy oh Lord, to receive honor, honor and glory , we are worthy Oh Lord..
There is no single "Catholic position" on this matter; it's never been defined. Within the parameters laid out by (especially) Scripture, II Orange, and Trent, it's possible to come up with various conclusions.
IMO, the only "foreseen choice" any of us can ultimately make completely apart from grace is really a non-choice; it's the failure to resist grace at the critical moment in our conversion. (Christ said "apart from me, you can do nothing". Of course, he meant "nothing good". So at that critical moment, apart from Christ, you can either do nothing, or you can choose to do something bad.)
It's possible to believe that God foresees this failure to choose evil at a critical moment and elects those people. (That's conditional election.) It's also possible to believe that God foresees those who make the positive choice for evil at the critical moment, reprobates those people, then elects everyone else. (That's unconditional election.)
Calling election "causative of conversion" begs the question a bit. How does God know whom to elect in the first place? There has to be something about the foreseen behavior of the person that causes the choice, because he says that he desires that all men should be saved and come to knowledge of the truth, but it appears that all men are not saved. If that is the case, then His desire that all men be saved and come to knowledge of the truth takes second place to something ... perhaps keeping intact their ability to say "no, thanks"?