Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years? (Challenge to Apostolicity)

Yesterday's Reuters headline: "The Vatican on Tuesday said Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ." The actual proclamation, posted on the official Vatican Web site, says that Protestant Churches are really "ecclesial communities" rather than Churches, because they lack apostolic succession, and therefore they "have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery." Furthermore, not even the Eastern Orthodox Churches are real Churches, even though they were explicitly referred to as such in the Vatican document Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism). The new document explains that they were only called Churches because "the Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term." This new clarification, issued officially by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but in fact strongly supported by Pope Benedict XVI, manages to insult both Protestants and the Orthodox, and it may set ecumenism back a hundred years.

The new document, officially entitled "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," claims that the positions it takes do not reverse the intent of various Vatican II documents, especially Unitatis Redintegratio, but merely clarify them. In support of this contention, it cites other documents, all issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), Communionis notio (1992), and Dominus Iesus (2000). The last two of these documents were issued while the current pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was prefect of the Congregation. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was born in 1542 with the name Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition, and for centuries it has operated as an extremely conservative force with the Roman Catholic Church, opposing innovation and modernizing tendencies, suppressing dissent, and sometimes, in its first few centuries, persecuting those who believed differently. More recently, the congregation has engaged in the suppression of some of Catholicism's most innovative and committed thinkers, such as Yves Congar, Hans Küng, Charles Curran, Matthew Fox, and Jon Sobrino and other liberation theologians. In light of the history of the Congregation of the Faith, such conservative statements as those released this week are hardly surprising, though they are quite unwelcome.

It is natural for members of various Christian Churches to believe that the institutions to which they belong are the best representatives of Christ's body on earth--otherwise, why wouldn't they join a different Church? It is disingenuous, however, for the leader of a Church that has committed itself "irrevocably" (to use Pope John Paul II's word in Ut Unum Sint [That They May Be One] 3, emphasis original) to ecumenism to claim to be interested in unity while at the same time declaring that all other Christians belong to Churches that are in some way deficient. How different was the attitude of Benedict's predecessors, who wrote, "In subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the [Roman] Catholic Church--for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3). In Benedict's view, at various times in history groups of Christians wandered from the original, pure Roman Catholic Church, and any notion of Christian unity today is predicated on the idea of those groups abandoning their errors and returning to the Roman Catholic fold. The pope's problem seems to be that he is a theologian rather than a historian. Otherwise he could not possibly make such outrageous statements and think that they were compatible with the spirit of ecumenism that his immediate predecessors promoted.

One of the pope's most strident arguments against the validity of other Churches is that they can't trace their bishops' lineages back to the original apostles, as the bishops in the Roman Catholic Church can. There are three problems with this idea.

First, many Protestants deny the importance of apostolic succession as a guarantor of legitimacy. They would argue that faithfulness to the Bible and/or the teachings of Christ is a better measure of authentic Christian faith than the ability to trace one's spiritual ancestry through an ecclesiastical bureaucracy. A peripheral knowledge of the lives of some of the medieval and early modern popes (e.g., Stephen VI, Sergius III, Innocent VIII, Alexander VI) is enough to call the insistence on apostolic succession into serious question. Moreover, the Avignon Papacy and the divided lines of papal claimants in subsequent decades calls into serious question the legitimacy of the whole approach. Perhaps the strongest argument against the necessity of apostolic succession comes from the Apostle Paul, who was an acknowledged apostle despite not having been ordained by one of Jesus' original twelve disciples. In fact, Paul makes much of the fact that his authority came directly from Jesus Christ rather than from one of the apostles (Gal 1:11-12). Apostolic succession was a useful tool for combating incipient heresy and establishing the antiquity of the churches in particular locales, but merely stating that apostolic succession is a necessary prerequisite for being a true church does not make it so.

The second problem with the new document's insistence upon apostolic succession is the fact that at least three other Christian communions have apostolic succession claims that are as valid as that of the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Churches, which split from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054, can trace their lineages back to the same apostles that the Roman Catholic Church can, a fact acknowledged by Unitatis Redintegratio 14. The Oriental Orthodox Churches, such as the Coptic and Ethiopic Orthodox Churches, split from the Roman Catholic Church several centuries earlier, but they too can trace their episcopal lineages back to the same apostles claimed by the Roman Catholic Church as its founders. Finally, the Anglican Church, which broke away from the Roman Catholic Church during the reign of King Henry VIII, can likewise trace the lineage of every bishop back through the first archbishop of Canterbury, Augustine. In addition to these three collections of Christian Churches, the Old Catholics and some Methodists also see value in the idea of apostolic succession, and they can trace their episcopal lineages just as far back as Catholic bishops can.

The third problem with the idea of apostolic succession is that the earliest bishops in certain places are simply unknown, and the lists produced in the third and fourth centuries that purported to identify every bishop back to the founding of the church in a particular area were often historically unreliable. Who was the founding bishop of Byzantium? Who brought the gospel to Alexandria? To Edessa? To Antioch? There are lists that give names (e.g., http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm), such as the Apostles Mark (Alexandria), Andrew (Byzantium), and Thaddeus (Armenia), but the association of the apostles with the founding of these churches is legendary, not historical. The most obvious breakdown of historicity in the realm of apostolic succession involves none other than the see occupied by the pope, the bishop of Rome. It is certain that Peter did make his way to Rome before the time of Nero, where he perished, apparently in the Neronian persecution following the Great Fire of Rome, but it is equally certain that the church in Rome predates Peter, as it also predates Paul's arrival there (Paul also apparently died during the Neronian persecution). The Roman Catholic Church may legitimately claim a close association with both Peter and Paul, but it may not legitimately claim that either was the founder of the church there. The fact of the matter is that the gospel reached Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Edessa, and other early centers of Christianity in the hands of unknown, faithful Christians, not apostles, and the legitimacy of the churches established there did not suffer in the least because of it.

All the talk in the new document about apostolic succession is merely a smokescreen, however, for the main point that the Congregation of the Faith and the pope wanted to drive home: recognition of the absolute primacy of the pope. After playing with the words "subsists in" (Lumen Gentium [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church] 8) and "church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 14) in an effort to make them mean something other than what they originally meant, the document gets down to the nitty-gritty. "Since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches." From an ecumenical standpoint, this position is a non-starter. Communion with Rome and acknowledging the authority of the pope as bishop of Rome is a far different matter from recognizing the pope as the "visible head" of the entire church, without peer. The pope is an intelligent man, and he knows that discussions with other Churches will make no progress on the basis of this prerequisite, so the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the pope, despite his protestations, has no interest in pursuing ecumenism. Trying to persuade other Christians to become Roman Catholics, which is evidently the pope's approach to other Churches, is not ecumenism, it's proselytism.

Fortunately, this document does not represent the viewpoint of all Catholics, either laypeople or scholars. Many ordinary Catholics would scoff at the idea that other denominations were not legitimate Churches, which just happen to have different ideas about certain topics and different ways of expressing a common Christianity. Similarly, many Catholic scholars are doing impressive work in areas such as theology, history, biblical study, and ethics, work that interacts with ideas produced by non-Catholic scholars. In the classroom and in publications, Catholics and non-Catholics learn from each other, challenge one another, and, perhaps most importantly, respect one another.

How does one define the Church? Christians have many different understandings of the term, and Catholics are divided among themselves, as are non-Catholics. The ecumenical movement is engaged in addressing this issue in thoughtful, meaningful, and respectful ways. Will the narrow-minded view expressed in "Responses" be the death-knell of the ecumenical movement? Hardly. Unity among Christians is too important an idea to be set aside. Will the document set back ecumenical efforts? Perhaps, but Christians committed to Christian unity--Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike--will get beyond it. The ecumenical movement is alive and well, and no intemperate pronouncement from the Congregation of the Faith, or the current pope, can restrain it for long. Even if ecumenism, at least as it involves the Roman Catholic Church's connection with other Churches, is temporarily set back a hundred years, that distance can be closed either by changes of heart or changes of leadership.

“”I’m just trying to imagine myself as a person with this view, and since I would be very interested in getting into Heaven I would want to know what exactly I had to do.””

Dear Forrest Keeper,

We must first understand that we can not earn Salvation based on works of “self” (emphasis on “self”)

There seems to be a great divide amongst Christians as to understanding works.

Works in Christ are selfless works and in order to do this we must die to ourself so that Christ can use our human nature.... In other words “let go” of ourselves COMPLETELY so that Christ can guide us.
Our Blessed Mother is our role model for this because by Her saying yes in order that God could become man shows the ultimate in Faith and in self denial to the will of God

When we let go of ourselves we are participating completely with the will of God and totally united with Him.

When we unite ourselves with Him in this manner we open ourselves to a love that is unconditional - preferring the good of others to the good of oneself.

This takes a clear “FREE WILL” decision on our part to drop our selfish nature and say “yes” regardless of any suffering that we may have to endure, because God knows us better than we know ourselves and Although we might not understand it at the time we embrace and love God’s will because of our Love for Him

The Scriptures are full of examples that we must die to self. Just a few....

Luke 9:23-24(Nab)
“Then he said to all, “If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross DAILY and follow me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it.”

Mark 8:34-35
“He summoned the crowd with his disciples and said to them, “Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.
For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and that of the gospel will save it.”

Gal 5;24
“Now those who belong to Christ (Jesus) have crucified their flesh with its passions and desires.”

Romans 6:11
“Consequently, you too must think of yourselves as (being) dead to sin and living for God in Christ Jesus.”

Romans 7:4-6
“In the same way, my brothers, you also were put to death to the law through the body of Christ, so that you might belong to another, to the one who was raised from the dead in order that we might bear fruit for God.

For when we were in the flesh, our sinful passions, awakened by the law, worked in our members to bear fruit for death.

But now we are released from the law, dead to what held us captive, so that we may serve in the newness of the spirit and not under the obsolete letter.”

John 12;24-25

“Amen, amen, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains just a grain of wheat; but if it dies, it produces much fruit.

Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will preserve it for eternal life.

If you read the lives of the martyrs and Saints, you’re going to find one very distinct thing they ALL have in common.It is in the Sacraments and particularly in the Eucharist that they die to self.”

Saint Thomas Aquinas says this very well....

“Material food first changes into the one who eats it, and then, as a consequence, restores to him lost strength and increases his vitality. Spiritual food, on the other hand, changes the person who eats it into itself. Thus the effect proper to this Sacrament is the conversion of a man into Christ, so that he may no longer live, but Christ lives in him; consequently, it has the double effect of restoring the spiritual strength he had lost by his sins and defects, and of increasing the strength of his virtues.” St. Thomas, Commentary on Book IV of the Sentences, d.12, q.2, a.11

Matthew 13:18-52 is a series of parables Christ used to reveal the kingdom of heaven just after He explained that He used parables to hide truth in plain view – so that those who do not have ‘ears to hear’ or ‘eyes to see’ will not understand.

The parables of the field and the pearl of great price and the net follow the parable of the sower and the parable of the tares. But I would like to bring your attention to our Lord’s “postscript” and repeat those smaller parables here:

Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.

Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls: Who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it.

Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind: Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away. So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Jesus saith unto them, Have ye understood all these things? They say unto him, Yea, Lord.

Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe [which is] instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man [that is] an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure [things] new and old.

This is how I am seeing all of you – hosepipe, .30Carbine, seven-O – each of you are like that scribe who has been instructed in the kingdom of heaven and is bringing forth treasures both new and old.

IOW, the parables are spiritual per se and speak to us (as hosepipe suggests) beyond the ability of language to fully translate. And so we may describe what we see a bit differently and still each be looking at the same Light - and the insights from our brothers and sisters adds to our treasure in Him.

So thank you all for your insights and your testimonies (especially you, dear .30Carbine)!

To God be the glory!

The atheists on the science threads make the same demand: show me evidence, show me proof!

As I already told Dr. E, who used the same argument, atheists do now have monopoly on the method of proof. A proof is not "atheist" and more than it is "Christian."

And saying "I know Christ and you don't" is no proof, even if it's true.

Think about it: what is proof? If it is sufficient to make you believe, then it's Gnostic. If you can't prove it to others, why are you trying? If it is something one must experience, then preaching and text-proofing will prove nothin'.

So, what's the point? You have already stated that you have known Christ for the last five decades. Fine. But why are you repeating it? This is like saying "My screen name is Alamo-Girl." is endless repetition going to prove it's true?

That which cannot be proven to others is no proof. It's Gnosticism.

How does this differ from faith? Faith is something we put our hope in. It is not something rational, otherwise it wouldn't be hope but certainty.

But we can convince ourselves that it is certainty, and we can even claim that we have seen God in some way. But all that remains unprovable and anecdotal.

So, we need to realize that our own experiences are not real to others unless we can show them to others o unless others claim soemthing similar (but not necessarily identical).

Claiming the Holy Spirit is one's conviction which, as we have learned, can be just as "real" as someone saying "God told me to do this" (the excuse given by mass-murdering mother of five who drowned her children).

We do not retain "control" to snatch ourselves from God's hands; God allows it and our [fallen] nature wants it. God made a promise that, as long as we come to Him, in spite of our nature, He will not let go of us. God helps us overcome our sinful nature, but he doesn't change it. That doesn't mean we can't deny God at any moment and be lost.

What do you think control IS, if not what you just described? You just said you have the control to deny God and be lost at any moment. That's true (for you) both before you believe AND after you believe. You control your own destiny at all times, based on your view of God's promises. There is no real surrender, but at best only a partial surrender.

In the Reformed view, there is no faith, there is no will, but possession.

Of course there is faith. By God's grace it is a free gift, and His elect receive it and truly believe. As to possession, do you deny that you are OWNED by God? (1 Cor. 6:19-20) Do you belong to Him? Are you offended or think it is an intrusion on your personal liberty if it was true that all of your good thoughts and deeds were under God's control? Remember that the free will you fight so hard to defend is free FROM God's controlling influence! I, for one, want God to be in control of my will ALL THE TIME. :) .

So, this is not about us, but about who gets the "trophy!" That makes a mockery of Christ's sacrifice in my opinion.

Why shouldn't your decision FOR Christ be "God-full" instead of "God-less"? You have said then it would not be a real decision. So, how far away do you have to push God in order to accept Him? :)

There is no surrender in the Reformed view, either. You are either pre-programmed to be in God's hands or in the devil's. This was done before the foundations of the world, so it makes no difference what you do, think, believe, or act.

Sure there is surrender, and it is real. Death and the old nature (ME) lose. God and everlasting life win. And as it turned out, the old me was no match for God, so I surrendered. In fact, God always wins and His elect always surrender.

The story is told of a group of theologians who were discussing predestination and free will. Things became so heated that the group broke up into two opposing factions.

But one man, not knowing which to join, stood for a moment trying to decide. At last he joined the predestination group.

“Who sent you here?” they asked.

“No one sent me,” he replied. “I considered the facts and decided on my own.”

“Free Will!” they exclaimed. “You can’t join us! You belong with the other group!”

So he followed their orders and went to the other clique.

There someone asked, “When did you decide to join us?”

The young man replied, “Well, I didn’t really decide—I was sent here.”

“Sent here!” they shouted. “You can’t join us unless you have decided by your own free will.”

When you look at the Bible as a whole and consider why God created man, why God is angered by us, why Jesus came to earth to be a sacrifice for our sins, and why God delays in destroying the world and creating a new one it is clear God is giving every person every chance possible to repent and accept Him. Otherwise we can ignore our lost neighbors, criminals, or those struggling with various addictions, because the result of predestination is that is the way they were created and were meant to be.

God is not standing off in the distance, having wound us up and pre-programmed us, watching us and the rest of His creation wind down. No, God is actively involved with us on our life’s journey and we are involved as well.

It all boils down to this:

If you can believe that God does not love everyone, just specific people, and that Jesus only died for a predetermined few, then you won’t have any problems justifying a belief in predestination. For me it doesn’t get any more basic, or any clearer, than Jesus’ words in John 3:16-17

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

God always wins and the elect always surrender.

AMEN! Exactly correct. How else can life be viewed? God loses? To what? To whom? To mortal men? To the created being of Satan? To happenstance?

God never loses. What He wants, He already possesses. That's what it means to be God -- He is complete and lacks for nothing.

The elect surrender because God ordained their surrender and their acquittal from sin from before the foundation of the world.

As blue-duncan once wrote...

"The whole sacrificial system was poor copy of the reality that was in heaven and looked forward to it breaking into time. A believer's life will catch up with his election in time. At present, believers are seen as perfect in Christ and yet our sanctification is in process and ultimately when we are in the presence of Jesus our sanctification will catch up with the perfection that God sees us in now."

That's the faith of the Apostles; the faith of the Reformation. That's believing every word of Scripture true.

"I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.
That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past." -- Ecclesiastes 3:14-15

"...That which is to be hath already been..."

When we truly understand the ramifications of this reality, we're a whole lot happier and secure in life because that's the way God intends it to be, by His grace through faith in Christ risen from the cross.

Truly, God has worked everything together from the beginning to accomplish His own will.

It should not be disturbing that terms such as “Logos” find their roots in Greek philosophy....

Indeed, dearest sister in Christ! We must remember that the Logos was "in the world" from the beginning of Creation, long before the Incarnation of Jesus Christ; because the Logos is God's Creative Word that made all the worlds, heaven and earth -- the Son of God by whom and for whom were all things made that were made.

What fascinates me is that the great Greeks (the classical philosophers) seem to have sniffed this all out, again long before the Incarnation (~500 B.C.). Somehow, some of these Greeks were able to sense or intuit the Logos as the necessary creative organizational principle of the Cosmos. [There was heavy reliance on mathematics, mainly geometry and numbers theory, to help spec out the problem.]

Anyhoot, such folk recognized that such a Logos would have to be divine in nature, in its essence. Plato also saw the connections between God - man - world - society as essential to any proper understanding of the constitution of human personal order and the good order of society (the polis).

The problem was, I gather, that there was no way that any sensible Greek would assume that the divine Logos was willed by Zeus or any other Olympian god. These "gods" simply conducted themselves as human beings writ large: though born, they are immortal. They never perish; but they don't rule forever either. The Olympians under Zeus struggled against the primaeval gods, Chronos and the gang, and prevailed in the end.

The original gods were sent packing into a shadowy, thoroughly unappealing immortality. They never really go away; but they are now impotent: Zeus is in charge (or was at the time of Homer and Hesoid and even Plato and Aristotle). Indeed, Chronos was Zeus' own father. Beyond that, the Olympians conducted themselves in the worst possible manner, with vanity, pride, fickleness, anger, greed, envy, cupidity, conceit, impurity, lust for power (and the constant sacrifices of men), outright lying. Plus they had the nasty habit of using men as pawns in the games they played amongst themselves, on blissful Mount Olympus.... Usually such games required copious expenditures of human blood.

Needless to say, this was an embarrassing situation, and Plato was definitely aware of it. He found a provisional answer to the problem of the provenance of the Logos: Plato simply designated it Epikeina, the god "Beyond" the Cosmos. He conceived of this Beyond primarily as Nous, as infinitely vast mind who "likely" had something to do with the shape and nature of the created living Cosmos and all its created beings.

But any idea of a personal god had to wait for our Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, the personification of the Logos. It took a divine revelation to do it.... It is doubtful Plato had any foreknowledge of the Incarnation at the time he lived....

It was Heraclitus, "Plato's long shadow," who gave us some of the earliest writings on the Logos. Unfortunately, only fragments survive. Here's a sampling [fragment number in brackets]:

But though the Logos is common, the many live as if they had a wisdom of their own. [2]
Those who speak with the mind must strengthen themselves with that which is common to all, as the polis does with the law and more strongly so. For all human laws nourish themselves from the one divine — which prevails as it will, and suffices for all things and more than suffices. [114]
Although this Logos is eternally valid, yet men are unable to understand it — not only before hearing it, but even after they have heard it for the first time. That is to say, although all things come to pass in accordance with this Logos, men seem to be quite without any experience of it — at least if they are judged in the light of such words and deeds as I am here setting forth. My own method is to distinguish each thing according to its nature, and to specify how it behaves; other men, on the contrary, are as forgetful and heedless in their waking moments of what is going on around and within them as they are during sleep. [1]
Those who are awake have a world one and common, but those who are asleep each turn aside into their own private worlds. [89]
It is not meet to act and speak like men asleep. [73]

All glory be to God! Truly He works everything together for the good, and has done so ever since the Beginning.

All praise and glory be to our Lord God, Rock of ages!

***If you can believe that God does not love everyone, just specific people, and that Jesus only died for a predetermined few, then you won’t have any problems justifying a belief in predestination.***

Your words.

God’s words, as found in John10:22 At that time the Feast of Dedication took place at Jerusalem. It was winter, 23 and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the colonnade of Solomon. 24 So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” 25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, [1] is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.

And saying "I know Christ and you don't" is no proof, even if it's true.

The point you miss is if it is true, it's all the proof one needs.

Christianity is a revealed faith. The evidence either measures up against God's word or it doesn't. The fruit is either good or it's not.

And it doesn't take a magisterium to determine if the fruit is good. It takes God-given discernment.

You've spent months telling us how difficult, even impossible, it is to be saved unless one is under the umbrella of the Vatican or the EO. We Protestants reply that it is not so difficult. If God has graced us with faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, if God has given us new eyes and ears and a new heart, if God has quickened our minds, the rest of life will fall into place, one way or another, according to His will. Our lives will be productive and reflect God's generous mercy because that's the good fruit of faith. We will not fall away because God has promised the Holy Spirit will guide us and not leave us on our own.

Most of all, Christ has promised never to lose any of His sheep. And because I believe He is my Lord and Savior, I know I am among His flock.

The assurances in God's word are certain and direct -- "Believe and be saved." So I think you and Rome are making things needlessly complicated.

"Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God." -- Colossians 2:18-19

"Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom.
Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice.
Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities.
Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.
Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.
Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit." -- Psalm 51:6-12

I guess what I'm missing is the selection mechanism - how it's done and why God does it.

I still cannot resolve it against the passages of inclusivity for all men.

You're right to feel a certain amount of unease at the doctrine of election. Even Calvin called it a "terrible doctrine." "Terrible" in that when we realize the truth of it we are faced with the awesome knowledge that we can do nothing to "earn" our salvation; it is wholly and completely a gift from God to either give faith or withhold it.

Most of us Calvinists didn't start out believing in election. And it takes quite a while to fully wrap our minds around it. Most of us attended Arminian churches which teach the same thing your church teaches -- that men must believe of their own free will and thus the names of God's children are not immutable and fixed, but vary from moment to moment, according to the efforts of men to please God.

But when we return to Scripture, God's sovereign election is everywhere. And at the very least, as xzins was explaining, if God knows who will ultimately be saved and who will remain lost, then how can anyone alter God's knowledge of the future?

Beyond that, however, is the greater truth that while all men are fallen, God has given some men faith in Christ and thus, those men will be saved. All others are left to pay for their own sins.

We're not to inquire why God elects; that is part of His secret counsel known only to Him. But it is enough for us that He's told us He does elect, and elect absolutely.

The Westminster Confession of Faith explains it better than I can...

Of God's Eternal Decree
I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;[1] yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,[2] nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.[3]
II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions;[4] yet has He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.[5]
III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels[6] are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.[7]
IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.[8]
V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, has chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory,[9] out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto;[10] and all to the praise of His glorious grace.[11]
VI. As God has appointed the elect unto glory, so has He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto.[12] Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ,[13] are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified,[14] and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation.[15] Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.[16]
VII. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy, as He pleases, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praised of His glorious justice.[17]
VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care,[18] that men, attending the will of God revealed in His Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election.[19] So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God;[20] and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the Gospel.[21]

(The footnotes refer to supporting Scripture citations in the link.)

Or you might want to read Augustine's A TREATISE ON THE PREDESTINATION OF THE SAINTS

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.