"I can understand your aversion to God being in control of everything. I used to believe just as you about this."
Well, I used to believe just as you do, so that makes us even! :-)
It has little to do with my aversion to God's being in control. I, after all, am not the one who determines the conditions of God's existence.
It has rather everything to do with the consistent traditional understanding of Christianity prior to the Calvinist branch of the Reformation: that man has the free will to choose God or reject him. This traditional understanding had come down from the Apostles. If TULIP had been one of the key teachings of the Apostles, one would expect to find it expounded on in detail in the early Church Fathers.
It is God who seemingly (at the risk of attributing human emotions and experiences to him) was/is averse to having the pinnacle of his creation be a sort of flesh and blood robot, whose existence is that of a marionette who only thinks that he is making decisions every day to sin or not -- to choose God or reject him.
Which God is the more powerful -- a God who must control and predetermine every second of the history of the universe, or the God who creates a universe with which he interacts and treats his created beings with the respect of allowing them to choose to love him or reject him?
If a king has the authority and ability to put anyone to death in his kingdom that he chooses, is the fact that he fails to kill everyone in his kingdom somehow proof that he doesn't have that authority and ability? Would his granting of self-determination to his subjects mean that by definition he really didn't have the authority and ability to compell them to do what he wants?
Does a husband have to control every aspect of his wife's life to be the head of the home? Does a parent need to control every aspect of his child's life in order to be the parent rather than a peer? And these are just poor shadows in our earthly life that only hint at what the relationship between us and God is.
The idea that by God choosing to give free choice to certain of his creatures, he ceased being all-powerful really doesn't make sense. The idea that there are only two choices: a God who has predetermined and forced every event of every second of history, or a God who is buffeted and helpless -- is a false dichotomy.
As an Orthodox Christian, I can see why Calvinists came up with the idea of predestination. God had, in the West, developed into a pretty legalistic and juridical concept. A God who seeks vengeance and bloody satisfaction right and left, and who is seemingly pretty hard to please would leave one in a chronic state of anxiety, no matter how hard one tried to please him.
Calvinism took away this state of anxiety by using St. Augustine's speculations on predestination writ large.
One of the things that sometimes strikes people who explore Orthodoxy is the justaposition of a non-legalistic approach to the faith with what is a very morally and ascetically strict Christian life; and a complete unwillingness to state that one is or is not "saved," with a simultaneous lack of anxiety about one's future.
Touche! :) It's funny, I think Kolo told me a long time ago that several "newbies" who darken the door at his church actually come from my camp. I guess that makes you living proof. :)
If TULIP had been one of the key teachings of the Apostles, one would expect to find it expounded on in detail in the early Church Fathers.
Then how did ALMOST ALL of the KEY TEACHINGS of Mary COMPLETELY ESCAPE the Bible?
Which God is the more powerful -- a God who must control and predetermine every second of the history of the universe, or the God who creates a universe with which he interacts and treats his created beings with the respect of allowing them to choose to love him or reject him?
Noting that you framed your entire comment from the human POV (which is fine) I will answer in kind. By far the former God is infinitely more powerful. (And, "must control" should be replaced with "does control".) The latter God respects lesser beings, the potter respects the pot which he created. That is weakness. The former God knows the limitations and nature of His creation. He loves His creation so much that He ensures that those whom He chooses will live forever with Him in Heaven. The latter God would stand by helplessly IF it turned out that every man chose to reject Him. Under this view, the Godhead "COULD" wind up alone in Heaven. What would that say about God's love for us?
If a king has the authority and ability to put anyone to death in his kingdom that he chooses, is the fact that he fails to kill everyone in his kingdom somehow proof that he doesn't have that authority and ability?
No, but I don't understand how this applies to my side's position.
[continuing the same paragraph:] Would his granting of self-determination to his subjects mean that by definition he really didn't have the authority and ability to compel them to do what he wants?
Yes. In order to compel them, God would have to take back man's self-determination, thus making God a liar, or, more diplomatically, an "Indian-giver". :) By granting true self-determination, God takes Himself out of the picture to determine what will happen, IF His original decision was correct. Of course we agree that God does not make bad decisions.
The idea that there are only two choices: a God who has predetermined and forced every event of every second of history, or a God who is buffeted and helpless -- is a false dichotomy.
I don't say that the latter God is helpless, just weaker and not in control of His creation.
As an Orthodox Christian, I can see why Calvinists came up with the idea of predestination.
And as a Reformed Protestant, I can see why the Church Fathers came up with the ideas of All-Time Church supremacy over the laity, and that the Spirit does not guide the laity with wisdom or spiritual understanding. :)