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. :)
Come on, now. I have explained this several times already...The day that Baptists, Calvinists, and Methodists agree clearly on doctrine (even important things like who can be baptised), then I'll go along with your idea that the Spirit of Truth gives everyone a systematic lesson on the Scriptures and their meanings without any distortion.
Regards
Agrarian is hardly a "newbie" FK.
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.[Agrarian]
Then how did ALMOST ALL of the KEY TEACHINGS of Mary COMPLETELY ESCAPE the Bible?[FK]
Well, Mariology is not part of theology in the strictest sense, but a derivative of theology. First, the Apostles respected her humility, which is greater than that of any other saint. Second, drawing attention to her humanity in parallel with divinity of her Son would simply be unthinkable for the Church, knowing that such a thing might lead to false worship of Mary.
In fact, the Church of the first 1,000 years had no special teaching about BEV Mary. Dealing with early heresies that questioned the divinity or even the humanity of Christ, the Church made a firm statement that Mary is Theotokos, the Mother of God. That is the extent of the Church doctrine of Mary, which remains the only doctrine of BEV Mary in the Orthodox Church.
The latter God respects lesser beings, the potter respects the pot which he created
There you go again! We went through this already. Christ was exactly that kind of a God, which is nothing like your God.
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
If it turned out, FK? You are either more naïve than I thought or just unwilling to admit that God is not limited in time and is not waiting for us to know His next move!
God already knows what choices we will make, so He is not kept guessing how it will turn out. No He isn't! And He already knows who have been saved and who sit in Paradise with Him at the end of times -- because He doesn't have to wait to know hot it will turn out to know who will sit in paradise with Him!
His foreknowledge is our predestination; He is not forcing you to make decisions; the decisions you make will determine your fate, but that is not known to you; only to God. The fact that He knows what will happen to you and when, does not mean He forces you to make those decisions; the only one to be surprized "how it turns out" will be you.
Your decisions do not change His plan, FK, I have told you that a number of times. His Plan has already been accomplished; it's just that we are way behind and don't know the outcome.
I will mainly touch on one aspect of this post of yours.
You really didn't answer my point -- namely that if TULIP were the clear and unadulterated teaching of the Apostles, then why don't we see it and other Reformed distinctives explicitly expounded by writers of the post-Apostolic period? If the Apostles were preaching the same things that Zwingli, Calvin, Knox, and Farel were preaching, then how is it that there is not one of the early Church fathers that Calvinists can point to and say: "There, now that man teaches exactly what we teach, worshipped exactly as we worship, and is one of us."
This is a fair question, in my opinion. Even if one were to claim that the Church became corrupt and only kept those writings that support its approach, this wouldn't explain why the "official Church" wouldn't have records of how it had stamped out the proto-Reformed "heresies." We have many writings that report in great detail various heresies. For many early heresies, the only record we have of their beliefs are the controversial literature written by the Church to combat them.
One would think that if the Apostles were all teaching Reformed doctrine, that we would find a trace of it somewhere.
On the other hand, your question of how key teachings about the Virgin Mary aren't in the Bible really isn't terribly on point. After all, we Orthodox have never claimed that everything we believe is explicitly spelled out in Scripture, so why would you expect to find it all there? What we do say is that there was surely a great deal more that happened that isn't recorded in Scripture (St. John explicitly says this at the end of his Gospel), and that all teachings and traditions were originally oral, only later being written down, if at all.
Finally, I will touch on one other point that you raise at the end of your post. The Orthodox Church does *not* teach "ideas of All-Time Church supremacy over the laity, and that the Spirit does not guide the laity with wisdom or spiritual understanding."
I think that you are mistaking us for some other Christian body. There is a very strong tradition within Orthodoxy for the role of the laity. The ultimate repository of Holy Tradition is in the living presence of the Holy Spirit in the entire body of the Church. This is why a bishop's election and consecration is not complete or legitimate unless the laity present cry out "Axios!" (he is worthy!)
Keep in mind also that unlike in Roman Catholicism, the vast majority of monastics in the Orthodox Church are laymen. Very few are ordained clergy -- a monastic community will generally only have enough ordained and tonsured clergy to carry out the cycle of services. Being a priest is considered by Orthodox monastics to be an impediment to the spiritual life because of its heavy demands.
In the Orthodox Church, being a member of the clergy is viewed as an act of sacrifice and service, and not one of authority. Even how we speak of our services gives one a clue. Generally, we don't say that a priest "performs" or "celebrates" a service. We say that he "serves Vespers," "serves Matins," or "serves the Divine Liturgy."
Even for the lower ranks of clergy (tonsured readers/chanters, subdeacons) we don't think in terms of who "gets to" read the Epistle or whatever. It is in terms of who has this responsibility before God and to the local community.
A monastic recently remarked, when asked about women's ordination, "why, when women have just achieved the liberty they have sought in the world, would they want to seek after servitude in the Church?"
One of the reasons why our clergy are so much more traditional as a group than are Catholic clergy is that there is a lot of pressure on them from the pious laity. There is and never has been the kind of unquestioning "pay, pray, and obey" attitudes that have traditionally been found in Catholicism.
Without that pious laity and the respect (and fear) that the clergy have of them, I fear that we would be just as susceptible in some cases to modernist silliness as are the leaders in other Christian bodies. As it is, the kinds of things that happened in the Ctholic Church after Vatican II are nigh on to unthinkable in the Orthodox Church. The laity just wouldn't stand for it. If anything, the Orthodox Church in the West has become more traditional as recent decaades has gone by.