Well, yes, of course. As a Jew he knew very well that he is not to share and mingle with gentiles. Judaism is an exclusive religion: there is Israel (which to them is synonymous with Jews), the people of God, and here is Peter who is now made aware that "Israel" in the New Covenant includes believing Gentiles as well. That's equivalent to turning Judaism upside down!
Since not all men are saved, then it follows that universal salvation is not His objective and that a general grace equally dispensed to equal effect (initially) in all men would be pointless
You are subjecting God to your (human) logic, placing logical necessity above Him. Even Peter recognized that God is not partial, that he loves the sinners as well. Just because we are incapable of that doesn't mean God is. The Scripture is clear that God would have all men saved; just because we don't understand why this not the case doesn't follow that He doesn't.
The Orthodox (and Catholics) maintain the patristic belief (Augustine notwithstanding) that God gave made us potentially good and therefore our salvation a possibility based in part on our cooperation with His uncreated energies (i.e. synergism).
In other words, God, by His own choice, gives us a choice, thereby we either reject God's grace and become the authors of our perdition, or we turn to God and ask Him to save us. At no time are we authors of our salvation, but simply willing servants of God. He does not make our choice for us. We do.
What a cheap and underhanded trick to play on a simple Baptist
LOL!!!
It seems that in the East, you had checks and balances to avoid such scandal and corruption. You had bishops in the old sense but no popes. Of course, you had the advantage of what to avoid nearby so that must have firmed your resolve as well
Eastern ecclesial structure hasn't changed either. The Church is made up of the priesthood and the laity, or the "people of God." Ultimately, the final authority (the final check and balance) are the people of God, the Orthodox laity. That is true when it comes to deposing a bishop as well as making him a saint. The bishops are not rulers but servants. So, it is the Church, the ekklesia, the assembly of believers, that has kept the faith unchanged.
Funny thing is, there is no seriously strong desire to change anything in the Orthodox Church. I guess you would have to be Orthodox to know why. :)
"Funny thing is, there is no seriously strong desire to change anything in the Orthodox Church. I guess you would have to be Orthodox to know why. :)"
As I have pointed out before, part of the reason why change is so imperceptible in the Orthodox Church is that we are constantly in a state of returning to our patristic roots. Because it is a return to roots, it doesn't seem like change. Yet each time we do it, there are subtle differences that change with the circumstances in which the Orthodox Church finds itself.
What is different is that we don't approach a new situation and say, "what new thing can we invent to come up with an answer to this problem?" We rather approach the new situation with the attitude of "the reason why we are having problems is that we need to return to the patristic mind." To move forward, we look back.
Any change that happens is, as a result, organic and virtually imperceptible.
And that, in a nutshell, is the difference between the Vatican II "adaptation" to the modern world and the Orthodox adaptation to the modern world.