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.
I really don't know what the Apostles taught outside of scripture, and I can't speak to how much of it was written about by others. My answer was to point out that both sides believe in things that may require some inference from scripture. TULIP is based only on scripture and no outside writings. That makes it different from much Tradition, which is not mentioned at all in the Bible. If any teaching is rooted firmly in scripture, like TULIP, then it carries 100 times the credibility with me as any teaching that does not appear in scripture.
... 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, worshiped exactly as we worship, and is one of us."
Well, you all and Catholics can't even come close to the standard you use here, so I don't know why it should be applied to our side. I believe Harley has given lots of evidence that Augustine held many views we would find favorable.
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.
I really can't speak to which records the Church kept and which they did not. I can't know. But, if it is true that the Apostles taught doctrine that was very opposed to Reformed theology, then a very unappealing (to me) alternative presents itself. Either the Apostles taught in complete riddles, or they wrote in complete riddles, or both. It would mean that scripture does not mean what it says. To me, that goes against any idea of a revealed faith.
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?
I wasn't trying to say that every belief you have must be in the Bible, even though I hold that view. I'm sure there is plenty of Tradition that does not offend the Bible and which is fine. Many of the rituals we have in our church are not spelled out word for word in the Bible, but are Bible-based. Rather, I was pointing out that since Mary is so cherished in the Church, it just seems odd that extremely important doctrine concerning her, that differentiates her from all others, is no where in scripture. What other figure of her stature is comparatively overlooked in terms of scripture?
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 ... In the Orthodox Church, being a member of the clergy is viewed as an act of sacrifice and service, and not one of authority.
I didn't know that at all. Then, do your clergy have the literal authority to forgive sins? Do they have the literal authority to stand in the place of Christ and act as Him?
As it is, the kinds of things that happened in the Catholic Church after Vatican II are nigh on to unthinkable in the Orthodox Church. The laity just wouldn't stand for it.
It sounds like your laity is very similar to ours. As much as we love him, if our pastor ever tried to pull anything like what you may be referring to, he would be out in the street on his butt in three seconds! :) Forever!