For Duns Scotus, and I’m of the same opinion and I think I hear you saying the same, God is utterly free in his decrees and man is utterly free in his response
No wonder the Reformed call the traditional Christians "Pelagians!" :) Yes, that's what the Orthodox teach. Christ died for all mankind and desires all mankind to be saved. He give us the reason and the freedom to choose, just as he gave that freedom to Adam and Eve.
This is why the “reformers” mocked Duns Scotus by calling people who followed his Catholic doctrine “dunces”, especially his doctrine on freedom, both man’s and God’s.
The Reformed unfortunately have this deformed idea that God must be a micro manager. Love must be free and we must come freely, in love, to God. Love does not compel. Forced love is no love. The prodigal son came back on his own (the way most of us do when we are in dire need and our pride has been deflated) and was forgiven when he repented.
Just think how different that story would be if the father sent out guards and forced (dragged) his frivolous son back to him because he could have and you will understand how far removed form mainline Christianity the Reformed are.
Finally, you wrote of the Incarnation that: His primary and, in fact, only purpose was to bring back "the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Mat 15:24) into his fold. If you said “in my opinion His primary…”, I would simply respond that I’m of another opinion.
But it's not my opinion. :) It's what the NT says. The way the Greek text reads, it's the purpose (English language Bibles say "only" [NAB, NIV] , the koine Greek text says ei me [except, a conditional particle], the KJV version says "sent but for..."). Either way, there is no doubt that the text states his purpose is exclusive.
I think Fr. Frolovsky's excellent presentation, very sober and reserved, makes it clear that the opinion that God’s masterpiece in all creation, the Incarnation, was willed absolutely and not simply as a remedy for man’s sin is a valid opinion to be respected
I will say that it is a theologoumenon (theological opinion or, in Latin, hypothesis), but not valid orthodox Church theology, and it is certainly contrary to the very explicit and exclusive statement already mention in Mat 15:24.
To which I responded that that is an opinion.
You responded: But it's not my opinion. :) It's what the NT says. The way the Greek text reads, it's the purpose (English language Bibles say "only" [NAB, NIV] , the koine Greek text says ei me [except, a conditional particle], the KJV version says "sent but for..."). Either way, there is no doubt that the text states his purpose is exclusive.
My question, then, is this: if this were truly the exclusive reason for Christ's coming, then why did Jesus immediately heal that Canaanite woman’s daughter? (Mt. 15:28). Jesus himself says, “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.” (John 12:32).
As you know, we could debate about interpretations until the cows come home (and then some :) ) , but in the end neither of us has God-given authority to interpret divine revelation. I don't know about you, but from what I’ve noticed many of the people who claim to have the Holy Spirit (yes, even FReepers :) ) contradict one another in the name of Jesus. Whose right? Who really has the Holy Spirit? Now that’s the million dollar question...
In the end, I have to thank you because you granted me my theologoumenon, and at least we respectfully agree to disagree :)
Regardless, we have both been bought, not with gold or silver, “But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you…” (I Peter 1:19-20). Pray for me that may I respond generously to God’s mercy and I’ll do the same for you. God bless you.