So me and my homie yesterday were having a really good conversation about the differences between Protestantism and Orthodoxy. For context, he is Orthodox. While having some of our disagreements, he always pivoted back to a central argument he would use. His argument was that the reason Orthodoxy has to be true is because Orthodoxy can trace its lineage directly to the Apostles. In essence, we know what we speak is the truth because we can trace our teaching to what the Apostles taught who were closest to Jesus. If we are to trust anyone, it would be the apostles who were closest to him; and the church they built is modern day Orthodoxy. He also discredited Martin Luther by in essence saying that we shouldn't take one man's side on the interpretation of the gospel, especially when the Orthodox church has been unified for 1500 years before him. How could we have been wrong for 1500 years and then he shows up and fixes it was his take more or less. What would be some rebuttals you would use to counter that point?

Disclaimers: 1) I am very new to philosophy and this form of thinking so be patient with my lack of understanding if this seems like a trivial problem to you lol 2) I know we more so discuss proving the existence of God and the reliability of scripture but I though this would be interesting. I have recently been trying to wrap my head around the U in the Calvinistic TULIP analogy, which stands for Unconditional Election. The idea, in brief, is that God in essence "chooses" those who will be saved. Since we are dead in our sins, we are unable to generate a response towards salvation so God in eternity past chooses those who will be saved. Some Calvinists would go as far as to say that Jesus' substitutionary sacrifice is only for the elect. That Jesus did not indeed come to save all but rather just those elected to salvation. I don't know why but this just does not compute for me. Doesn't the very idea of God "choosing" those who will be saved, regardless of prior knowledge of faith as most calvinists would point out, disregard human free will. Is it possible for those two things to co-exist at all to begin with, possibly that we are unable in our limited capacity to understand that inner working. I also wondered if this undermines the character of an all loving god if he chooses who will and will not respond to the message of the gospel. Thinking about how God wants all to be saved (1 Tim. 2:4), doesn't this go against that commonly held belief as well? Just posing questions because I dont know how many hold this belief despite me feeling like it is simply antithetical to the message of the gospel. Any thoughts would be appreciated

OH YAA 🔥🔥 This Tuesday at 6am PST Dr. Joshua Sijuwade joins us to discuss how trinitarianism can be rightfully thought of as monotheistic. This will cover how to properly construe the divine identity, what monotheism actually is, and how the trinity fits well within that model. There will be Q&A, so this is a chance for you to ask your deepest and most profound questions. See you then!