It sounds like you're arguing against Hebrews at that point. The author of Hebrews is the one who draws these connections when speaking about Christ's atonement. If your tradition doesn't fit with that, that's one thing, but I have to go with Scripture.
I'm not arguing against Hebrews, but
your interpretation of Hebrews. Again and again I've seen you play this rhetorical card, but I don't grant your premise that the Calvinist interpretation is equivalent to "go[ing] with Scripture." I reject the Calvinist interpretation because it's an anachronistic reading by lawyers and academics arising in early modern post-Renaissance humanist Western European culture buttressed atop the printing press, and that's why there's nothing like it before that.
You must go to the Church and receive it. It is as much of a work as celebrating the Passover was a work.
No, it isn't. Do you have any idea how much stuff is involved in celebrating Passover? Receiving the Sacraments is receiving a gift. It's not Doing Stuff To Impress God like the Pharisees following their Talmudic rules like tithing garden herbs. And if you think it is, then again, you need to actually learn something about Orthodoxy before opining on it based on learning from secondhand sources.
Whether they happen or not depends on you to receive them. Moreover, you can receive Communion unworthily and drink judgement to yourself. It depends on how you receive Communion.
Faith alone which spurs us to do good works, such as receiving the sacraments in a worthy manner. The sacraments in themselves do not impart grace if you are without faith. If they did, then there would be no such thing as them bringing greater judgement to us, like Paul warns about.
No disagreement there, not sure what point you're trying to make. Well, I agree as long as we define
faith correctly: the totality of our mental assent, heart posture, and behavior. To divorce rational assent from the rest of that is simply the faith of demons. True faith is the totality, and can't be separated from how we actually behave, which is just Gnosticism, and no amount of intellectual gerrymandering our actions and behavior into the particular semantic range of what St. Paul means by "Works" in his epistles changes that fundamental fact.
To be honest, most Orthodox don't seem to understand their own soteriology either.
Ever consider that maybe
you're the one who misunderstands it?
Sure, prevenient grace. Which means God doesn't fully save you, He just gives you the tools to save yourself.
Rhetorical evasion.
If we are building our theology starting with how people actually act on the ground, then concepts about man's inability to please God, God's election not depending on human will or works, predestination, etc. become very muddled and confounded. Again, for the Reformed, the Bible is the chief definer of these things, not men.
Excuse me? I didn't say we should
build our theology on real world experience, but that the Orthodox perspective seemed in line with what I observed. Huge difference. I suggest reading a little more carefully.
Huh? Your nature is only healed if you have been born again and are in Christ. If you are outside of Christ, your nature is as fallen as it ever was. Christians still struggle with sin, but God is acting to purify them out of that sin forever, it is not a task that He will fail in. How does He do this? By regenerating their nature. The heathen is still rebelling against God, his nature has not been healed yet.
If you can't be bothered to actually read what I wrote, I'm not going to bother to respond beyond saying that this is a non-sequitur that completely misses the point.