The left column below is the original (and still) Eastern starting point or paradigm; the right column is typical of the Germanic West (like Semitic culture, will-based, law-based, hearing-based rather than seeing-based) that has pervaded all of Protestant thinking during the almost five centuries of its existence and is repeatedly signaled by your use of volitional.  Of course the details automatically follow from the unconscious axioms that one starts out with.  Both of the following are consistent and logical, given their different starting-points (i.e. axioms).  These are two ways of looking at the world:  The one on the right is will-based; the one on the left is being-based (and a framework in which reason is above will, since (i) without reason, will lacks intentionality and is therefore not doing either good or ill; and (ii) since reason’s job is to derive what is true from what IS).  The ontic or realistic approach on the left excludes Protestant virtual righteousness, Western virtual unity with God, etc., in favor of a real sharing of God’s life (as in the Greek of Phlp. 2:13, 2 Pet. l:4, etc.--verses that we take as seriously as we reject Calvinistic virtual presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper).   I don’t think a Western reader can make sense of Justin Martyr’s treatise to Trypho the Jew unless one makes a temporary paradigm-shift to the left column below. 

If you begin with BEING 

Cf. the Apostle Paul’s accounts of the Eucharist and the St. John the Theolo- gian’s views in John 6, from ca. vv. 31 on, esp. 53-54).  The Eucharist, Salva- tion, the Energization of good works, unity with God (2 Pet. 1:4), etc., are real, not willed/virtual/imputed reali- ties. 

If you begin with WILL  

Cf. Augustine; cf. also Luther’s “I am able daily, in fact at every hour, to have the Mass; as often as I may will [voluero!], I can set Christ’s words in front of me and nourish and strengthen my faith in them.  This is in truth to eat and drink spiritually.”  [Luther rejected 2 Pet. and James from full cano- nicity!]

Truth is a matter of being, not of will (axioms, definiing what is true).  Phlp. 2:12-13 says, “Work out y’all’s Salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God [Who is] energizing in you all both to will and to energize for the sake of [His] being well-pleased.”  (St. Paul’s being reborn as a new creating that shares Christ’s uncreated zōē, etc. True worshipers are ontic members of Christ's risen Body.  Salvation is the Spirit energizing us with God’s Life--i.e. uncreated Energy, uncreated Grace.

 You write volition/al 3 or 4 times.  “Abraham’s belief was volitional, or it would have been without merit.”  [Cf. Luther’s re-defining fides (“faith”) as will-based fiducia (“confidence, trust, loyality”). . . .].  You say that “belief is a volitional matter,” and that “Men . . . must receive the Son of God volitionally.”  Your very complex view of Salvation is based on will-- “receiving” Christ”--and a volitional definition of belief (All of this has a history!) 

Like definitions, axioms are neither verifiable nor disprovable.  What the axioms that one starts out with [they constitute one’s paradigm] do is to fence in and impose definitions on what one reads or writes, just as they fence out other implications and meanings.

The East thinks God foreknows by virtue of His infinite reason, by His knowledge of all that He has created; and that his creative will is fully in accord with (guided by) His reason.  Since the Reason of God (John 1:1,3), the Wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:24), created everything that has been made and “not one thing that has been created” was created otherwise, it follows:  

LOGOS Creator => logikós kósmos

Your comments on 1 Pet. 1:2 and more explicitly on Rom. 8:29 indicate that foreknowledge is based on what one (i.e. God) has forewilled—a widely accepted view in the West. 

“Atoning Sacrifice” does not translate ‘ilasmós ; it is used to replace the old “propitiation,” whose untoward connotations of placating an angry God are no longer embraced by Protestant translators.  The word simply means “expiation” for St. Paul; it may be associated with Sacrifice (which is Offering, not Mactation, as dozens of examples in Levitikón demon­strate), but “Sacrifice” is not part of the word’s meaning.  

Adoption, rebirth, and unity with God are not will-based or virtual, but ontic.  There is of course no complicated idea of “substitution” in our becoming one with Christ as a member of His risen Body that shares His Life.  Redemp- tion in the sense of “buying back” (from satan) has always been rejected in the West after Gregory of Nyssa first floated the idea. 

I am probably right in concluding that your uses of atoning (propiti- ating), adoption, substitution, and redemption are will-based by definition--and anything but simple if you understand them in a serious way.  This is an awesomely complex view of Salvation.

Eastern Salvation is simple:  RE­COVERING THE LOST ASSIMILATION TION TO GOD (Gen. 1:26), viz. the ‘omoiōsis that Adam lost at the Fall, and which future generations have lacked.  Because the ‘omoiōsis (as its Greek ending indicates; see below) has been absent in future generations, there has been no energizing of the reason and will of human essence (created according to the Icon of God; the reason and freechoice that separate humans from the beasts) to enable those facultires to serve God, as in Phlp. 2:13.  Unity with God is not virtual and not unity with His imparticipable Essence; it is sharing the uncreated Energies of His Life.  Salvation is ultimately based on right Worship.

Salvation is unlike God-centered Worship; being ego-centered, it should not stand in first place, either temporally or otherwise.  The Western view of Salvation has never been simple as here presented.  Much of the terms are explained away as being virtual (will-based):  juridical satisfaction, juridical substitution, juridical atonement, juridical redemption, juridical regeneration, juridical adoption, juridical (virtual; for the Reformers, will-based or covenantal) unity with God’s Essence.

Worship (God-centered) is the center of Eastern Christianity; as Job 13:15 said, Even if He should slay me, I will still love him.)  Orthodox Worship centers on the Trinity:  In the ontic members of Christ’s risen Body, Christ offers His Body and Blood to God as our recognition that the Trinity owns everything created and that Salvation resides in the cleansing Blood.  This fulfills the promise of John 6 and St. Paul’s comments on the subject.   The East emphasizes seeing, not the Semitic hearing emphasized in the West.

      Reading the inspiring and theologically correct prayers of the Saints has great value.  They say things better than amateurs can, and one can always interpolate the names of persons or things that one wishes to pray for wherever appropriate.

I have heard those on the Christian left (anti-traditionalists at the opposite pole from conservative Eastern Orthodoxy) argue vehemently that Worship is preaching (human-centered, not God-centered).  Berkhof says that sacraments are ordinances that have no value in themselves, i.e. unless they are accompanied by a sermon, which is what is really efficacious; the water or bread and wine merely make the sermon more vivid.  

     It is easy to see why reading prayers of the Saints is worthless:  First, prayer has got to be will (ego-)generated to have value; second, there are no Saints, since that could imply ontic status.  

I am surprised at the mention of “theologies counter to your position."  I think where you say theologies here, you mean paradigms (which stand first and define theologies).  If I were saying something like that, I would speak of a paradigm-shift, not "jumping on a team," which sounds too volition-based (and hence prone to be virtualized).

     Not being based on will, Orthodoxy lacks the Western contradictions of infants born guilty of Adam’s sin, the soul’s immortality by nature, God's imposing (counternatural) death on human beings, and Jesus’s not being YHWH.

  ANCIENT

MEDIÆVAL  

Hebrew
    Matter:  Respect for matter* & time**
     Form:    Juridical

Latin Christian
     Matter:  Respect for matter & time
     Form:    Juridical

Gnostic
     Matter:  Rejection of matter & time
     Form:    Energy (emotional) 

Reformers’ Christian
     Matter:  Rejection of matter & time
     Form:     Juridical

Eastern Christian
     Matter:  Respect for matter & time
     Form:     Energy (ontological)

Notes:
     *Mystericism (sacramentalism).
   **Tradition-based.

EASTERN ORTHODOX

WESTERN

LATIN

REFORMATION 

MATTER:  Mysteric* 

MATTER:  Non-mysteric**; will-based    

FORM:  Energy ontology

FORM:  juridical***

Seeing

Hearing

     *The term mysteric refers to  Mysteries (sacrament[al]s); i.e. it refers to an incarnational or matter+spirit view of religious reality, one in which matter is integral and essential to the Christian religion and is soterial, a reality  in which time (tradition) is revelatory.  The body is a vessel of soul.  Essence and energy are distinct; reality is understood in the Hellenistic Greek of the Apostolic Age (and in the East, till now) the way Aristotle conceptualized it in his Physics and Meta­physics:  The picture is one in which reality consists of a relation between dynámeis (plural of dýnamis—a capacity or potential) and the energies that make each dýnamis real and actual.  Enérgeia was rendered in Latin as actus or operatio and viewed as a static actuality; the  corresponding verb, usually misrendered with the deponent verb operari,  was occasionally better calqued as perficere "accomplish, effect."  It should not be forgotten that Greek often pairs a feminine form ending in -sis and masculine forms ending in -ismós/-asmós representing an energizing with its result expressed as the same root plus the neuter ending -ma.   (Forms in -sis and -ma have recessive accent.)