"Talk about throwing red meat to the loyal opposition! :) Indeed, what would have happened if the Jews and Romans had not used their free will to kill Jesus? I don't know, maybe, perhaps, THE ENTIRE DOWNFALL OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH! :) OT prophecy would have been destroyed, and Jesus' own words would have made Him a liar."
This hardly follows. For what you say to be true, God would have to be unable to know what choices individual human beings would make. God is outside time itself, which is itself a created thing. Past, present, and future as we experience them do not apply to God.
Of course God would inspire the Holy Prophets to speak the truth about what would happen. And of course, Christ would speak the truth about what would happen to him. Men do not have to be made into marionettes for prophecies to become true. All that is necessary is for the source of prophecy to know what did, does, and will happen. This argument from prophecy in support of predestinationist theories implies that the only alternative is for God to be inside time, experiencing it in the same as as his creatures do, waiting with bated breath to find out what is going to happen in human history. He is, of course, not.
Calvinistic predestinationist theory is only one way to explain prophecy and its fulfillment. And in my opinion, it is hardly the most convincing explanation.
"My red meat argument would then be that either Jesus was super duper lucky for things to turn out the way they did in order to accomplish what the Father sent Him to do, OR, maybe it's possible that God actually had a hand in arranging that all the necessary things took place. Perhaps God was really in control of the entire situation all along. Does God gamble on His plan, or does He ensure it?"
See above. Why would Jesus be super duper lucky to know what would happen? To say this is to imply that I am saying that Christ was ignorant of the future. Please don't insult non-Calvinists that way.
"From my side, part of the answer would be that Jesus was never subject to growing old and dying of natural causes. He never had a tendency toward death and corruption. His mission and its accomplishment were perfect and complete from the beginning of time."
Did Christ pretend to hunger, pretend to thirst, pretend to suffer pain, pretend to be tired, pretend to sweat?
"From my side, God did not rely on choices by men. Through withholding of protection and the causing of good, God's perfect plan was accomplished then, just as it is accomplished now."
The Calvinist/predestinationist theory does indeed hold together, as do many theoretical constructs, but only if one is willing to believe that God created a humankind full of automatons, rather than creatures who are created in the image of God -- free to choose God or not.
This hardly follows. For what you say to be true, God would have to be unable to know what choices individual human beings would make. God is outside time itself, which is itself a created thing. Past, present, and future as we experience them do not apply to God.
I have no problem with God being outside of time and already knowing everything that is going to happen as we experience it. God did know. But, even when you suppose the POSSIBILITY that the Romans and Jews did not "kill" Jesus you would require that the Bible would have to be completely written around the other scenario. God would have had to invent a completely new way to salvation.
IOW, you are saying that God's plan is built around the decisions of men. I think that takes away from God's sovereignty. You also take away from Jesus that He gave up His life voluntarily to save us. You are supposing that Jesus could have lived until old age, but that men overpowered Him using their free will and killed Him. By this, Jesus is a very weak God indeed.
All that is necessary is for the source of prophecy to know what did, does, and will happen. This argument from prophecy in support of predestinationist theories implies that the only alternative is for God to be inside time, experiencing it in the same as as his creatures do, waiting with bated breath to find out what is going to happen in human history. He is, of course, not.
Again, you are saying that God builds around man. God doesn't have to be inside time for predestination to work. God just has to be in full control, which you appear to deny.
FK: ... either Jesus was super duper lucky for things to turn out the way they did in order to accomplish what the Father sent Him to do ...
Why would Jesus be super duper lucky to know what would happen? To say this is to imply that I am saying that Christ was ignorant of the future. Please don't insult non-Calvinists that way.
I didn't mean to be insulting, I was trying to show that God does not work around man. And, I gave you an "OR" statement along with the above. It was: "maybe it's possible that God actually had a hand in arranging that all the necessary things took place." If you think I accused you of the first, it then appears that you reject the second. God's sovereignty is lowered again.
Did Christ pretend to hunger, pretend to thirst, pretend to suffer pain, pretend to be tired, pretend to sweat?
No, because it was God's intention that Jesus go through these things as a man on earth. It was obviously not God's intention that Jesus grow old and die of natural causes. I know that because it didn't happen and God always gets what He wants. He has that kind of authority.
The Calvinist/predestinationist theory does indeed hold together, as do many theoretical constructs, but only if one is willing to believe that God created a humankind full of automatons, rather than creatures who are created in the image of God -- free to choose God or not.
I can understand your aversion to God being in control of everything. I used to believe just as you about this. However, if we truly believe in a sovereign God, then I don't see any other answer. How powerful is our God? Of course, we don't experience being automatons, we don't know the future. But, God is still in full control, even of the sin He knows about but does not create. About a week ago, Dr. Eckleburg posted an excellent link to an article that is dead on point with our discussion. At least you can know where we are coming from much better than I can say it. :)