Omniscience and Determinism

[Yeshua1]

Have you admitted punishing sinners for predestined sin is not the orthodox view? A yes or no would work for me.

Please stop trying to change the subject by misrepresenting my views.

1) If everything is predestined, God is the author of sin. That is the orthodox view.

NO! the orthodox view regarding this is that the Lord has predestined/determined that ALL things shall work out in the end exactly as intended, that He is sovereign in making sure that His will will come to pass in all things in the end, regardless if he did it Himself or allowed it to happen!

2) Calvinism claims God predestines everything. Do you agree with Calvinism on this point?

The Bible ONLY claims that God predestined for his glory what happens to His elect/chosen in Christ, as he will bring them to heaven and see them gloried to His glory and praise though!

God directly predestines his elect in chruist and what happens to them, and he also predestined put into His plans purposes what he allows to happen with others...

Think that you really err when you see Predestinating exactly see as dtermining all things, for God does BOTH, He determines what passes, decreeing them, while also allowing for some things to be done...

 

[Van]

God does NOT know about our future sins until they occur.

This view misrepresents my view. (1)

I agree with Calvinism's position that if God knows with certainty, what we will choose to do in the future, then that future is fixed, predestined and unalterable. You agree that God does not predestine all things, but rather causes or allows all things. Your embrace of these two views is irrational, both cannot be true.

As far as the orthodox historic view of Omniscience, the only position allowed to be advocated on this forum is "total omniscience." The claim is that this view is the historic view. No other view can be presented because those views have been ruled unorthodox and belong on another forum.

I think I have mentioned this before but lets consider the time traveling crystal ball. God can look into it and see the future from the past. Therefore He knows what we freely chose to choose. If you believe this is the orthodox Baptist view, then we disagree. You might want to look up what the Bible says about the black arts, such as divination and sorcery.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Ive gone through this exercise before. Please note the following scripture where it pertains to Predestination.

Romans 8:29 "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren."

Ephesians 1:3-6 "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestined us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved."

Ephesians 1:11-12 "In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ."

So "Predestination" tells us that His people will be conformed to the image of His son. So that should be the full extent of it. God did not predestine all things that transpire but He predestined all whom He foreknew. So for the last time, God did NOT predestine everything we do, certainly NOT the sins that we commit.

 

[12strings]

Originally Posted by 12 Strings:
God does NOT know about our future sins until they occur.

This view misrepresents my view. (1)

MORE QUOTES FROM VAN:

I do not believe God has chosen to foreknow everything.

I think it is illogical that God knows the future with certainly because (1) the Bible teaches otherwise, and (2) no deviation from what is known is possible, therefore the future is predestined, making God the author of sin.

Yes, my view changes the orthodox definition of omniscience, from God knows everything imagainable includeing the future exhaustively, to God knows everything He has chosen to know. Using this definition the doctrine is biblical, using the older one, the doctrine is unbiblical.

What am I missing? According to your view, God does not know what sins I will commit today, because if he did, they would be fixed and determined, since God can't be mistaken, and this would make God the author of sin...which you reject. (Is this it?)

 

[Yeshua1]

This view misrepresents my view. (1)

MORE QUOTES FROM VAN:





What am I missing? According to your view, God does not know what sins I will commit today, because if he did, they would be fixed and determined, since God can't be mistaken, and this would make God the author of sin...which you reject. (Is this it?)

His view of God would seem to be tht God has chosen to be "blind" to sertain future events that come to pass, that He will react and act according to the decisions that are made, as He is aware of them exactly at time they are made and become "fixed in time!"

 

[Yeshua1]

Ive gone through this exercise before. Please note the following scripture where it pertains to Predestination.

Romans 8:29 "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren."

Ephesians 1:3-6 "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestined us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved."

Ephesians 1:11-12 "In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ."

So "Predestination" tells us that His people will be conformed to the image of His son. So that should be the full extent of it. God did not predestine all things that transpire but He predestined all whom He foreknew. So for the last time, God did NOT predestine everything we do, certainly NOT the sins that we commit.

yes, for God actively predestined for salvation thosew whom he electe dout to be found in christ, but also chose to bypass all others, allowing them to remain as they were!

 

[Luke2427]

not naturally or logically.

Yes- logically.

You obviously don't know what logic is.

no I haven't.

Yes, you have and anyone who is not trying to court you for support who has one undergrad semester class on logic would tell you the same.

except when they are.

except that in your example... they're not.

It must be accepted on faith, not logic. God said let US reason TOGETHER. We cannot stand toe to toe with an infinite God on logic. Did your class teach you that?

How does the "Come now let us reason" passage together have ANYTHING at all to do with supporting your point?

Logic is truth.

Man can be mistaken on what he thinks is logical but logic is infallible.

The Trinity does not violate logic at all.

If you think it does, I challenge you to show what law of logic it violates.

 

[Luke2427]

Now you are putting words in my mouth instead of quoting my actual words...an unhealthy pattern with you.

I said, there is nothing wrong with understanding God using the terms with which HE chose to reveal himself. Poetic and apocalyptic literature is very different from didactic teaching. I know you learned that in your Hermeneutics courses, as did I.

So it is your contention that didactic teaching is always void of anthropomorphism??

I do not think you learned that in seminary, Skan.

And you don't recognize how ridiculous this sounds to anyone reading along? Come now, let's be reasonable.

No, and I honestly think that baptistboard is getting smarter all of the time because of these good exchanges and I think that means that these populist appeals to the readers you constantly make don't have the effect you intend as they might once have.

I honestly DON'T think the readers of these posts largely have the trouble with anthropomorphism that you have.

Anthropomorphism (or its cousins such as zoomorphism) is used whenever God is described as doing something that his nature clearly does not allow.

For example, God does not have wings. He is an eternal spirit. He is not a corporeal form. So it is not hard to deduce that when he is described as having wings and flying around that that is anthropomorphic language.

When the Bible says that Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father- that is DIDACTIC teaching- but it is anthropomorphic language.

God does not HAVE a right hand with fingers and finger nails, etc...

Is it your contention that ONLY poetry and apocalyptic language contains anthropomorphism?

Keil and Delitsch say it sufficiently:

Genesis 6:6:

The force of… “it repented the Lord,” may be gathered from… “it grieved Him at His heart.” This shows that the repentance of God does not presuppose any variableness in His nature or His purposes. In this sense God never repents of anything….The repentance of God is an anthropomorphic expression for the pain and of the divine love at the sin of man, and signifies that “God is hurt no less by the atrocious sins of men than if they pierced His heart with mortal anguish (Calvin).”

 

[webdog]

Yes- logically.

You obviously don't know what logic is.

I'm well aware of what it is...I'm accused on here a lot of using it in refuting TULIP.

Yes, you have and anyone who is not trying to court you for support who has one undergrad semester class on logic would tell you the same.

yet oddly they haven't. Hmmm...

How does the "Come now let us reason" passage together have ANYTHING at all to do with supporting your point?

Logic is truth.

logic is quite simply the scientific method used in reasoning. The fact you ask what the Lord appealing to man to reason makes me think maybe you are not in tune with what logic actually is. The finite cannot reason with God in His understanding, He reasons with us on ours.

Man can be mistaken on what he thinks is logical but logic is infallible.

logic is merely a tool used in discerning right from wrong. Tools are never infallible.

The Trinity does not violate logic at all.

of course not from Gods vantage point. From ours, sure it does. That's why it must be accepted by faith and not sound logic. If all eternal truths could be accepted by logic, that would lead to a works based salvation as faith is rendered moot.

If you think it does, I challenge you to show what law of logic it violates.

propositional or first order?

 

[Skandelon]

So it is your contention that didactic teaching is always void of anthropomorphism??

Again, putting words in my mouth instead of responding to what I actually said.

You were equating my affirmation that God makes choices, a didactic teaching about an action of God, with his having horns, symbolic apocalyptic literature. If you can't (or won't) recognize the difference between those two clearly distinguishable types of literature then this conversation will remain to be fruitless.

I honestly DON'T think the readers of these posts largely have the trouble with anthropomorphism that you have.

I don't have trouble with anthropomorphic language, I have a problem with you labeling everything that doesn't fit your system, or understanding of God, as anthropomorphic.

Don't you realize that those who support homosexual rights use this same line of argumentation by labeling all texts that disavow homosexuality as being merely representative of man's view during that time, rather than Gods? I've heard them say, "The authors are merely ascribing to God man's standards of morality." That is a form of 'anthropomorphic' appeal, as it dismisses clear didactic teaching as being simply representative of how MEN understand things from their limited perspective. That is why the approach you are taking is dangerous. You take a clear statement from God Himself where he says he made a choice and you dismiss it while claiming the exact opposite under the guise of "anthropomorphism."

God says, "I chose."
Luke says, "He never really chooses."

I'll stick with God.

 

[Luke2427]

yet oddly they haven't. Hmmm...

Have you asked anyone (who would not try to court you for support in these debates) who has even one class on even an undergrad level on logic?

I bet you haven't.

logic is quite simply the scientific method used in reasoning. The fact you ask what the Lord appealing to man to reason makes me think maybe you are not in tune with what logic actually is. The finite cannot reason with God in His understanding, He reasons with us on ours.
logic is merely a tool used in discerning right from wrong. Tools are never infallible.

You don't understand logic.

There is no deeper truth in the heavens that contradicts the truth revealed on earth- for example, something cannot be one thing and NOT be that thing at the same time not in a "deeper knowledge" scenario or in common knowledge.

Logic, like holiness and power, emanates from God.

To say it is fallible is like saying God's knowledge is fallible (which is becoming more palatable to some on here).

of course not from Gods vantage point. From ours, sure it does. That's why it must be accepted by faith and not sound logic.

It must be accepted by faith that God IS Trinity but not because God being Trinity contradicts logic.

It does not.

And I challenged you to demonstrate which law of logic the Trinity contradicts and I have not seen you do that yet.

 

[Luke2427]

Again, putting words in my mouth instead of responding to what I actually said.

A question about what you said CANNOT put words in your mouth, Skandelon.

I asked an extremely simple question.

Is it your contention that there is never any anthropomorphism anywhere in any didactic teaching in Scripture?

Yes or no.

Very, very simple.

Don't you realize that those who support homosexual rights use this same line of argumentation by labeling all texts that disavow homosexuality as being merely representative of man's view during that time, rather than Gods?
I've heard them say, "The authors are merely ascribing to God man's standards of morality." That is a form of 'anthropomorphic' appeal, as it dismisses clear didactic teaching as being simply representative of how MEN understand things from their limited perspective. That is why the approach you are taking is dangerous. You take a clear statement from God Himself where he says he made a choice and you dismiss it while claiming the exact opposite under the guise of "anthropomorphism."

A TOTALLY different completely unrelated issue.

Anthropomorphism and cultural context are two completely different things.

Saying that homosexuals use anthropomorphism to excuse their sins is ridiculous.

They use cultural context.

If any of them ever did use anthropomorphism it would be silly in the highest degree.

Please stay on topic.

God says, "I chose."
Luke says, "He never really chooses."

God says he does not remember things, too.

Do you affirm that God has a memory filled with holes?

What you do, Skandelon is what you accuse me of, except you do it on steroids.

You choose what is anthropomorphic to suit you rather than INTERPRETING Scripture in light of Scripture- you want to take proof texts that suit you and let them only say what you want them to appear to say on the surface without having to do any comparing Scripture with Scripture whatsoever- without having to do any systematizing of theological truth.

Now, if it is a passage that clearly implies on the surface that God has determined all things beforehand, then you go CRAZY with exegesis saying "GOD DID NOT MEAN THAT!!!"

I could say, "God said 'I create darkness and evil'"

Skandelon says, "God did not do what he said he did"

I'll go with God.

But that kind of childish behavior does not appeal to me.

I believe in exegesis across the board- not just when it suits me.

I'll stick with God.

Childish.

 

[webdog]

Have you asked anyone (who would not try to court you for support in these debates) who has even one class on even an undergrad level on logic?

I bet you haven't.

I'm not understanding how this is at all relevant. If someone matching your criteria wants to chime in, feel free.

You don't understand logic.

No, you don't. Does this accomplish anything?

There is no deeper truth in the heavens that contradicts the truth revealed on earth- for example, something cannot be one thing and NOT be that thing at the same time not in a "deeper knowledge" scenario or in common knowledge.

I don't disagree, but the hinge is the bolded. We don't, and may never have access to all truths in heaven. From OUR vantage things may appear logical. You are talking past me without nearing me.

Logic, like holiness and power, emanates from God.

Agreed, and He has limited this tool from our end. This is why He requires faith. If we could rest on logic for everything, who needs God?

To say it is fallible is like saying God's knowledge is fallible (which is becoming more palatable to some on here).

no, it is to understand what it is...a tool He has created to understand truth. Only God is infallible, nothing He has created is.

It must be accepted by faith that God IS Trinity but not because God being Trinity contradicts logic.

It does not.

we are going in circles now. From OUR perspective it does.

And I challenged you to demonstrate which law of logic the Trinity contradicts and I have not seen you do that yet.

I asked you to clarify.

 

[Luke2427]

I don't disagree, but the hinge is the bolded. We don't, and may never have access to all truths in heaven. From OUR vantage things may appear logical. You are talking past me without nearing me.

...


no, it is to understand what it is...a tool He has created to understand truth. Only God is infallible, nothing He has created is.

no, it is to understand what it is...a tool He has created to understand truth. Only God is infallible, nothing He has created is.

These three statements separated by ellipses contradict each other.

we are going in circles now. From OUR perspective it does.

No it does not.

I think that you may be thinking the Trinity from our persepctive violates the law of noncontradiction.

Something can't be one and three at the same time.

But that is to misunderstand the nature of the Trinity.

The Trinity is not one person and three persons at the same time.

The Trinity is not one God and three God's at the same time.

If it were the Trinity would be illogical.

What makes it perfectly logical is that it is one in a different type than it is three.

It is 1 God. 3 persons.



This does not in any way violate the law of noncontradiction

 

[Skandelon]

A question about what you said CANNOT put words in your mouth, Skandelon.

I asked an extremely simple question.

No, you asked a leading question with a followup statement meant to connote that is what I believed...

So it is your contention that didactic teaching is always void of anthropomorphism??

I do not think you learned that in seminary, Skan.

And I answered you by explaining the clear distinction in biblical teachings about God making choices and his having horns, as you have arbitrarily chosen to equate and dismiss them both as being 'untruths' under the same label of 'anthropomorphism.' You have yet to provide any support or argumentation as to how these two revelations can or should be equated and outrightly dismissed as being untrue.

You have no argument. Just your opinions and conjecture.

A TOTALLY different completely unrelated issue.

TOTALLY different like apocalyptic symbolism related to a visual depiction of God (i.e. ..."He had two horns like a lamb, but he spoke like a dragon") and God's actual own words about his own actions? (i.e. "I the Lord your God have chosen...")

You really can't see those as also being TOTALLY DIFFERENT?

Plus, I wasn't equating the issues, I was equating you method of argumentation to that of the homosexuals attempting to deny the clear revelation of scripture.

Saying that homosexuals use anthropomorphism to excuse their sins is ridiculous.

They use cultural context.

What do you think anthropomorphism's purpose is all about? Relating to one's cultural (human) context so as to make Him more relatable and understandable.

Luke, what you don't seem to understand is that I'm not dismissing it idea of anthropomorphism as used in scripture. I'm saying that the way in which your are using the appeal to anthropomorphism could be used by anyone to dismiss anything about God's revelation they didn't like. But anthropomorphism, as its truly intended, is meant to help people understand truth, not to contradict truth. Thus to say He doesn't really make choices is a direct contradiction to what the revelation teaches.

Please stay on topic.

Oh, I thought only moderators who think they are better than everyone could say this?

 

[Luke2427]

No, you asked a leading question with a followup statement meant to connote that is what I believed...

Even if that were TRUE it still could not be putting words in your mouth, Skan.

TOTALLY different like apocalyptic symbolism related to a visual depiction of God (i.e. ..."He had two horns like a lamb, but he spoke like a dragon") and God's actual own words about his own actions? (i.e. "I the Lord your God have chosen...")

You really can't see those as also being TOTALLY DIFFERENT?

The question put to you is, "Is it your contention that anthropomorphism is only used in apocalyptic or poetic literature?"

What do you think anthropomorphism's purpose is all about? Relating to one's cultural (human) context so as to make Him more relatable and understandable.

Exactly.

Luke, what you don't seem to understand is that I'm not dismissing it idea of anthropomorphism as used in scripture. I'm saying that the way in which your are using the appeal to anthropomorphism could be used by anyone to dismiss anything about God's revelation they didn't like. But anthropomorphism, as its truly intended, is meant to help people understand truth, not to contradict truth. Thus to say He doesn't really make choices is a direct contradiction to what the revelation teaches.

No more than saying God forgets is anthropomorphic, Skan.

Anthropomorphism is simple to identify.

Whenever God describes himself as doing something humans do which contradicts what other Scripture teach about his nature and being; in other words he could not be only in one place because that would contradict his omniscience, and he could not REALLY forget because that would contradict his omniscience, etc... it is clearly anthropomorphic.

God does not ponder in the sense of trying to figure out what he is going to do- this contradicts his omniscience. So it is clearly anthropomorphic.

It indicates that what God is doing is most able to be related to us by our sense of pondering. God is not REALLY pondering because he has always known all there is to ever know about everything but what he is doing is most like what we go through when we ponder.

Jesus is not REALLY sitting at the Father's ACTUAL right hand, because the Father has no hands. But the way it so happens in heaven is most like in our world when one sits at the right hand of a mighty ruler.

What we are NOT- for PITY'S SAKE!- supposed to do is take those verses and teach that God must have a physical body!! We are not to say, "BY JOHN I BELIEVE THE BIBLE!!!! If you think the Father does not have hands with blood and muscle and bone and skin over the top of them and finger nails- then you just don't believe GOD!! I choose to believe GOD! You can believe in your fancy theoologeekuhl terms if you want! But I believe the BIBLE!!"

And, honestly, I don't see how what you are doing here is any different from that.

 

[Skandelon]

The question put to you is, "Is it your contention that anthropomorphism is only used in apocalyptic or poetic literature?"

No. My contention is that you have equated the two so as to dismiss them on those equal grounds, which is biblically unfounded and clearly dangerous.

If you have a didactic text which uses a similar anthropomorphic term that would better compare than apocalyptic symbolism does please feel free to submit it for consideration, but as if now you've resorted to:

HORNS = CHOICES = NOT HORNS OR CHOICES

No more than saying God forgets is anthropomorphic, Skan.

How is that only a man-like quality? Can God, like man, choose not to remember or hold something against someone? The connotation of forgetting something someone has done to greatly wrong you is rarely (if ever) meant that it can't be recalled in the mind of that person, but is meant as an active choice to forgive and let it go...not holding it against them, or bringing it up again. How is this a parallel example of your claim that "choice = not choice?"

God does not ponder in the sense of trying to figure out what he is going to do- this contradicts his omniscience. So it is clearly anthropomorphic.

Choice is defined as selecting between available options. Was it an option for God to pass over you and save another instead? Or was God bound to select you? What is so special about you that God couldn't not have lived without you? Is God not all self sufficient? Then why would he be bound to create Luke and save Luke? Did he not have the choice in the matter even thought the very root doctrine of ELECTION is based on this concept of CHOICE?

What we are NOT- for PITY'S SAKE!- supposed to do is take those verses and teach that God must have a physical body!!

Jesus is God and he has/had and physical body.

But that is beside the point...

 

[Luke2427]

No. My contention is that you have equated the two so as to dismiss them on those equal grounds, which is biblically unfounded and clearly dangerous.

You need to demonstrate how I have done that.

If you have a didactic text which uses a similar anthropomorphic term that would better compare than apocalyptic symbolism does please feel free to submit it for consideration, but as if now you've resorted to:

HORNS = CHOICES = NOT HORNS OR CHOICES

I did. I posited the text that declares that Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father.

That is didactic AND anthropomorphic.

How is that only a man-like quality?

I did not say it was only a man-like quality. I said that God DOES NOT forget though the text says he forgets.

The point is that you are just as likely in that text to say, "BY JOHN I BELIEVE THE BIBLE Luke does not!"

When the truth is that if you believed God literally forgets you actually do NOT believe the Bible by saying that you believe that text is literal.

This stuff you keep doing with "God says... " but "Luke says...." is silly because it pretends that we are supposed to take the literal meaning on all texts when many of them are not WRITTEN to be taken literally. That is true not only of apocalyptic literature and poetic literature but also of didactic teaching as well.

Choice is defined as selecting between available options. Was it an option for God to pass over you and save another instead? Or was God bound to select you?

God has purposes and then he creates things to fulfill those purposes. Your order is wrong.

Jesus is God and he has/had and physical body.

But that is beside the point...

So what is your point with this statement?

Is it to posit that God has always had a body?

 

[Skandelon]

You need to demonstrate how I have done that.

You equated my affirmation that God makes choices (which is what he said, not me) with the apocalyptic symbolism symbolism relating to God having horns. You do this every time I say something like, "We know God makes choices because he tells us that he makes choices," and you reply dismissively saying something like, "I suppose you think he has horns too?"

Does that demonstrate how you have done this clearly enough?

Suppose if you said, "God says he doesn't approve of homosexuality," and a homosexual advocate responded saying, "I suppose you think God has horns too?" You would say, "What? That doesn't even relate." I agree. It doesn't. Just like you saying it doesn't relate to God's revealing that he makes choices.

A = not A (law of non-contradiction)

I did. I posited the text that declares that Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father.

That is didactic AND anthropomorphic.

Right, but your not going around to your church members contradicting that teaching by saying, "Jesus doesn't sit at the right hand of the Father." Do you? You don't advocate A = not A, with that verse, do you?

Of course you don't. Instead you probably say something like, "that symbolizes Jesus as in a place of authority with God." You are affirming the symbol not denying it. With the choice thing you are just denying it, you aren't offering anything except a A = not A. God says he makes a choice and you believe he doesn't really make a choice, period. You think it just is, which isn't a choice, thus A = not A and you violate your own laws of logic.

I did not say it was only a man-like quality. I said that God DOES NOT forget though the text says he forgets.

As I said, even with man the concept of 'forgetting sins against you' has never meant an inability to recall them...so I don't see how this supports your point? We both affirm its actual meaning because neither of us think it means God doesn't have the ability to recall sins committed against him.

This stuff you keep doing with "God says... " but "Luke says...." is silly

Then stop saying things about God that contradicts what He said and I'll stop pointing it out... :wavey:

So what is your point with this statement?

Is it to posit that God has always had a body?

No, that point is to show that it isn't contradictory, as your supposition of (choice = not a choice) is.

 

[percho]

Here is a logic question with several logical scriptures.

Did God, by determination, take the woman out of the man, made in the image of God for an anthropomorphic purpose?

YLT Matt 1:20 And on his thinking of these things, lo, a messenger of the Lord in a dream appeared to him, saying, `Joseph, son of David, thou mayest not fear to receive Mary thy wife, for that which in her was begotten [is] of the Holy Spirit,

YLT Luke 1:32 he shall be great, and Son of the Highest he shall be called, and the Lord God shall give him the throne of David his father,

Logic?

While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, [The Son] of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
Matt. 22:41-45

He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Until I make thy foes thy footstool. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. Acts 2:31-36

Logic? Anthropomorphic? Determinism?