The Brilliance Of Kagan?

In this piece,

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/05/us-usa-court-kagan-idUSBRE83410E20120405

Justice Elena Kagan is trumpeted as the second coming of Oliver Wendell Holmes on SCOTUS.

However, it strikes me that Reuters has not looked closely enough. Reuters zeroes in on this exchange as proof of the brilliance and tenacity of Justice Kagan. In this exchange with Paul D. Clement, a lawyer representing 26 states who have filed suit against Obamacare we see Kagan at her supposed best. In this exchange Clement vs. Kagan are debating whether the authority the federal government is assuming in Obama death care is coercive. Kagan thinks that it is not, because the federal government is giving states, in Kagan’s paralance, “a boatload of federal money for you to take and spend on poor people’s healthcare.” Clement counters that this boatload of federal money comes laden with coercive conditions, invoking the old, “he who takes the king’s coin is the king’s man” argument. Kagan then presents a hypothetical to Clement which leads to the exchange that Reuters finds brilliant,

JUSTICE KAGAN: Now, suppose I’m an employer, and I see somebody I really like, and I want to hire that person. And I say, I’m going to give you $10 million a year to come work for me. And the person says, well, I–you know, I’ve never been offered anywhere approaching $10 million a year. Of course, I’m going to say yes to that. Now we would both be agreed that that’s not coercive, right?

MR. CLEMENT: Well, I guess I would want to know where the money came from. And if the money came from–

JUSTICE KAGAN: Wow. Wow. I’m offering you $10 million a year to come work for me, and you are saying that this is anything but a great choice?

MR. CLEMENT: Sure, if I told you, actually, it came from my own bank account. And that’s what’s really going on here, in part.

1.) I’m not sure how this is brilliant since Kagan has sailed (keeping with her boat language) right past the fact that the Federal government has no money that it does not first confiscate from the citizenry. Kagan is creating a analogical scenario where someone is offered $10 million dollars a year of stolen money to be commissioned to do something that the prospective employer is not legally allowed to commission. The US Constitution does not allow the Federal Government to hire the States to taken confiscated tax dollars to run a death care program.

2.) Clements response was good but it could have been even better. He could have said,

“Thank you for your question Your Honor, however your analogy does not hold and is really an equivocation on what is being proposed here by the Obama Administration. What the Obama administration is proposing is to force, as contradictory as such a notion is, on the American citizenry a involuntary contract where they are forced to pay for something that they may not want. This is hardly parallel to the employee / employer potential relationship that you describe where the contract entered into has the voluntary character of all genuine contracts. You can not successfully analogize a voluntary contract of employee / employer with a involuntary coercive contract where the force of the State is binding the citizens.”

3.) Kagan’s analogy looks only at the side of the people being advantaged and so with her faulty analogy insists that there is nothing coercive in the arrangement. To look at the coercive side we might draw this similar analogy,

“Now, suppose I’m a Mafia thug, and I see somebody I really dislike, and I want to hurt that person. And I say, I’m going to take from you $10 million a year so somebody who has chosen to not work can come work for me. And the person says, well, I–you know, I’ve never had anyone offer to take that kind of money from me before. Of course, I’m going to say “no” to that. Now we would both be agreed that that’s coercive, right?”

If someone as dense as me, can see through the thickness of Kagan, I’m not sure why Reuters is arguing her brilliance.

The Relationship Between Theology And Language

‎”How do you get your systematic theology if it is not at first driven by understanding the language? In order to get your systematic theology, you first have to get to the meaning of the words. It cannot be the other way round for the obvious reason: it would imply that systematic theology is developed before you understand the meaning of the words in Scripture.”

Dr. Ian Hodge
Australian Theonomist and all round great guy

Dr. Hodge’s formulation is lacking my estimation. Language doesn’t come to us disassociated from a meaning that is driven by theology. Language is not a free floating independent category that can be worked out in terms of meaning without that meaning of the language being informed a-priori by some theology. What I am insisting here is that the search for meaningful language requires a theology of language, and if we must have a theology of language before we can rightly understand language then clearly there is some sense in which theology is prior to language.

In terms of the “meaning of the words in Scripture,” it seems fairly obvious that the different conclusions (and so different translations) that people come up with in terms of word meanings reveals that language is theology (worldview) dependent. People will have disagreement regarding the meaning of language and at that point we begin to see that theology is the reason for that disagreement on the language.

I would argue that the particulars (language) and the wholes (theology) condition one another at every step of the way. I do agree with you however that paying attention to the language is key.

We might say that language without theology is blind while theology without language is empty. They need each other and are equally ultimate.

Dipping into some of my learning today — 04 April, 2012

I.) Library

http://www.vdare.com/articles/why-western-music-is-superior-to-eastern (Article Mentioned In The Wed. Classes)

Pseudo-Sciences: Sociology and Psychology….

http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/issue08/blumenfeld.htm

Marxist Revolution of the West

http://www.opc.org/os.html?article_id=302&cur_iss=Y (Maddening)

http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2012/03/31/in-gods-name/ (slippery)

http://historiasalutis.com/2012/03/30/welcome-back-culture/

Jim Wallis: Consistently Applying the Two Kingdoms Theology

Confederate History Month 2012: Stephen F. Hale’s Letter To Kentucky

http://www.etherzone.com/2012/cron040212.shtml

http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit

http://reason.com/blog/2012/03/28/the-obama-administrations-limiting-princ

http://kevincraig.info/salvian.htm

That Which is Lost

II.) Audio

A Few Words On Romanticism / Transcendentalism As A Worldview Of The West

In terms of worldview thinking Romanticism / Transcendentalism was the mystical new agey subjectivistic godless ying to the rationalistic objectivistic godless yang of Deistic Unitarianism. Romanticism / Transcendentalism flexed its muscle in New England with the take over of Harvard from the Deistic Unitarians circa 1840’s.

Whereas Unitarianism posited some kind of rational divine order that could be read via the use of autonomous right reason of a deistic natural law, Romanticism / Transcendentalism had a kind of Hegelian pantheistic feel to it as it thumped the idea of connecting with the divine oversoul in all of us. Unitarianism was very rationalistic oriented while Transcendentalism / Romanticism was given to the feelings and the senses.

Epistemologically speaking, Deistic Enlightenment Unitarianism insisted that man could know via reason discovering self-evident truths. Transcendentalism / Romanticism however made the Epistemological move to intuition as the basis of knowing. Rationalism gaves us the godless outward look, while Romanticism / Transcendtalism gives us the godless inward look. Ontologically speaking, the god concept for Deistic Enlightenment Unitarianism remained objective, however ontology for the Transcendentalist / Romanticism was not the god outside but the god in all of us. The American Transcendental movement’s philosophical pillar was that the individual is identical with the world, and that world exists in unity with God. Through this logic, it followed that the individual soul is one with God. Anthropologically speaking, Romanticism / Transcendentalism believed that man should be primarily thought of in terms of spirit or the divine spark. They believed that man was inherently good and that man had only to be educated into his inherent goodness.

As Romanticism / Transcendentalism gained a foothold in American culture one consequence was the rise of radial abolitionism. The Romanticist /Transcendentalist worldview, believing that all men share equally in their god quotient therefore believed that all men were perfectly equal and that the power of the State should be used to insure that all men were forcefully given their equality. Interestingly enough, Romanticism / Transcendentalism, as it informed the radical abolitionists worldview, served as one of the factors that set the Northern Yankee armies marching.

The power of Romanticism / Transcendentalism dissipated and eventually the rise of Darwinism as a worldview began to account for social order mythology that animated the West. Somewhere around the 1930’s – 1940’s the power of Existentialism as the guiding motif for the West began to pick up steam.

America has had basically 4 or 5 worldviews. Calvinism, Rationalistic Unitarianism, Romanticism / Transcendentalism, (which also explains the rise of the Jacksonian Democratic Revolution here), Social Darwinism, and Existentialism. Some would argue that currently we are in a kind of Nihilistic worldview, though Nihilism, what is styled as “post-modernism,” could also be argued as merely subsequent extensions of Existentialism.

Of course these matters are not always clear cut in terms of the exact dates in which they are hegemonic. For example, even though we are in kind of a Nihilistic mode right now, the relative rationalism of Darwinism still reigns supreme in the hard sciences. Also keep in mind that in the end there are only two worldviews. Biblical Christianity vs. some variant of Humanism.

Mark Chambers Challenges John Piper’s “Two Wills In God.”

Every so often I will post articles on ironink written by friends. This article is written by Mark Chambers. Mark is a member of the Church I serve and is a very close friend. He is also one of the sharper theological minds that you will come across in or out of the Reformed pulpit. In the article below Mark exposes Dr. John Piper’s inadequate thinking of John Piper’s “two wills in God” theory. It is a theory that has been advanced by other Reformed men besides John Piper and so it is important to consider the reasoning here.

Like all articles I post from other folks, my posting isn’t a blanket endorsement on every point or phrase but it is a insistence that what the author is saying, on the whole, needs to be heard.

I first encountered this article by Piper seven years ago in a book titled “The Grace of God-The Bondage of the Will”. It is a collection of writings from various Calvinists edited by Thomas Schreiner and Bruce Ware and published as a response to the book edited by Clark Pinnock titled “The Grace of God and the Will of Man”. That Schreiner and Ware are Baptists goes a long way in explaining why the confused muddle headedness of Piper’s article was included.

“On to the Two Wills of God

My aim in this chapter is to show from Scripture that the simultaneous existence of God’s will for “all persons to be saved” (1 Tim. 2:4) and his will to elect unconditionally those who will actually be saved is not a sign of divine schizophrenia or exegetical confusion. A corresponding aim is to show that unconditional election therefore does not contradict biblical expressions of God’s compassion for all people, and does not nullify sincere offers of salvation to everyone who is lost among all the peoples of the world.”

Several things here.

1. There is no doubt that God shows compassion to all men. The sun rises on the righteous and unrighteous alike. But this doesn’t translate to an earnest desire for their salvation when in fact God has no intention, and never had any intention of saving the reprobate.

2. The possibility for one who is not elect to accept a free offer of the Gospel does not exist and cannot exist, for God has determined from eternity who will and will not accept.

3. It remains then to be asked exactly what is meant when it is suggested that God “wills for all persons to be saved”? If He willed that all persons be saved then all persons would be saved. Piper equivocates on the word will, suggesting that there are two wills when in fact he means something entirely different when speaking of the two. Will is determinative of action. God wills to save and consequently those whom He wills to save are saved. But in what sense then can it be said that God “wills” the salvation of the reprobate? An exercise of the divine will results in the accomplishment of the thing willed and the reprobate are not saved. Does Piper imagine that the reprobate would still be reprobate if God did not will it?

“1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9, and Ezekiel 18:23 might be called the Arminian pillar texts concerning the universal saving will of God………….Therefore as a hearty believer in unconditional, individual election I rejoice to affirm that God does not delight in the perishing of the impenitent, and that he has compassion on all people. My aim is to show that this is not double talk.”

Here Piper introduces a point that is both irrelevant and inane. Positive reprobation does not require divine enjoyment or rejoicing in the death of the wicked nor does it mean that He lacks compassion. It is one thing to reprobate and will the destruction of the wicked (to make some vessels for dishonor) and another thing altogether to say that this entails some emotional pleasure for God. Non sequitur—it simply does not follow. Is God not glorified in the reprobation of the non elect?

“Affirming the will of God to save all, while also affirming the unconditional election of some, implies that there are at least “two wills” in God, or two ways of willing.”

Actually what it implies is a confused mind equivocating on the word will. Is God as confused as Piper? God wills, Piper suggests, that the non elect unbeliever accept the “sincere offer”, while also willing their reprobation, the very thing that makes that acceptance impossible. But to suggest that there are two ways of willing requires one to redefine the word will for one of those instances. The result for Piper is that God wills what does not come to pass. Worse. He wills the very thing that He has determined (by His will), cannot come to pass. God wills what he does not will. Piper ought to spend some time reviewing the Law of Contradiction.

“It implies that God decrees one state of affairs while also willing and teaching that a different state of affairs should come to pass.”

It implies that God is confused, decreeing one thing but wanting something else. Piper’s suggestion divorces God’s will from His decree. He decrees one state of affairs, but wills another. This is absurd. Are there conflicting interests in the divine mind? Can God decree a state of affairs without willing it? Does he bring to pass things against his own will? Can God deny Himself? If we approach the word will unequivocally then the only thing God wills is that which comes to pass, i.e. in this instance, the salvation of the elect and the destruction of those whom He reprobates. God works all things after the counsel of his will. How in the world can Piper suggest that God wills what does not come to pass?

“This distinction in the way God wills has been expressed in various ways throughout the centuries. It is not a new contrivance. For example, theologians have spoken of sovereign will and moral will, efficient will and permissive will, secret will and revealed will, will of decree and will of command, decretive will and preceptive will, voluntas signi (will of sign) and voluntas beneplaciti (will of good pleasure), etc.”

All of these are attempts to relieve the equivocation and resolve the imagined paradox between particularism and hypothetical universalism. The preceptive will, moral will, will of command et al are not volition. His will is expressed not by what is commanded, but by what is accomplished. God commands all men everywhere to repent, but he does not will that they do. God’s will is found only in God’s decree.

“Clark Pinnock refers disapprovingly to “the exceedingly paradoxical notion of two divine wills regarding salvation.” In Pinnock’s more recent volume (A Case for Arminianism) Randall Basinger argues that, “if God has decreed all events, then it must be that things cannot and should not be any different from what they are.” In other words he rejects the notion that God could decree that a thing be one way and yet teach that we should act to make it another way. He says that it is too hard “to coherently conceive of a God in which this distinction really exists”

Basinger and Pinnock are absolutely right. Open thiests are heretics, but they are logically consistent heretics. Basinger rightly notes that the decree of an omniscient God requires that things be exactly as they are. A consistent Calvinist has no problem with this. A logically consistent Arminian rejects traditional Arminianism for open theism. But Piper is left with no argument that he can offer against them.

“Fritz Guy argues that the revelation of God in Christ has brought about a “paradigm shift” in the way we should think about the love of God — namely as “more fundamental than, and prior to, justice and power.” This shift, he says, makes it possible to think about the “will of God” as “delighting more than deciding.” God’s will is not his sovereign purpose which he infallibly establishes, but rather “the desire of the lover for the beloved.” The will of God is his general intention and longing, not his effective purpose. Dr. Guy goes so far as to say, “Apart from a predestinarian presupposition, it becomes apparent that God’s ‘will’ is always (sic) to be understood in terms of intention and desire as opposed to efficacious, sovereign purpose.”

Open theists are heretics of the first degree. But what does Piper offer instead? Fritz Guy suggests that God does not always ‘get’ what he wants. But Piper is worse. He suggests that God wants one thing and does another! His is desire is contrary to his decree. I’m not sure which is worse, the finite impotency of the open theist or divine confusion.

“These criticisms are not new. Jonathan Edwards wrote 250 years ago, “The Arminians ridicule the distinction between the secret and revealed will of God, or, more properly expressed, the distinction between the decree and the law of God; because we say he may decree one thing, and command another. And so, they argue, we hold a contrariety in God, as if one will of his contradicted another.”

Edwards is right on the button with this. The issue is not one of two wills but of law (precept) and decree. And he is clear that the two are not contradictory. Why? Because they look to different things. The law is a standard; a demand. It is not volition but an expression of command. God has not willed that his precepts be obeyed, but He did will to command.

“To avoid all misconceptions it should be made clear at the outset that the fact that God wishes or wills that all people should be saved does not necessarily imply that all will respond to the gospel and be saved. We must certainly distinguish between what God would like to see happen and what he actually does will to happen, and both of these things can be spoken of as God’s will.”

Unbelievable. God wishes? Does He also toss lucky pennies in the fountain while making his wish? Here is a perfect example of equivocation and why Piper is confused. God’s will is indeed expressed in what is accomplished; he wills the salvation of the elect and the elect are saved. It is the doing, the accomplishing that expresses volition. Piper sounds Arminian. Saying that God willing does not imply the accomplishment of what is willed is just astounding. More incredible he says that God does what he does not want to do and wills what he also does not will. Even the Arminian argument makes more sense than this. At least the Arminian has a sound reason for saying that God doesn’t get what He genuinely wills i.e. the libertarian will of the creature. Here Piper posits a confused God who wills contradictory propositions. And what of the astounding statement that God’s wish [wish?] that all would be saved does not guarantee that all will respond? After all, it is God Himself who calls and enables the elect. One wonders exactly what Piper is thinking?

“The question at issue is not whether all will be saved but whether God has made provision in Christ for the salvation of all, provided that they believe, and without limiting the potential scope of the death of Christ merely to those whom God knows will believe.”

Whom God knows will believe? Just how does Piper think God knows such things? It’s hard to believe a 5 pointer could write this. How can a 5 pointer say “provided they believe” when he himself has made it clear that those who will believe were determined before the foundation of the world? One can utter the hypothetical and say “well if they did believe they would be saved” but it can also be said with equal veracity that if the sun doesn’t rise tomorrow morning it will be a dark day. It is true, but also inane. And exactly what is “potential scope”? There is no such thing, at least as Piper would have us think. The potential in the work of Christ, or in anything that God does, is identical to what is accomplished. There is no potentiality in God, no maybes, no ifs, only actuality and full realization. He does what He intends. Potential is the figment of a temporal imagination. Piper is committing an error of category here in what I believe to be a feeble attempt at protecting the infinite value of the cross. But value and application are categorically distinct.

“In this chapter I would now like to undergird Marshall’s point that “we must certainly distinguish between what God would like to see happen and what he actually does will to happen, and [that] both of these things can be spoken of as God’s will.””

Would like to see happen? Piper is daft. The whole problem is that in Piper’s argument will is defined in several different ways—the most common one being desire. But one cannot do that. He clearly recognizes the difference between decree and command but calls them both “will” and then fails to see the confusion caused by such an equivocation. He needs to correct his language. Additionally it is utterly absurd to suggest that God wills one thing but would rather have something else. Frankly I’d be afraid to say such a thing.

“The most compelling example of God’s willing for sin to come to pass while at the same time disapproving the sin is his willing the death of his perfect, divine Son. The betrayal of Jesus by Judas was a morally evil act inspired immediately by Satan (Luke 22:3). Yet in Acts 2:23 Luke says, “This Jesus [was] delivered up according to the definite plan (boule) and foreknowledge of God.” The betrayal was sin, and it involved the instrumentality of Satan; but it was part of God’s ordained plan. That is, there is a sense in which God willed the delivering up of his Son, even though the act was sin.”

SOME SENSE IN WHICH HE WILLED IT? Decreeing the death of Christ and abhorring the evil in it does not constitute a duplicitous will. The will is reflected only in the decree. Finally how can any 5 point Calvinist say that there is “a sense” in which God willed the death of His Son “even though” the act was sin? I’m flabbergasted. GOD WILLED THE DEATH OF HIS SON PERIOD. He was delivered up ACCORDING TO THE DEFINITE PLAN AND FOREKNOWLEDGE OF THE ALMIGHTY GOD WHO WORKS ALL THINGS AFTER THE COUNSEL OF HIS OWN WILL. There is a sense in which He did it all right. It was exactly what He intended and that from eternity. Piper appears to be afraid to say that GOD IS THE ULTIMATE CAUSE OF ALL THINGS. If it happens it happens by decree. The only logically sound alternative is the finite god of open theism.