Thursday, September 29, 2011
Where the jobs are
Monster Worldwide published some figures on recent activity in their job postings, and there were some surprising results:
What I thought was striking in this was a figure, about half way through, suggesting that only 4% of college graduates were unemployed, but 17% for high school level and lower. Couple of areas where there was some key growth: industrial engineering (up 28%), auto mechanics (up 24%), retail sales (up 19%), also sales agents in financial services (up 20%), mortgage refinance officers, and "apps" developers for mobile phones and tablets. Health care was strong too.
What I thought was striking in this was a figure, about half way through, suggesting that only 4% of college graduates were unemployed, but 17% for high school level and lower. Couple of areas where there was some key growth: industrial engineering (up 28%), auto mechanics (up 24%), retail sales (up 19%), also sales agents in financial services (up 20%), mortgage refinance officers, and "apps" developers for mobile phones and tablets. Health care was strong too.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Snared in his own net
Ponter’s latest gambit:
Let me try to refocus the problem Hays and co., have.
Don’t you just love how he puts that? Couldn’t be that he’s confused. No, we must be confused.
There’s a bit of advice that successful writers give to aspiring writers: If you have a hard time clearly saying what you mean, that’s probably because you don’t have a clear idea of what you mean to say.
Ponter’s constantly evolving definitions and formulations bring that muddle to mind.
We ask the question, “On the supposition that Judas was NDF, how can God’s offer to Judas be sincere?”
We ask that, because we want to know how God can sincerely offer (e.g., salvation, justification, forgiveness of sins, etc etc) to Judas what he does not have for Judas (given that Judas is NDF).
Hays’ answer is: “God’s offer to Judas is sincere, because on the supposition that had he believed, he would have obtained the thing offered.”
We actually do not dispute that.
But that is not an answer to our question. That answer works only on the counter-factual supposition that Judas “believed” (which entails further counter-factual suppositions that he was elected and died-for, after all).
We are asking the question on the factual suppositions that Judas did not believe and that he was not died-for, how can God, for his part, make a sincere offer to Judas?
And we could pose a parallel question: on the factual suppositions that Judas didn’t believe and that he wasn’t elect, regenerate, or redeemed, how can God, for his part, make a sincere offer to Judas?
Byrne, baby, Byrne
TONY BYRNE SAID:
The title of this posts asks if desire is a precondition of a "well-meant" offer.
There are three possibilities for an offer: 1) A well-meant offer, 2) an ill-meant offer and 3) a sham offer.
1) A Well-Meant Offer: In this kind of offer, the offeror is one who is well-disposed (hence "well-meant") or well-intentioned toward the offeree. Something good is presented by the offeror to the offeree, and since the other person's well-being is in view (i.e. a loving motive), there is a desire for compliance. In this scenario, a desire for compliance is a precondition.
i) Why should we grant Tony’s definition? Ponter referred us to the OED. So I did a post in which I noted that the adjectives in this debate (“sincere” or “well-meant/meaning”) have a variety of denotations. I then discussed the different implications of the different denotations.
Tony ignores all that. What Tony is doing is to cherry-pick the sense which happens to suit his agenda.
ii) Let’s also keep in mind that “offer” isn’t the only relevant word to capture the concept. For God also “commands” sinners to repent and believe the gospel.
Likewise, one of the dictionary synonyms for an “offer” is a “proposal.”
iii) Let’s compare Tony’s claim with a couple of Scriptures:
21And the LORD said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles that I have put in your power. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go. 22Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, Israel is my firstborn son, 23and I say to you, "Let my son go that he may serve me." If you refuse to let him go, behold, I will kill your firstborn son'" (Exod 4:21-23).
2 You shall speak all that I command you, and your brother Aaron shall tell Pharaoh to let the people of Israel go out of his land. 3But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in the land of Egypt, 4Pharaoh will not listen to you. Then I will lay my hand on Egypt and bring my hosts, my people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great acts of judgment. 5The Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I stretch out my hand against Egypt and bring out the people of Israel from among them (Exod 7:2-5).
Does God’s command or proposal have Pharaoh’s well-being in view? No. Is God well-disposed to Pharaoh? No. Does God desire Pharaoh’s compliance? No.
God wants Pharaoh to refuse the command or proposal. For the refusal is a means to an end. It would thwart God’s long-range plan if Pharaoh accepted the proposal or obey the command.
And not only does God want Pharaoh to refuse the command or proposal, but God ensures the refusal by hardening Pharaoh’s heart. Under those circumstances, it isn’t even possible for Pharaoh to accept the proposal or obey the command.
By Ponter’s logic, that makes the proposal a “lying” proposal. “Insincere, disingenuous, illegitimate, and pretentious.” Yahweh must be a “monster,” who is “tantalizing” Pharaoh with a “lie.”
2) An Ill-Meant Offer: In this kind of offer, the offeror is not well-disposed to the offeree, but still presents something they have for acceptance or rejection. This is the kind of scenario presented with the PE kids in Hays' analogy above. The offeror in fact has a home in which to invite the offeree, but doesn't really want him to come. You'll notice also this crucial point in Hay's analogy: it is a deceptive or pretentious offer since the one kid (the offeror) wants the other (the offeree) to believe he wants him over for company, but he really does not. Is this how the Bible depicts God in His gospel offers to the non-elect? Pretentious and ill-meant?
Well that’s a pretty twisted interpretation of my illustration. The student who makes the offer has the obnoxious student’s best interests at heart. He dislikes the obnoxious student. He’d prefer it if the obnoxious student turned him down.
Yet, in spite of that, he is putting his personal feelings aside and reaching out to the obnoxious student, because the student needs a friend, and that’s the right thing to do. If the obnoxious student accepts the offer, the offeror will make good on the offer.
Frankly, that’s admirable. It’s virtuous to do what we ought to do even when we feel averse to doing it. If Byrne weren’t so straight-jacketed by his doctrinaire commitments, he wouldn’t think to characterize a selfless, commendable offer as an “ill-meant” offer.”
3) Sham Offers: In this kind of alleged "offer," not only is there not a well-intentioned offeror, but the offeror does not have that which he says he wants to give to the other person. It's like a kid offering to sell another kid some gum he says is in his pocket (but really isn't there) in order to steal money from another. A crucial thing to note here is that the "offeror" (it's not really an "offer" at all) is not only lying, but he doesn't even have that which he says he has to give. Suppose the kid in Hays' PE analogy doesn't even have a home in which to invite the other kid, and yet he invites him anyway, ill-intentioned and unable to give that which is "offered." That would constitute a sham offer.
Byrne is making the same mistake Ponter did. As I pointed out in response to Ponter, if you’re going to say it isn’t a “real” offer unless the offeror has what he tenders, then you can never accuse an offeror of fraud. For an offer can only be a fraudulent offer if it’s still an offer.
Hays asked if "desire is a precondition for a well-meant offer." The answer is yes. Then Hays gives an analogy that does not correspond to a well-meant/well-intentioned offer in order to answer "no" to the question in the title. What he has presented in the analogy is an ill-meant offer, not a well-meant offer, as I have described above. Is desire a precondition for an ill-meant offer? Of course not, but that's not what the title of the post is asking.
The conclusion only follows if we grant Tony’s makeshift definition.
At least two things are necessary for a "well-meant"/"well-intentioned"/"loving"/"gracious" offer: 1) some good thing you have for the taking (it's actually applicable to the offeree) coupled with 2) a desire for compliance to the condition(s). There's nothing in Hays' post that disproves this fact.
That’s not a “fact”–that’s an assertion. An assertion that begs the very issue in dispute.
Keep in mind that this conversation about the nature of well-meant offers is coming up because we're dealing with God's indiscriminate gospel offers. Do Christians want to describe God's "gracious offers" (that's Reformed Confessional language) as well-meant (as described above) to all? Well-meant to the elect but ill-meant to the non-elect? Or a sham offer to the non-elect?
I have a better idea: why don’t we describe the gospel offer as a “true” offer. Whatever it takes to make it true.
It seems that Steve Hays not only thinks God is ill-meant in his offers to the non-elect, but one wonders how he escapes the charge that he depicts the "offer" to the non-elect as a sham offer.
It would only be a “sham” offer if God is unable or unwilling to make good on the offer. But as I’ve explained repeatedly, that’s not the case.
He has yet to tell us what God is offering to the non-elect (i.e. the non-died-for). So, we ask, "What is God offering to the non-died-for?"
To begin with, it’s not as though God is making an offer to anyone in particular. Rather, God has a general command or offer for the consideration of the redeemed and the unredeemed alike. For instance:
If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved (Rom 10:9).
Back to Byrne:
The analogy is also problematic if we apply it to God's gospel offer. It would depict God's offers of salvation to the elect alone as done out of a cheerful heart, but God offers salvation to the non-elect only as an onerous burden springing from bare duty.
It’s not problematic since it wasn’t analogous to the gospel offer. Rather, I was exploring the nature of a “well-meant” offer. Byrne lacks the critical detachment to follow the argument.
Another liberal success story
Redmond Traffic-Cam Violations Down, Collisions Up
New data released Tuesday indicate the number of violations at Redmond's camera-enforced intersections is declining, but the frequency of collisions is also increasing.
Myers also said the violations have brought in approximately $630,000 through August.
Common sense or common cents?
Class Warfare, or Common Sense? Elizabeth Warren on the social contract
"I hear all this, you know, 'Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever,'" Warren said. "No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody.
"You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did.
"Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless — keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."1
1. "Elizabeth Warren On 'Class Warfare': There Is Nobody Who Got Rich On His Own (VIDEO)," Eric Kleefeld, Talking Points Memo, 09-21-2011.
A predictable rant, c/o Victor Reppert. He never lets philosophy get in the way of his reflex liberalism. By way of response:
i) A systematic problem with Warren’s statement is the vicious circularity. If gov’t gives itself a monopoly on education, public safety, and education, then, by definition, a business must rely on public largesse–since it was never afforded an alternative. There is no op-out.
But what’s that supposed to prove? That takes the status quo ante for granted. But of course, that’s the very thing which limited gov’t types challenge.
This is one of those typical cases in which the nannystatist is imputing his assumptions to the libertarian (or variation thereof), then accusing the libertarian of hypocrisy. But if the libertarian had his druthers, that wouldn’t be the status quo ante. What’s a given for Warren is not a given for the libertarian.
BTW, I’m not a libertarian myself, although my own views intersect with libertarians here and there. My immediate point is that Reppert is guilty of mirror reading. This is a totally insular criticism.
ii) In principle, gov’t doesn’t have to build roads. After all, if gov’t didn’t build the railroad (that was private biz), gov’t doesn’t have to build highways and freeways.
iii) And, or course, gov’t doesn’t actually build the infrastructure. That’s contracted out to bidders in the private sector. Only gov’t buries the construction company under a crushing weight of regulation.
iv) To take a personal anecdote, I’ve resided in my current location for 8 years. Most of the time I don’t have to commute very far to do what needs to be done. But a few times a year I have to take a freeway to another freeway to get where I need to go.
The first year I moved here, the freeway had a center lane that was under construction. My second year here, the same stretch of freeway was under construction. My third year here, the same stretch of freeway was under construction. My fourth year here, the same stretch of freeway was under construction. My fifth year here, the same stretch of freeway was under construction. My sixth year here, the same stretch of freeway was under construction. My seventh year here, the same stretch of freeway was under construction. My eighth year here, the same stretch of freeway is still under construction, with no completion date in sight.
Think gov’t red tape might have something to with that? What about union labor?
v) Many businesses, especially large companies, have their own security guards. Is Warren so out-of-touch that she never noticed?
In principle, you can have a private fire dept.
vi) BTW, one advantage of having business do things wherever possible is that corporate executives can be sued, whereas gov’t officials immunize themselves from legal liability.
vii) Does our public school system really focus on marketable job skills? If public school is so indispensable at training future employees, why are Democrats constantly clamoring for more jobs programs? That’s after graduation, remember?
BTW, jobs programs don’t create jobs.
viii) Likewise, why think public schools do a better job of training future employees than a private vocational schools?
ix) Finally, no one asked me to sign the social contract Warren is alluding to. I’m not even a cosigner.
I'm not claiming privatization is a panacea. But liberals are so conditioned by their paternalistic outlook that they can't imagine leaving home.
Yes-men
THEOPARADOX SAID:
Paul,
You asked: Do you have an authoritative book on what counts as a "sincere offer", or necessary and sufficient conditions, so that we can demarcate sincere from insincere offers?
I would suggest two courses.
1. Check the major English dictionary definitions of "sincere" to get a firm understanding of the etymology, modern meanings, and the range of possible meanings historically.
That’s patently dishonest. I, for one, have analyzed the dictionary definitions, as well as Ponter’s ever-evolving definition.
2. Read those Calvinists who have affirmed the "sincere" or "well meant" offer of the Gospel and see how they use the term. Murray and Stonehouse might be a good place to start.
i) Since Murray was a strong proponent of limited atonement, that appeal is a double-edged sword.
ii) Why start with Murray and Stonehouse? Why not start with Cunningham on “Extent of Atonement and Gospel Offer” (pp343-48):
iii) Or why not start with Helm’s painstaking analysis?
You'll find quite a lot of the second on Ponter's "Calvin and Calvinism" site. People Steve would dub "Anti-Calvinists." You know, people who framed the Canons of Dort, the WCF.
Derek is welcome to quote where the Westminster Confession and the Canons of Dordt characterize limited atonement as entailing a “monstrous” God who tenders a “lying” offer.
3. Examine the Scriptures to see whether these things be so. Does the revealed will of God include a "sincere offer" of salvation made by God to the reprobate?
As if Manata never did that.
PS - if you have any other ad homs, feel free to add them. It is sure to do wonders for your credibility.
While Derek dishes out ad homs left and right.
Labeling moderate Calvinism as "Anti-Calvinism" is not an argument, either, just more of Steve's rhetorical hot dog filler.
I’m the one (along with Manata) who’s been presenting actual arguments, not Derek.
I can't help but point out your continual mischaracterization of his position.
Another one of Derek’s orphaned assertions.
Steve's definitions are full of baloney
That’s a really impressive piece of reasoning, Derek. Have you ever considered a career in philosophy?
Steve doesn't understand the meaning of words well enough to engage in this debate in the first place
Derek is long on assertion, short on argument.
The basic problem is that Derek is a yes-man. A cheerleader. And in that capacity he isn’t doing anything to help his own cause.
Let’s compare Derek to Bnonn. Unlike Derek, Bnonn understands the need to distinguish good arguments from bad arguments. Bnonn appreciates the need to refine or improve an argument.
Of course, it doesn’t hurt that Bnonn is highly intelligent.
Is Ponter in the John Murray tradition?
For our part, our conversation is only with those Calvinists in the Spurgeonic or M’Cheyen or John Murray tradition. Our conversation is not with those in the Hypercalvinist tradition which denies the basic distinctions between secret will and revealed will in relation the actuality and sincerity of the well-meant offer. We are talking to those Calvinists who give answer to points 1. and 3. on the terms of traditional evangelical Calvinism, aka (for want of a better expression) the Spurgeon to John Murray type of Calvinism.
Definitions:
1) By limited atonement I define as, only the sins of the elect were imputed to Christ when Christ offered himself as a sacrificial victim 2000 years ago.
2) By High Calvinist, I define as those Calvinists, within the historically broad Reformed community, who assert that only the sins of the elect were imputed to Christ on the cross.
Is Ponter in the Murray tradition? In one respect he is, but in another respect he’s not.
He’s in the Murray tradition insofar as Murray regarded divine desire as one component of the gospel offer.
Allahu Akbar and Omega Ministries
AOMIN teammate Jamin Hubner continues his vendetta against the modern state of Israel:
Whoa whoa whoa. Sloooow down. This is remarkably twisted. You’d think by reading this that the Arabs in Palestine hated Jews inherently, and that they were just running around killing every group of Jews they found. You’d think that there really wasn’t any good explanation for why there was Arab violence against Jews. “They’ve always hated the Jews, that’s just what Arabs do.” Perhaps that’s not Feldman’s mindset, but isn’t that a common attitude today? We have to ask: is it really that simple, and is it even true? Is middle-eastern violence explained simply by believing that all Arabs naturally hate Jews?
Hubner sounds like one of those CNN reporters (e.g. Christiane Amanpour, Fareed Zakaria) who, when hijackers crash a passenger plane, shouting Allahu Akbar, express puzzlement over the motivation, cautioning the viewers not to “jump to conclusions.”
Why were 7C Jews massacred in Medina? Must be because Israel is building settlements on the West Bank. Why were 7C Christians massacred in Alexandria? Must be because Israel is building settlements on the West Bank. Why were 11C Jews massacred in Morocco? Must be because Israel is building settlements on the West Bank. Why were 17C Jews persecuted in Yemen? Must be because Israel is building settlements on the West Bank. Why were early 20C Armenians massacred by the Turks? Must be because Israel is building settlements on the West Bank
Why are Christians persecuted in Nigeria? Must be because Israel is building settlements on the West Bank. Why are Christians persecuted in Somalia? Must be because Israel is building settlements on the West Bank. Why are Christians persecuted in Sudan? Must be because Israel is building settlements on the West Bank. Why are Christians persecuted in Eritrea? Must be because Israel is building settlements on the West Bank. Why are Christians persecuted in Mauritania? Must be because Israel is building settlements on the West Bank. Why are Christians persecuted in Chad? Must be because Israel is building settlements on the West Bank. Why are Christians persecuted in Ethiopia? Must be because Israel is building settlements on the West Bank. Why are Christians persecuted in Indonesia? Must be because Israel is building settlements on the West Bank. Why are Christians persecuted in Pakistan? Must be because Israel is building settlements on the West Bank.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Is desire a precondition of a well-meant offer?
According to David Ponter, a precondition of a well-meant offer is that the offeror wants the offeree to accept the offer. Absent desire on the part of the offeror, it’s not a bona fide offer.
On the face of it, this stipulation is far from obvious. Suppose I’m in high school. There’s an obnoxious student in my PE class. I don’t like him. Nobody likes him. He goes out of his way to be disagreeable.
Even though I can’t stand him, I feel a duty to befriend him. I invite him to my house after school. I’m secretly hoping he will refuse the offer. I don’t want him to accept the offer. I only make the offer out of a grudging sense of sheer, onerous duty.
However, if he takes me up on the offer, I’ll honor the offer.
So did I make a bona fide offer or not?
He was for it before he was agin it
Sic
This is nothing more than Nicole/Hays arguments restated. The offer is sincere if X comes, and in so coming finds sufficient provision. The offer is only insincere if it turns out that X comes and God does not have sufficient provision for X.
For example, allegedly, the offer of forgiveness and salvation to Judas would have been sincere because:
Were (/if) Judas to have believed, he would have found a sufficient provision for him.
Et Non
I can only conclude that Steve is either confused or evading the point...We are not disputing what would have happened to Judas had he truly believed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)