Possible Retraction of Piper’s Hedonism

Corollary 1: Piper wrote in his book, Desiring God that a Christian glorifies God by enjoying him. Though I agree with most of his work on the issue concerning the justifiability of rendered pleasure in its proper context, I dissent from this rhetorical structure. The corollary is stressed upon the prepositional phrase "by enjoying[…]" Johannes G. Vos, in his copious work on the Westminster Larger Catechism wrote conclusively that glorifying God and enjoying him are distinctive. First, enjoyment is stressed by the rhetoric of Piper.

Corollary 2: However, Vos corrects this kind of understanding of the catechism. His first argument consists of a philosophical denotation: hedonism. He then ventures to identify glorifying as having a more substantive seat in the emotions. The reason is simple: the first (that enjoying God will elicit glorifying God) only copies and codifies the doctrine of humanism—man is ultimate in his experience. I am not saying that Piper, however, is a functional hedonist. In Puritan parlance, glorifying God is more important than enjoyment, because enjoyment is rooted in the self; and man is corrupted and cannot, of himself, please God. Therefore the puritan idea of glorifying God is stressed in this particular question of the catechism; the Westminster divines, therefore, were not wrong in their submitting the conjunction "and." It separates the two.

A Summary

The movie is called "Emperors' Club." It's about a professor's experience in teaching adolescences the classics of Greek and Roman culture. I personally found the movie riveting and entertaining, yet comic and witty. The different characters, the students, and playful experiences added to the entertainment. Most of the students apprehended the fun and childishness of adolescence.

"A man's character is his fate. And as a student of history I find this difficult to refute" was the opening line of the autobiographical narration of the old professor, Mr. Hundert. This man was an honorable man. He was idealistic, following the philosophical work of Plato and the philology of Socrates. The school's motto was non sibi, which translates "not for one's self" from the Latin. This embodied the philosophy of Saint Benedicts' school for boys, the school where Mr. Hundert taught. This is also embodied in the philosophy of the various Christian sects. In one scene he describes the immaturity of Sedgwick Bell—whose ignorance and inexorable dullness gets the best of him—as untamed and arrogant. The professor exhausted himself in trying to help this student. Moral dilemmas would surface, and dire consequences would inevitably follow.

Sedgwick Bell, son of a senator, showed some maturity as the movie progressed. It seemed as the professor's attempts were not futile after all. The professor went out of his way to help Mr. Bell and succeeding in doing so. Test scores of Greek and Roman history would determine the finalist for those who would compete in the Julius Caeser competition; the winner would be named Julius Caeser, a noble honor. There were three finalists, and Bell came in fourth. Martin Blyth, an excellent student, came third. The ethical dilemma was the professor's inept idea that Sedgwick would become an even better student if the chance to compete would surface. And that chance was at that immediate moment exceptional. Deciding to switch Martin and Sedgwick's scores (Martin had 93, and Sedgwick 92) would have significant consequences. Martin would not compete. Ultimately, it would be the worst ethical quirk the professor would commit. This would not be realized by the professor until he notices Mr. Bell scratching his head and looking down. The professor began to get suspicious. Why was Sedgwick in a constant stage of stupor? He knew the material. Ultimately, Mr. Bell loses to Mr. Meta, another excellent student.

Mr. Hundert is invited again to a competition, as father of ceremonies, of the Julius Caeser competition. Sedgwick, now grown up and following in his father's footsteps for the seat of the U.S. senate, was to compete again to reclaim what he called his "intellectual honor." If ever there was a time to redeem time and willful indulgence to immaturity, it was at that stage of his life.

This movie was highly moving. It is coupled with wit, intelligence, friendly banter, and most important, ethical dilemmas.

Sproul and Bahnsen Debate

In this video, Andrew C.Bain claims that Bahnsen cannot show that there is certainty. This couldn't be more flawed. I, as a Christian and a rational being, like to think in terms of assurance. Who doesn't? In this debate, Sproul and Bahnsen, both formidable scholars, debate this type of assurance. Bain--as is common in his faulty logic--builds up a straw man. He states that Bahnsen doesn't prove that the bible give a Christian assurance. How ridiculous is this assertion! Listen to Bain's estimation and use your brain. See where he screws up. I will finish updating my argument when I have more time to analyze the debate. Meanwhile, here's Bain's assessment.

Here's the video: