The Christian wars with the system of darkness

In the first chapter of the Gita, the main character, who is about to enter battle with his family and friends, is overcome with a sense of pity and wishes not to enter into battle any more. The reason is that these men are his kin. He knows them and it would therefore be a grievous evil to battle against them, though they wanting to kill him would do so within a heart beat. Here the main character presents to us several ideas 1) should we go to war? 2) ought we to remain passive? 3) how should we think of our beliefs as suppose to others?

For the Christian, however, ideas are different. A Christian is one who accepts the gospel of God's free grace revealed in the Cross work of Christ alone. They see they are sinners lacking a righteousness of their own and so see that the righteousness that they have is the only righteousness that God imputes to them by free and sovereign grace in Christ alone. The Christian therefore sees any other worldly system as bulstering up of man's pride and selfrighteousness. Their aim, therefore, as a result of them being born again by grace alone, and as a result seeing their sin, and their need of a saviour and believing in Him alone for righteousness, is to present the points of the Scripture to their friends and family and to all who do not know God as their Saviour. They rather than succumbing to the idea that any one human being is ok and so therefore everyone is ok make war with the satanic doctrine with the gospel doctrine. They overcome evil with good and not with evil. The Christian does not do this out of pride for they did not come to these things on their own. Instead it was God that changed their minds and gave them a new set of beliefs.

As Paul says we make war but not with the weapons of the world.

How to determine what good is?

What do you consider the greatest good or rather that which you aim at in life? No doubt there are probably many things that are noble to be achieved or won with; such as health and wealth, and other things (Aristotle writes on deliberation how to achieve the ends). However, for a Christian is there any such thing as deliberation? Ought we to choose or rather aim at x because of various reasons? As said before in many of my post several who claim to be Christians allow worldly things to cloud their thinking which causes them to do certian things on the whim of the emotions. I know when I was taking gout medication it caused me to pick up the phone and call certain people like my mom or whosoever came to my mind. And many still think that what we do causes us to be cleansed from sin or sanctified from it. However, a Christian does not do such things. What is to be done is what the law says. But we are sinful and we sin continuously after we are born again so that we cannot glory in ourselves but rather in Him who alone saved us by the blood of Christ Jesus having imputed our sins to Him and we receiving his righteousness by imputation and as a result believing in Him alone for our justification and sanctification; we do good works as a result of our position in Christ. Those who have accepted the promises of Christ for themselves by the Spirits work within do read and determine what the good is by what the Bible says. The Bible is made of two principles law and gospel by which are marked separately. The law tells us what we are to do to live and condemns all for lack of perfection and the gospel declares what God did on the behalf of His people people in Christ. What we ought to do is read and study the Bible to determine our actions not science, or actions of others.

We judge based on the word of God

No where in Aristotle's "The Art of Rhetoric" does he speak of believing the truth based on the word of God the Bible alone. As Christian we are to be pursuaded of an argument not because of the character of the speaker, the emotions the speech induces nor the speech itself. We are to be pursuaded on the grounds of the Bible alone.

What makes one happy?

Happiness. So as I read Plato I find that he says that happiness consist in somewhat of a fashion to knowledge. In one sense I agree. But I don't agree in the general sense. I believe happiness is grounded in knowing and believing the gospel of Christ alone. This is diametrically opposed to the ideals of the world which thinks happiness consist of money, earthly belonging. Now I am not saying we don't want or need money or food or clothing. We are glad with them. But we do not base our happiness on those things.

Whether one believes a testimony or the person themselves

John 4:39 And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying of the woman, which testified, He told me all that ever I did. 40 So when the Samaritans were come unto him, they besought him that he would tarry with them: and he abode there two days. 41 And many more believed because of his own word; 42 and said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heardhim ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.

Just noticed this from the text. But the many Samaritans who believed in the words of the woman are different from the many more Samaritans who believed Jesus' own words. So whether one hears a testimony about a person or hears the person himself makes no difference other than the venue.

Empiricism can never tell what is true or false

In Plato's theory of knowledge, Socrates debates the view that man is the measure of all things and that we know by way of sensation. There are several reasons he gives for why these ideas are false. One, however, reason why it is false to say that man is the measure of all things is that it cuts itself off the branch. If whatever a man thinks is true and no one thinks false ideas then guess what? All ideas are true. So whether I think one thing is true or you say another is true both are true no matter if we disagree or think differently. This is the problem with knowledge by sensation. It can never give us any reason to think one man is wrong over another or another man is right or true in opinion over another. This is the point Gordon Clark draws out against sense perception as a way of knowing between good and evil. At best sensation might help me to know the way things are at the moment but can never tell me how it ought to be.

Christ's death was for the elect alone those who believe

"Georgius imagines himself to argue very cleverly when he says, 'Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. Therefore, those who would exclude the reprobate from participation in the benefits of Christ, must, of necessity, place them somehwere out of the world.' Now we will not permit the common solution of this question to avail on the present occasion, which would have it that Christ suffered sufficiently for all men, but effectually for His elect alone. This great absurdity, by which our monk has procured for himself so much applause amongst his fraternity, has no weight whatever with me. Johm does indeed extens the benefits of the atonement of Christ, which was completed by His death, to all the elect of God throughout what climes of the world soever they may be scattered. But though the case be so, it by no meana alters the fact that the reprobate are mingled with the elect in the world. It is also a fact, without controversy, that Christ came to atone for the sins 'of the whole world.' But the solution of all difficulty is immediately at hand, in the truth and fact, that it is 'whosoever believeth in Him' that 'shall not perish, but shall have eternal life.'" - John Calvin, Eternal Predestination of God, pg. 165