Topic: Just War Theory

I had a conversation with a person on another board a while back about Just War Theory.  Do you think war can ever be justified under the rubric of Christian principles?  What I mean by this is freedom, liberation, stopping the spread of evil etc...as reasons for Christians to go to war.  The fellow I was debating with said there was never a time a Christian was justified in war making.  Do you agree with him?  Are there Biblical passages that might say otherwise?  What are your thoughts on this?

The Bible is one large story.  One cannot just take one passage, and justify anything.  The whole thing has to be looked at.  That being said, yes there is justifaction for war.

Perhaps I'm the person that Donald was referring to.  The "Just War Theory" is an invention of the good scholar, St. Augustine, around 400 AD.  So far as I have been able to tell, Augustine's theory is based far more on Aristotelian logic than upon the Scripture of either Testament.  The term "just war" appears to mean, in Latin, divinely righteous warfare.  Ithink it is a theory, totally unproven, but largely unchallenged by "Christianity" for 1600 years.  I may be wrong, but after more than 30 years of studying this subject, I'm still convinced that the Just War Theory is the least attested theory in all of history, and the most failed theory in practice, far worse than spermatogenesis or whether green monkeys tipped over the World Trade Center using coconuts.

Again, AFAIK, Christianity has only come up with two basic theories, regarding the justification of warfare, or the participation in warfare by faithful Christians.  The first theory, which was practiced successfully for three centuries and ever since to a smaller degree, is absolute Christian pacifism, based upon the commands of Jesus, Peter, Paul, and James.  Today there are millions of Christian pacifists, most of us descended from the Anabaptists of the Reformation, but also including thousands of Catholics in Pax Christi, and members of almost every denomination (I was a Baptist pacifist for 15 years).

For war to be just - for it to be righteous obedience to the commands of Jesus - modern or ancient warfare would need to be commanded, clearly and explicitly enough, in the text of the New Testament.   We do not live three thousand years ago, in Phillistine territory, surrounded by Amorites and Midianites.  We are not required to obey the Law of Moses, and we are under "the law of Christ" on matters of this importance..

How can Christian faith faithfully and obediently obey Christ, by participating in bloodshed and bloodbaths of modern warfare?  Not that I can tell.

I'd be glad to share the Bible verses with you.  It should not be a discussion of God's character; we are not God.  It's a matter of imitating the behavior of Christ when he was in the flesh, in the manner in which Scipture commands us to imitate that Christ.  While we should behave as gentlemen and ladies who are servants of Christ, we may find that this discussion challenges our vocabulary and our theology and ethics, far more than the question of how many monkeys can dance on a pinhead while the WTC falls.

Well I think our members will enjoy this discussion.  I will defer to you and let you outline your position before I weigh in.

I agree that the specifics of JWT are not in the Bible, but this is not to say that it is not based on Biblical principles. 

The Bible mentions soldiers often and not necessarily in a bad.  Never mentions it's a sin to be a soldier.  War is just a fact of life and it's not going to stop until Jesus returns.  In the meantime, if it takes soldiers and war to stop an evil regime from spreading and causing more death and destruction, then it's justified IMO.

Thanks, gentlemen.

Skiguy, you're right that even in the New Testament, the Bible mentions soldiers (and lots of other occupations) without directly saying "This is an evil job, don't do it."  On the other hand, no one is ever told to join an army as a Christian.  There is the case of the centurion whose faith was so great.  Why was that?  Because the centurion believed in OBEDIENCE.  Our loyalty, our ultimate obedience, must be to the one we call LORD.  If we don't obey the commands of Jesus, we show a lack of faith in him as LORD.  Peter said in the book of Acts, when told not to proclaim the Gospel, "We must obey God, and not man."

War is a fact of life, but far more than that.  War is a greater threat to civiilization, and has cost the world far more lives, tears and money, than any other sin including prostitution, alcohol, tobacco smoking, grand larceny, etc.  True, it's not going to stop until Jesus returns.  In saying that ("There will be wars and rumors of war, until I come again") Jesus was not saying "Therefore, go kill all those heathen sinful pagans for whom I died without striking back."

Then, skiguy, you say well - and I commend you on how well you make your points - you state an opinion in a conditional sentence: "IF  it take soldiers and wars to stop an evil regime....then it's justified IMO."  Does it take soldiers and war?  Do Christians need to be the soldiers or the soldier-blessers or the warmongers?  If they need to be, what's the Scripture that 'justifies' (makes divinely righteous) the slaughter of millions of innocent non-combatants Christians and non-believers, for whom Jesus died without striking back?

The Mennonite scholar John Howard Yoder wrote about 26 chapters to list "Varieties of Christian Pacifism."  The variety I'll take here is primarily about OBEDIENCE TO THE LORD JESUS.  Jesus said that not all those who call him "Lord, Lord" will enter heaven.  He said, "If you love me, keep my commandments."  I have fifty more verses to share, as we continue. 

Frances Schaefer once asked in a book title, "How Then Shall We Live?"  Indeed, we must live for Jesus, as obedient slaves/servants of his commands, until we die or until Jesus comes back in victory.

I don't want to discuss dispensationalism, unless a dispensationalist feels compelled to discuss it, in which case I will ask:
a. On what grounds is the Sermon on the Mount, or any other command of Jesus that leaves out an adverb or clause of future time, reserved to some distant date that is milenia after Jesus commanded it?  No grounds that I'm aware of.
b. In what language such as Greek or English is there a clear future tense imperative command?  None.
c. If it were possible to prove that all commands of Jesus for his followers are reserved until after the Rapture - which is clearly impossible - what commands, what moral guidance, what ethical guidelines - do we have at this time?  Not the Law of Moses, which God crucified.

Enough for now.  I hope we'll agree that the Bible is the ONLY authority on matters of faith and morals (like Southern Baptists and many other evangelicals believe), but the Catholics can't accept that.  So, our Catholic brethren can show us exactly which infallible utterance of which infallible Pope announced the Just War Theory to be official, infallible dogma.  I doubt they'll find it.

Surely someone will wish to quote Romans 13:1-7.  In doing so, please don't tear it out of the fabric of its context.  Please don't assume that every king is assumed to be divinely righteous in doing God's will; surely not Hitler, Nero, Pol Pot, or Idi Amin.

Thanks for reading.

I read that thread on Bearpit that you and Donnie are referring to and admit that, theologically, it went over my head often.
What I meant by "IF it takes a soldier" was "if there is no other way".  Sorry if I didn't make myself clear.   Fit, I know (think) you disagree with me about this current situation we are in in the Middle East, as I support the W.O.T.,  and don't want to start politicizing anything here, but I was actually thinking more of  Naziism during WWII. In my opinion, there was no other way to stop them without the use of force, and I can only view that as a good thing. 

Also if you're referring the centurian in Matthew 8, Jesus never did command him to drop his arms.

JMO, we are both correct.  I think this falls into the category of believers' freedoms.  What's OK for one may not be OK for another, the most important thing being is to not make another brother stumble.

All I'm going to say is dispensationalism does allow for the use of war as the way the world has been governed in the past.  I do believe God makes use of war through the nations to bring about the changes in the balance of power between the nations for his own divine plans.  The visions of Daniel attest to this as one successive empire follows another in their appointed time.  We are currently under the dispensation of grace, and Christians should avoid war when and where they can, but, as I argued on Bear Pit, when Christians are on the battlefield they give God a better hand of influencing the outcomes of battles toward his divine will.  It is a good thing for Christians to be among the combatants for the sake of mercy and assuring that a nation does not stray from God in their war goals.

Donald, thank you for your post.  The part I don't understand is how you, or dispensationalism, or Christians serving in the military in combat, have permission to slaughter persons for whom Christ died without fighting back.  I keep getting arguments that it's only common sense, or it's obvious, or David and Joshua did it, therefore we must do it.  I quoted dozens of direct commands in the New Testament, to Christians, that must be obeyed, and those commands have no verb tense other than now, no adverbial clauses such as "After 1,000 or 2,000 years, love your enemies."  I just can't see Scriptural commands mandating Christians to kill in combat.

Please let me know what's wrong with my debating skills, because they must be lousy.  I'm almost ready to give up arguing to non-pacifists because I can't understand where they come from Scripturally, and vice versa.

The centurion had great faith, and that's what Jesus commended: the centurion took orders from his commander, without saying, "Hey, boss, can I have the rest of the millenium off duty, and obey that command later on?".  And who, brethren and sistren, is our Commander?

I'm appealing to my Mennonite associates to help me out here.  Meanwhile, I found this quote from my friend Dr. James Juhnke, history professor and co-author of the book The Missing Peace:

"That is, my own pacifism is grounded in gospel of Christ, whose kingdom has come and is coming.  My first language and loyalty
is to our crucified and risen Lord.  My loyalty to my country is secondary and conditional.  As a disciple of Christ, I will not kill other people or willingly join an organization that does so, whether or not I can convincingly show that the conflict before us can be resolved without violence."

Evangelicals still say, "God said it, and I believe it, and that settles it."  I would rephrase that to: "God said, and that settles it, whether or not I believe it."  Of course, my worthy opponents in this discussion don't believe that God said it.  Maybe God didn't, but I can't see where God approved Christian participation as being obedience to Christ's commands for us now.

Christians don't have permission to "slaughter" and no where have I ever argued so.  Christians do have permission to "fight" for a righteous cause when necessary.  God does not view it as wholesale slaughter, but simply defeating the evil that has control of those with whom the Christian is engaging in war.  Hitler could not have been defeated without the courageous Christian warriors who filled  the ranks of the Allied armies.  You cannot possibly argue that what those Christian soldiers did was "slaughter."  They fought against an evil demonic power and prevented it from dominating the earth.   

Pardon me if the word "slaughter" means something different to me than it does to you.  I'm assuming it's the past tense gerund or noun of an ancient form of old English for "slay." which only means to kill or murder.  Will you agree?  And I admit that I was presumptuous to presume that you were in favor of devout Christians slaying their enemies.  Do we agree that slaying is not loving your enemies?

You believe, and I don't, that Christians have permission to fight - in quotation marks, "fight" - for a righteous cause when necessary.  You provide no proof text; would you care to do so?  And as I understand the words "just" and "righteous" they are related to a Greek term which transliterates something like "diakonos" meaning divinely righteous or perfect.

Did not your Old Testament heros of faith slaughter, by God's command?  Where does God specifically say that Christians may engage in war?  Hitler might have been defeated far more easily if his "Christian" citizens had refused to fight in Hitler's war.  Hitler could not have come to power if German Christians like Luther had been pacifists, although many Anabaptists (who were slaughtered by Lutherans and Catholics alike, throughout most of Europe) were pacifists during the Reformation. 

Surely, those who fight are courageous, but that doesn't mean they are righteous.  Yes, in every war I know of in European history after about 400 AD, I contend that so-called "Christian soldiers" slaughtered.  Okay, here's a dictionary list of synonyms: kill, slay, murder, butcher, defeat.  I'll accept those as synonyms.

If you wish, I'll agree that Hitler's Third Reich was evil and demonic.  What verse says we can fight with carnal weapons, if the weapons of our warfare are not carnal?  How can we fight against flesh and blood when Paul said, "We wrestle not against flesh and blood"?  Have I quoted verses that don't exist?

I'm almost at a loss to know how to communicate to my brothers and sisters in Christ, about the cult of warfare, and how that cult is demonic in itself.  Instead of letting demons fight demons, Beelzebub has Christians arguing with Christians.  Please, am I misquoting Scripture?  How often in the last ten discussions I've participated in on this issue, has proper Scripture even been quoted. that clearly apply to the issue?  Is my attitude arrogant, or insulting?  Is it possible that most devout Christians just haven't given this as much thought, and New Testament study, as they should have?  Yoder wrote his book because he saw that Christian ethics and morality had divorced itself from the commands of Jesus, and the New Testament instructions on the way in which we imitate the part of Jesus' life that we're supposed to imitate.

Fit,  I'd like to pose a few questions, if for anything, just to understand your viewpoints better if you don't mind.
If a unit is under attack, and the soldiers killed the attackers, do you consider that muder?
Show me in the New Testament where Jesus told a soldier to repent from his military actions.
 Matt 26:50-52:

  "Jesus replied, "Friend, do what you came for."[d]

   Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. With that, one of Jesus' companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

 "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."

Jesus did not tell his companion that he sinned.  He just told him the results of what his actions will lead to.   He told him to stop so that Scripture would be fulfilled.

Now would this be an example?:  An Army sniper is "taking out" enemy snipers.  If that soldier were to be killed in action,  what would most likely be the cause of death? (side comment: as a Christian, a sniper would not be a job I'd choose...but that's just me)

You say "cult of warfare" I say "the inevitability of war".  Fit, I'm under the impression that you are saying warfare or being a soldier is sinful.

I think that the bottom line of the disagreement is as follows:

- Fit2 believes that Scripture contains an affirmative prohibition against the use of any violent means for political/social change

- Donnie believes that Scripture grants moral permission to use violent means to bring about certain kinds of political/social change

This "could" be a gray area, but I believe that, though Scripture doesn't encourage warfare,  it does not condemn it.

I think we are getting hung up on semantics here.  A Christian should not want to kill.  A Christian should never desire to take a human life.  However, a soldier (at least the modern soldier anyways) is a civil servant who defends his country from harm.  There are times when his duty is to kill one who would do harm to others.  He becomes the instrument of God and the king (who is annointed of God) to mete out justice when no other means can be used to resist evil.  The soldier is an executioner of harsh justice and not a murderer or killer.  So basically I do not see a soldier as one who makes the moral decision to do the killing.  The blood is not on his hands, nor any guilt associated with it.   The Bible does not go into specifics on the role of the soldier.  Old Testament figures such as King David, Samson, and Abraham engaged in war making under the commands of God.  It was not David, Samson, and Abraham who did the killing, but God through them as vessels of wrath who did the killing.  Christianity did not change this relationship between God and the soldier.  God respects the soldier and his unwavering discipline in the line of duty.  He expects the same kind of obedience from Christians.  If Christians had not united during the Middle Ages and fought against the Muslims, Islam would have conquered much of Europe and reduced Christendom to far less geographically.  Isabella and Ferdinand's stand at Granada and Vlad Dracul's stand against Mehmet II in Transylvania preserved Europe from slipping into the possession of demonic Islam. 

I concede that war is a corrupting influence on men.  Without question war brings out the darkest aspects of man's nature.  But I submit to you that pacifism does God no good when he moves to destroy demonic powers controlling men.  God uses his servants to purge evil when it threatens to overwhelm the innocent.  It is God who directs the violence in these cases, and not the Christians who are unfortunate to have to be participants of war.  Still I cannot fathom God not making use of Christians on the battlefield...even being pleased that they are available for his good use......rather than having to make do with non believers who will show no mercy on the battlefield in the name of Christ.   If this were not so, Christ would have been more emphatic and clear on his views concerning the soldier profession. 

Thanks, brothers, for your additional input.  I'll try to be reasonable and kind in my response.  We always say that's the unfair advantage of being pacifists - even when we argue in favor of peace, we have to be nice!     But modern warfare is not nice. To use Donald's words, "war is a corrupting influence on men.  Without question war brings out the darkest aspects of man's nature."  Now, if I said that about heroin, rape, or cocaine, would you partake of it?  Of course not.  We often hear of something being "a necessary evil."  No, evil is never necessary; righteous behavior is always better than sinful deeds.

Donald then goes on to say, "But I submit to you that pacifism does God no good when he moves to destroy demonic powers controlling men."  To which I ask, are you sure you know what pacifism is?  It is peacekeeping, and it is a virtue.  Speaking of peace and love, Paul wrote without error, "peace....against which there is no law." 

Galatians 5, verses 18 to 23
      [18] But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
      [19] Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
      [20] Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
      [21] Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
      [22] But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
      [23] Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

You may need to read Galatians several times to realize that we are not under the Law of Moses. Jesus said peacemakers are blessed.

Pacifism sometimes fails, and war almost always fails.  Pacifism means "making peace," not being cowardly.  In fact, true peacemaking is extremely courageous, moreso than waging military warfare with carnal weapons.  We do it with spiritual weapons, without going down to Egypt for steel chariots.  It doesn't matter, if we are obeying God, whether our peacemaking fails.  It doesn't matter, although we should always do our best to do it right, righteously.  Right?

Pardon me if I'm repeating, but I'm a retired bureaucrat whose employees had different job descriptions, and as their boss, I evaluated their conduct according to whether they were doing their job, not somebody else's.   We are God's New Testament servants, New Covenant people, and our covenant or job description differs from the other ones.  We are not God, so God's own job description is a matter of serious interest to us, but not our job to perform in any way other than God has assigned commands to us.  Jesus commands us,
John.14:15, "If ye love me, keep my commandments."  That's not God's commandments to Joshua or David.

God commands kings to execute God's wrath or vengeance.  In Romans 12, we know that vengeance is absolutely forbidden to servants of Jesus.  So, we don't do it, and the king's soldiers are supposed to do it.  These two groups, Christians and soldiers who kill or murder, are mutually exclusive; the orders can't be followed by both groups.

Is my logic wrong?  Is my reasoning in accord with Scripture?  Are you folks quoting scripture?

It does not matter whether the work of a soldier, in executing God's vengeance, is an executioner, a murder, or a killer.  He is not us; it is not our job to worry about it, unless we wish to comment on whether collateral damage in warfare is an inappropriate way for pagans to wage God's vengeance.

Fit,  I'd like to pose a few questions, if for anything, just to understand your viewpoints better if you don't mind.
If a unit is under attack, and the soldiers killed the attackers, do you consider that muder?
Show me in the New Testament where Jesus told a soldier to repent from his military actions.
 Matt 26:50-52:

  "Jesus replied, "Friend, do what you came for."[d]

   Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. With that, one of Jesus' companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

 "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."

Jesus did not tell his companion that he sinned.  He just told him the results of what his actions will lead to.   He told him to stop so that Scripture would be fulfilled.

Now would this be an example?:  An Army sniper is "taking out" enemy snipers.  If that soldier were to be killed in action,  what would most likely be the cause of death? (side comment: as a Christian, a sniper would not be a job I'd choose...but that's just me)

You say "cult of warfare" I say "the inevitability of war".  Fit, I'm under the impression that you are saying warfare or being a soldier is sinful.

Thanks, skiguy, for your response.

Taking your last paragraph first, perhaps I got carried away by referring to the cult of warfare.  By that, I mean that modern civilization since 400 AD, especially those claiming to be servants of Jesus, have often acted as if warfare were a thing to be worshipped, an activity which God directly ordered, in which the earthly Kings including the worst villains in history, appeared to be God Himself.  In the USA, a great threat to true faith is "civil religion" which is mostly patriotism and the worship of nations as little deities.  You speak of the inevitability of war, and Jesus acknowled that.  He did not, however, say to participate in it.  A certain level of crime, prostitution, rape, theft, etc. is inevitable, but not expedient or sinless.

But I am saying that, as far as I've been able to figure out from God's Word in thirty-some years, it is sinful for a servant of Jesus Christ to do anything worse than loving the enemy.  Love, not hate.  Preserve the enemy, not kill him.  Feed the enemy, not let him starve.

You give two examples, such as the snipers in combat, or a combat unit that's already on the battlefield.  It's critical that we back up several steps, because the servant of Christ may have no more business being on the battlefield, using carnal weapons, than in a house of prostitution as a paying customer.  Let the pagans do their job as assigned to God, and let the servants of Christ do our job.  I am NOT saying that the pagan soldier is sinning, for God's Word forbids us to judge non-believers.  But within the entire Church of Jesus, we are required to judge each other's actions and call sin a sin.  To disobey God, and enter into combat to kill/murder/slay/slaughter the enemy, appears to me to be disobedience.

Once a man puts up his right hand and swears to God to defend the country, he has not only disobeyed the commands of Jesus and James not to swear an oath by God, but he has in effect put the nation-state above Jesus in the chain of command.  I think.  To paraphrase Willie Nelson, "Mamas, don't let your babies grow up to be killers."

You are right, skiguy, that when Jesus commanded Peter to put his sword back into its storage place, Jesus didn't say it was wrong to kill.  But honestly, as a servant of Jesus, if you can't defend the Son of God from vicious death, whom can you defend?  Besides, look here, when a motley crew of about 500 Roman soldiers and Jewish temple guards arrive:

Luke 22, Verses 49 to 53
[49] When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?
[50] And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear.
[51] And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him.
[52] Then Jesus said unto the chief priests, and captains of the temple, and the elders, which were come to him, Be ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and staves?
[53] When I was daily with you in the temple, ye stretched forth no hands against me: but this is your hour, and the power of darkness.

Roman soldiers arrested Jesus, and they killed him, under legal orders from their army commanders.  They were not, however, servants of Jesus Christ.

Jesus never exactly and explicitly ordered his servants "Kill."  Nor "Don't ever kill."  He did, however leave commands which, in my opinion, leave no margin for error.  To me, it's not a gray area.  For the first few centuries of Christian faith, after a soldier had accepted Jesus as LORD of Lords and King of Kings, if he received an order to kill, he surrendered his status and went to death glorifying Christ.

A certain level of crime, prostitution, rape, theft, etc. is inevitable, but not expedient or sinless.

But those were CLEARLY labelled as sin. And it was clearly commanded that we, as Christians, stop doing that type of behavior.

Once a man puts up his right hand and swears to God to defend the country, he has not only disobeyed the commands of Jesus and James not to swear an oath by God, but he has in effect put the nation-state above Jesus in the chain of command.

I, let's just say, vehemently disagree with that.  Never ever ever does  The Warrior's Creed say he has to put his country before God.  I also believe that the United States is a Christian nation.
Taken from "The Soldier's Manual of Common Tasks, Skill Level 1"

The Soldier's Creed

I am an American Soldier.
I am a Warrior and a member of a team. 
I serve the people of the United States and live the Army Values.
I will always place the mission first.
I will never accept defeat.
I will never quit.
I will never leave a fallen comrade.
I am disciplined, physically and mentally tough, trained and proficient in my warrior tasks and drills. 
I always maintain my arms, my equipment and myself.
I am an expert and I am a professional.
I stand ready to deploy, engage, and destroy the enemies of the United States of America in close combat.
I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life.
I am an American Soldier.

"I serve the people..."  and "I will always place the mission first" are simply job descripions.   Just as my job now, my boss expects me to place, as my first priority,  supplying and purchasing materials for production.  Does that mean my boss is evil?  Does that mean I'm sinning?

Fit, you are a great debator.  I've stated previously that we are both correct in this (which does not make it a gray area).  It's when I see you lean towards calling a Soldier a sinner or saying a Christian should not be a Soldier that I get defensive.

skiguy, I believe that lots of the tasks that military personnel do are great, wonderful, helpful, and harmless.  However, the main job of armies is to defend a nation through killing the people who usually are soldiers obeying the orders of their country, and they can't all be right.  However, both sides can both be wrong.

That Warrior's Code is not something I'm familiar with.  It's not required to be memorized or followed by all US military personnel, is it?  Is it required by law or regulation?  Not when I served in the USAF.  A few months ago, some proponent of the Just War Theory tried to insist that the JWT is taught in military school, and taught to all personnel.  Absolutely not true, 45 years ago or 5 years ago.  They are taught a code of conduct which allows them to disobey an unlawful order, but if that order is determined to be lawful after all, then they were disobedient.  And they're not going to take the risk.  Anyway, the Warrior's Code seems to be a non-biblical idea that is not always observed, and I don't see the relevance for this discussion, but maybe I'm narrow-minded. 

The first thing I said about swearing an oath to God is clearly taught by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, and by James as well.  The point I've found out recently, I think, is that some people seem to think (apparently) that the commands of Jesus, Peter, Paul, and James are not operative, are not normative, don't count yet, can be ignored or disobeyed.  Can somebody help me on that one, please?

The last thing I said, to which you have every right to disagree vehemntly, is that in my opinion, I believe that devout Christians who obey Jesus wouldn't kill, based on all the applicable Scriptures that I've found.  How do you love your enemy by killing him?  Seriously, is that a fair question?  Or did Jesus not mean to say that?  If we don't love our enemy, we're no better than the worst kind of tax officials (end of Matthew 5).  Notice that the warrior's code is not religious, it's just for warriors.  I believe that most servicemen aren't devout Christians to begin with, and that they are subject to court martial if they refuse to obey a lawful command which contravenes a command of Christ.  I'm sure I'm missing something here, honestly. 

How are we both right on this?  I don't see that we agree about devout servants of Christ serving lethal roles in combat.   Now, that's a life and death difference.  I can't imagine (this is conjecture, not Scripture) that God would leave something that important in doubt, or optional, or gray.

I say we're both correct on this because what bothers your conscience may not bother mine or vice versa.  I kind of look at it as a balance. Without Christians willing to fight in a war, Christians like you wouldn't be typing right now.  Without Chritians like you urging morality and stopping the killing,  wars would be far more brutal and immoral.
I'll let Donnie field that question about not counting yet because I disagree with him slightly.  It is impossible for us to follow all those commands all the time because it's not in our nature but we should strive for it.   
Killing in self defense isn't a sin IMO.  And I believe self defense isn't only for when your own life is in danger, it goes beyond that...like protecting other people's lives as well.
The Soldier's (Warrior's) Creed is for the US Army. 

So Fit, by your logic, I as a Christian should not become a soldier because one of the possible duties required of military service is to kill.  So would your logic be applied to a police officer?  There are times when he must kill as a last resort.  Or being a politician?  He might have to make a decision that sends the nation to war.  Or what about serving as a judge?  Sentencing people to state execution is one of his duties.  America is a nation full of Christians.  If all adhered to your premise as I understand it, America would be a nation run by non Christians, policed by non Christians, and defended by non Christians.  How long can a nation like that hold up considering the brutal conditions that inhabit the world?  How long would a nation exist  in such a manner and remain in God's favor?  How long would it be before America became a nation devoid of morality and descend into carnal destruction without Christians in the places of power to prevent it?   You seek Biblical verses to support Just War Theory, but seem to ignore the more common evidence that proves that Christians must remain involved in the usage of force for the preservation of God's will on earth. 

For example, Christ became enraged at the money changers in the temple.  He overthrew their money table with violence.  He proceeded to call them a den of thieves or robbers.  You say we are to imitate Christ and I agree.  There are times of righteous indignation where an open display of force is necessary to overthrow evil conditions.  God does use his servants in some of these situations.  If you are a carpenter and you need to saw a piece of wood, do you use a chainsaw or do you use a circular saw?  Both will cut the board, but only one cuts more precisely.  If all Christians do as you suggest, you force God to use the chainsaw to pronounce his judgments when he would prefer the more precise instrument that will not "cut" more than is required. 

During World War II, if Christian America abstained from hostilities, it would have been left to unChristian Josef Stalin to defeat Hitler, and when he was done, he would have destroyed far more than he saved in the process.  Stalin is the chainsaw here in our analogy whereas FDR is the circular saw.  Therefore, I think a more moderated view is in order here.  Christians can be soldiers and can go to war to prevent unnecessary carnage that would otherwise be committed if no Christian presence were on the battlefield to check it.   Still, if you are a Christian and fighting in battle to preserve freedom and punish evil is a stumbling block to you, then by all means abstain from it for you will only be at war within yourself and a paralyzed Christian is of no use to God.  It is similar to when Paul clarified that eating meats sacrificed unto idols is not a sin so long as the Christian knows that the idols are nothing containing no power in of themselves, so too can the Christian go out and fight knowing that his killing is not for gratutious pleasure or in wickedness.  To everything there is a time and season.....Solomon even told us there is a time to make war and a time to cast away stones.  Just because Solomon is from the OT does not mean he is in disagreement with Christ....the Bible is to be read as a cohesive whole.  Otherwise we run the risk of just reading the parts we wish to read and neglecting the rest as it suits us.   And remember this, Christ said no greater love can a man show than when he gives up his life for others.  Soldiers give up their lives in the line of duty because of their love of God, family, and country.  So even by Christ's own words the soldier is the epitome of Christian love when he goes into battle sacrificing himself so others do not have to.

Thanks, Donald.  First of all, I oppose the Just War Theory with all my soul, believing it to be the Devil's tool, one of the worst non-Scriptural theories in history.  I mention the JWT because for 1,600 years, it's been the predominate theory for how Christians can approach warfare in practice, and it always fails in practice.

I enlisted in the USAF as neither a pacifist nor a Christian, but I was very non-violent and was a theist.  Thankfully, the Air Force let me be a technical instructor in a medical school, teaching medics how to keep people alive.  But as Dr. Hawkeye used to complain in M*A*S*H, the ultimate reason to have medics in the military is to keep our killers alive so they can kill the enemy.  No, in good conscience, I could not advise a young person to join.  My friend Wililam once told a two-star Mexican general in public, harshly, "You are a Catholic and a Christian, so you cannot be a soldier!  Resign your position!" 

A policeman is not exactly the same as a soldier, and that sometimes is an important distinction.  However, since policemen are armed to kill the bad guys, and probably eventually will do so, I also consider that to be a non-Christian occupation in these days.

Then, Donald, you essentially frame a scenario where an entire nation's leadership and military would only be composed of non-Christians.  That's essentially what we have today.  America is not a Christian nation, and I doubt it ever has been composed primarily of citizens and leaders who devoutly tried to follow the commands of Christ.

Let me posit another scenario.  What if a colony, commonwealth or nation were primarily composed and led by pacifist Christians who took Jesus' commands so devoutly, that they had no standing army?  Would they not be crushed by militant, warring enemies, especially if the states that surrounded them were at war with the natives?  Would God even protect such a pacifist colony?  Of course God would, and He did, for about 70 years.

It goes back to the verse,
II Chronicles 7:14, If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land..

Thanks, Donald, for mentioning John 2, where Jesus gets kinda sorta nearly "violent," nothing more than turning over some tables which are in the wrong place, and using a nearly harmless 'whip' of grass to scare away livestock which were in the wrong place, while policemen or soldiers were standing by to arrest lawbreakers.  Christ was non-violent against human beings, and only brandished the grass whip to scare the livestock.  Both Testaments speak of the absolute non-violence of Jesus (which is an example we should follow):

Isaiah 42:3, A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth.

Matthew 12:20, A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory.   

America is not, in my humble opinion, a nation full of Christians who usually obey Jesus' commands.  Non-Christians and lukewarm Christians are the vast majority in the USA, which may explain a lot.  You speak of "the more common evidence that proves that Christians must remain involved in the usage of force for the preservation of God's will on earth," but where is the evidence within the commands of Jesus, Peter, Paul, etc., that we must use force?

"What if?" scenarios, such as Stalin or Hitler  during world war two, are pure speculation.  I speculate, what if Zwingli, in the disputations in Zurich in late 1524, had been persuaded by the original Swiss Brethren such as Baltasar Hubmaier and Jacob Blaurock and Conrad Grebel, to separate church and state, and practice pacifism?  What if the Prussians and the Germans had been pacifists because Luther and the Popes still preached pacifism as the early Church did?  What if the early Church hadn't been 100% pacifist?  What if Jesus hadn't preached peace on the mountains with beautiful feet?

In Ecclesiastes 3, Solomon (whose name includes the word for peace, shalom) did not say it was right to wage war.  The poem almost always says, using our preposition "for" that there is a time for doing something, and a time for not doing things.  However, see the shift to the preposition "of" which is drastically different:

Ecclesiastes 3:8, A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

This agrees with Jesus' statement that there would be war, until he returns, but Jesus didn't say, "Fight the wars until I return."

When Christ said, "Greater love has no man, than he lay down his life for another" He was referring to his own death, and telling us that we should die as Christ would die.  "Take up your cross and follow me" doesn't mean to put on a combat uniform and a rocket launcher; it means to use no violence toward your enemy, but to forgive them as they (the army soldiers) kill you.  Elsewhere in the writings of John, the phrase "lay down his life" clearly refers to how Christ died, not how Sergeant Jones finally dies from enemy fire after killing lots of enemies.

Am I off track?  Have I quoted, properly and in context and application, fewer Bible verses than those who think it's Godly and righteous to kill commies for Jesus, or kill Muslims for George W. Bush?  Are the commands of Christ, to his followers, inviolable?  How can we obey all those commands while we kill enemies?

As always, thanks.  Now I've got to ride my sportbike to get physical therapy for my last sportbike crash.

Five months after we stopped debating this subject, I see that Don Baker or Phidippides is asking about the Just War Theory.  I just reviewed this entire topic, and find that we didn't discuss JWT.  Augustine, Aquinas (and before that, Anselm, Abelard and Aristotle) - but we didn't even get to the first letter of the alphabet!

I keep getting into these debates about "Should a Christian participate in killing?" by defending my version of Christian pacifism.  In contrast, my worthy debate opponents spend most of their time saying either "Pacifism isn't practical" or "I just think we should obey our divinely perfect Nation as if it be God."  I think I quote scripture that commands us to obey Jesus, and it falls upon deaf ears.  My opponents mention scriptures where Jesus uses violent force against a few tables (and scares away livestock inside God's temple, merely brandishing a whip made of grass), as if that justified the firebombings of Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo, Guernica, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, or the napalm bombings of innocent Vietnamese children.  "I love the smell of napalm in the morning," the crazy army officer said in Apocalypse Now, and I heard a former Marine fighter pilot say almost the same thing.

So, I'd like to invite my opponents to do one of the following, if you care to defend the slaughter of innocents: (by the way, December 22 on the church calendar marks 'the slaughter of the innocents' including the massacre of Acteal on 12/22/1997):

a. Using the proper hermeneutical methods of your denomination, please JUSTIFY warfare by faithful Christians.
b. Using Scripture, justify Augustine's "Just War Theory" and show a real life example when it worked.

Both Testaments speak of the absolute non-violence of Jesus (which is an example we should follow):

Isaiah 42:3, A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth.

Matthew 12:20, A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory.   

Aren't you taking this out of context, Fit?  In Matthew 12, just before Jesus said that, the Pharisees said they were out to destroy him.  Jesus withdrew from them so they wouldn't destroy Him in order to fulfill that prophecy from Isaiah.  When He said that, I believe that means Jesus had a mission to do while on earth and that was not to destroy anything except sin "Till He sends forth justice to victory"  .  I don't believe He was teaching His disciples about pacifism, He was just explaining His mission.

Both Testaments speak of the absolute non-violence of Jesus (which is an example we should follow):

Isaiah 42:3, A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth.

Matthew 12:20, A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory.   

Aren't you taking this out of context, Fit?  In Matthew 12, just before Jesus said that, the Pharisees said they were out to destroy him.  Jesus withdrew from them so they wouldn't destroy Him in order to fulfill that prophecy from Isaiah.  When He said that, I believe that means Jesus had a mission to do while on earth and that was not to destroy anything except sin "Till He sends forth justice to victory"  .  I don't believe He was teaching His disciples about pacifism, He was just explaining His mission.

Agreed.  This is the proper context here. 

That is the context (Matthew 13, with His enemies plotting to kill him, prematurely).  The Scripture itself, however, in both Testaments, speaks of a Messiah-Savior who is as non-violent as any savior could be.  Do we at least agree that Jesus was non-violent against human beings during His earthly ministry?  And that when Peter says that Jesus has left us an example, that we should follow in His footsteps, those footsteps are not those of a conquering soldier, are they?

But, the point still is: where is your argument justifying bloodshed in Jesus' name during this age?  Since none of you has bothered to defend the Just War Theory, I'll do your homework for you:

When is a war just by the criteria of Just War theory? (Jus ad bellum)
In modern language, these rules hold that to be just, a war must meet the following criteria before the use of force (Jus ad bellum):

recapturing things taken
punishing people who have done wrong
A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said:
"Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations"

Comparative justice: While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to override the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other;
Legitimate authority: Only duly constituted public authorities may use deadly force or wage war;
Right intention: Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.
Probability of success: Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;
Proportionality: The overall destruction expected from the use of force must be outweighed by the good to be achieved.[6]
Last resort: Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted.
Note that these are only the most typical conditions cited by just war theorists; some (such as Brian Orend) omit Comparative Justice, seeing it as fertile ground for exploitation by bellicose regimes.


Conducting a just war (jus in bello)
Once war has begun, just war theory also directs how combatants are to act:
(Jus in bello)

Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of discrimination. The acts of war should be directed towards the inflictors of the wrong, and not towards civilians caught in circumstances they did not create. The prohibited acts include bombing civilian residential areas that include no military target and committing acts of terrorism or reprisal against ordinary civilians. Some believe that this rule forbids weapons of mass destruction of any kind, for any reason (such as the use of an atomic bomb).
Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of proportionality. The force used must be proportional to the wrong endured, and to the possible good that may come. The more disproportional the number of collateral civilian deaths, the more suspect will be the sincerity of a belligerent nation's claim to justness of a war it initiated.
Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of minimum force. This principle is meant to limit excessive and unnecessary death and destruction. It is different from proportionality because the amount of force proportionate to the goal of the mission might exceed the amount of force necessary to accomplish that mission.

Ending a war: jus post bellum
In recent years, some theorists, such as Gary Bass, Louis Iasiello and Brian Orend, have proposed a third category within Just War theory. Jus post bellum concerns justice after a war, including peace treaties, reconstruction, war crimes trials, and war reparations. Orend, for instance, proposes the following principles:

Just cause for termination - A state may terminate a war if there has been a reasonable vindication of the rights that were violated in the first place, and if the aggressor is willing to negotiate the terms of surrender. These terms of surrender include a formal apology, compensations, war crimes trials and perhaps rehabilitation.
Right intention - A state must only terminate a war under the conditions agreed upon in the above criteria. Revenge is not permitted. The victor state must also be willing to apply the same level of objectivity and investigation into any war crimes its armed forces may have committed.
Public declaration and authority - The terms of peace must be made by a legitimate authority, and the terms must be accepted by a legitimate authority.
Discrimination - The victor state is to differentiate between political and military leaders, and combatants and civilians. Punitive measures are to be limited to those directly responsible for the conflict.
Proportionality - Any terms of surrender must be proportional to the rights that were initially violated. Draconian measures, absolutionist crusades and any attempt at denying the surrendered country the right to participate in the world community are not permitted.

(lol) Before you trump victory Fit, you have to give us time to research what Augustine said. 

However, I will answer your question regarding Christ.
He came to earth as a suffering servant.  No one is or has been disputing this.  Thomas a Kempis wrote a very memorable book advocating us to imitate him in every way.  I agree we should imitate Christ down to the most minute detail to the best of our ability. 

There is one thing though you say that I just have to disagree with.  You throw about the notion that innocents are slaughtered in Christ's name etc.....or at least you choose this terminology.  You're charging your words to make all war seem the same--or all combatants as the same.  Are all combatants bloodthirsty mongrels?  Do I kill for the same reason as my enemy?  Does everyone lust for war when they go out to fight?  Or do many go solemnly and resolutely to defend what they think is right?  For the greater good?  I argued that World War II was a just war for the Allies.  Hitler would have enslaved Europe and murdered the Jews to extinction had no one rose up to challenge him.  Yet you say it wasn't a Christian's duty to stand up to Hitler, that it was the pagans and heathen nations whom God could have used to get the job done.  Okay fine, for the sake of argument, let's say I accept this.  When they proved not to be strong enough to defeat Hitler, what then?  Would you force God's hand to come down from Heaven and smite Hitler Himself?  Would you tempt God by doing nothing?  Yes God can smite Hitler and the Devil with no effort at all, but He doesn't work that way.  He delivers us THROUGH our trials, but not necessarily FROM them.  Soldiers can be self sacrificing combatants as well you know.  They go out to fight as a living sacrifice for their homes, their families, and their nations all of which sustain them in times of peace.  Christ said "No greater love can a man have than to lay down his life for another."  A soldier who fights justly, lays his life down in the stead of those whom he fights for and even though he takes the life of another, he does so at his own peril rather than allowing calamity and destruction to befall those whom he loves.  A soldier can fight out of love and no matter how many times you quote scriptures against this, I know in my heart God sanctions the love of the self-sacrificing soldier and honors that sacrifice from heaven itself.  Does Jesus value war?  Certainly not.  Does he value the just soldier's sacrifice.....absolutely!

So here is my question to you......what do you do if you are drafted into service?  What do you do if your country calls you to become a soldier?  Would Jesus command you to dodge the draft?  Would Jesus command you to refuse service and suffer the consequences?  Would you be sinning if you answered your country's call to defend freedom?  I'm talking about serving for a nation who is not the aggressor, and who is the nation in peril rather than the one who is fighting for an unjust cause.  It's World War II and Pearl Harbor just occurred and you got your draft letter......what's your decision? 

"Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations"

Saddam being a good example.