Is Just War ever acceptable?

HighwayMan said:

Right, so if your family was being butchered in front of you, you would tell police officers "no please don't use violence" to stop the attackers, you would embrace your death and the death of your family "as Jesus" did?

I don't believe a single rational person would ever do that. That sounds more like the mindset of a suicidal death cult than a living faith.

Click to expand...

I'm not afraid to die. Are you? I hate flesh. Maybe you need more spiritual understanding. You are going to die, you know.

thecolorsblend said:

It's a sentiment I tend to agree with. At the risk of siding with Not In Our Name (an otherwise useless, self-congratulating group), they have a point. I'm at a loss to think of a conflict with which my country, America, has intervened that had a positive outcome for all parties involved, including America itself.

In the great majority of cases, more are dead or wounded than would've been otherwise and frequently it leads to even bigger problems in the distant or even near future.

Click to expand...

The overall results in Japan and Germany were about the best possible outcome. Since the United States did not overtake, but rebuilt.

Rogue governments do violate the rights of citizens, and more progressive types do realize they have an obligation to sometimes intervene and overthrow. The problem being these populations are so regressive, and backward they have to be re-educated and that only goes so far. They treat their women like dogs and children are left to starve in the streets. Most of us who have been overseas having seen it all. Poverty prostitution involving underage girls. Overall it worked better for Japan and Germany.

Ancient Israel did not wipe out the Canaanites and suffered a host of ugly consequences as a result. Including the slave revolt which separated Israel from Judah after Solomon. The Canaanites did not change, (after many generations) they changed Israel. Even when directed by God to wipe them out under Joshua. Not for sure on that one? The point being if they are to intervene in the affairs of some governments which are so corrupt in the first place then what real results can they expect? Some of these moderns are proximate to the Canaanites of old. Do they sacrifice their children to pagan gods?

HighwayMan said:

I read a very interesting essay whose conclusions I strongly disagree with by humanitarian aid group Doctors Without Borders, essentially going against the "just war" idea: Not In Our Name: Why MSF Does Not Support the "Responsibility to Protect"

To summarize, they contest that in almost no case is it ever acceptable to send military aid for people whose lives are in danger at the hands of terrorists/hostile forces.

The article breaks down many of the complexities, and points out how there is often corruption and ill intent in countries sending military aid; how often times it only makes the regional conflict worse; how it does not improve the situation in the long-term - all fine points, but in my view they speak from a humanistic perspective, one that believes that mankind can eventually fix itself.

Would Christians agree that Jesus Christ would approve of "just war," in the proper context? Is it not mankind's responsibility to act and help defend victims from their oppressors in the here and now? With all due respect to MSF and all the work they do, suggesting that people stand on the side and only help with relief (which is important, but by no means sufficient) rather than go and fight to save people? Jesus said turn the other cheek, but not stand by giving aid packets as children, women and men are slaughtered at your feet.

Would you not shoot down an attacker who is literally about to rape and kill a family? Or an army of such attackers? Look at what's happening to all the Christians in the Middle East, and other minorities. How do we not raise up arms to save them?

Nothing will solve the complexities of this world. The world will never achieve perfect peace and harmony. Only God can do that in his heavenly realm. What matters is what we do when we are called upon to act. Will we defend these people by all means necessary, or allow for them to be massacred in fear that any action will only make matters worse?

Again, while I respect some of MSF's programs and work, it seems that they are ignoring the very immediate and unavoidable necessity of military aid. When people's lives are on the line, those with the means to help must do so.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing, it has been said.

Click to expand...

A lot of Christians won't like this, but, the early Christians understood from Christ and the apostles that they were not to use force. What the nations do is another matter, but the Christians were not to use force. For the first 300 years of Christian history you can find Christian leaders denouncing the use of force. One Christian leader essentially said, 'in our religion it is better to be killed than to kill.' The "Just War" theory didn't come along until the 5th century with men like Augustine.

You questioned whether we are to stand by while others are harmed. I think we have to consider why God hasn't intervened.

OP MODIFIED: Q: "Jesus would approve of "Just War"?

A: Yes.
Jesus read the history of the OT. God is perfectly JUST.
He used men and the supernatural to "war" against those Nations who rejected Him and opposed His "chosen people"...the Abramic Nations.

"War" continued into the NT. The Jewish Nation ferociously fought against Rome. Rome "warred" against most of the known world. In ~70 AD, Jerusalem was demolished in "war". Jesus prophesied it.

And Jesus prophesied that "war" on earth would continue until His Second Coming. And He would appear as the "Rider on the White Horse" to end all war.
Matthew 24;
Revelation 19 [The Coming of Christ]

Matthew 24...Jesus' prophecy and SIGNS of the "end of the (CHURCH) age" of Grace

QUESTIONS:
3 As He (Jesus) was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the DISCIPLES came to Him privately, saying,
“Tell us, (prophesy!)
1. WHEN will these THINGS happen, and
2. what will be the SIGN(s) of "Your (Second) COMING", and
3. (what will be the SIGN(s)) of "the end of the (Church) age"?”

ANSWERS:
1. v. 36 "But of that day and hour no one knows, (WHEN tribulations / things BEGIN)
not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.
3.. v. 2-28...THINGS / SIGNS of .."birth pangs"...tribulation...great tribulation...to the brink...THEN
2. v. 29-31... Jesus' Glorious Return from Heaven!

BIRTH PANGS = NOW!

4 And Jesus answered and said to them,
“See to it that no one misleads you.
5 For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ (a savior)
and will mislead many. (Believers AND UnBelievers?)
You will be hearing of:
1. wars and rumors of wars.
See that you are not frightened, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end. (of tribulation)
For:
2. nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom,
and in various places there will be:
3.famines and
4.earthquakes.
But all these things (signs) are merely "the beginning of birth pangs".

Seven years of Tribulation / Great Tribulation described in Daniel ~11-12 have not yet begun!

YES...Jesus was SPIRITUAL PACIFIST!.

Jesus said, "Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account." Matthew 5.11

Jesus said, "You have learnt how it was said to our ancestors: 'You must not kill; and anyone does kill he must answer for it before the court.' But I say this to you: anyone who is angry with his brother will answer for it before the court." Mt. 5.21-22

Jesus said, "You have learnt how it was said: 'Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.' But I say to you, Offer the wicked man no resistance. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; if a man takes you to law and would have your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone orders you to go one mile, go two miles with him." Mt. 5.38-41

Jesus said, "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy; But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those whose persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Mt. 5.43-46

Jesus said, "You will be hated by all men on account of my name; but the man who stands firm to the end will be saved. If they persecute you in one town, take refuge in the next; and if they persecute you in that, take refuge in another." Mt. 10.22-23

Jesus said, "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; fear him rather who can destroy both body and soul in hell." Mt. 10.28

Jesus said, "If anyone wants to be a follower of mine, let him renounce himself and take up his cross and follow me. For anyone who wants to save his life will lose it; but anyone who loses his life for my sake will find it." Mt. 16.24-25

BUT...Jesus righteouly FOUGHT the injustices which He found in His "world".

He VIOLENTLY cleansed the Temple of God in Jerusalem...TWICE!
Matthew 21; Mark 11; John 2

He RAILED against ungodly Hebrew leaders and sects.
Matthew 23 [the Eight "Woes"]

He separated obedience to God and to government (politics?).

Mark 12:17
And Jesus said to them (trappers),
“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they were amazed at Him.

I believe if Jesus sat with President Trump's administration today, He would say: DEFEND My USA ...under God!

2 Chronicles 7:14(NASB)
14 and My people who are called by My name
HUMBLE themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways,
THEN I will hear from heaven,
will forgive their sin and will heal their land.

HighwayMan said:

In what way is God to intervene other than through us?

Click to expand...

He can intervene however He chooses to. It's recorded in Scripture that He's struck people down. My question is, who has He told in our modern times to use violence? He's given governments that power to uphold law but where has He given the individual Christian such a charge? As I pointed out, for the first 300 years of Christian history Christians would not use violence. They would die before they killed another. One Christian leader reasoned that he knew where he was going, but if he killed the evil doer that man would have no further chance to repent.

Butch5 said:

A lot of Christians won't like this, but, the early Christians understood from Christ and the apostles that they were not to use force. What the nations do is another matter, but the Christians were not to use force. For the first 300 years of Christian history you can find Christian leaders denouncing the use of force. One Christian leader essentially said, 'in our religion it is better to be killed than to kill.' The "Just War" theory didn't come along until the 5th century with men like Augustine.

You questioned whether we are to stand by while others are harmed. I think we have to consider why God hasn't intervened.

Click to expand...

So its OK when someone violently beats and rapes your wife and kids. You'd just stand back and not defend them because that would require violence on your part.
You're obviously confident that the slightest thoughts of defensive on your part would offend God more than the violence being done to your family offends Him.

Jn15v13“Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.

Click to expand...

This is an interesting scripture. To lay down your life for someone requires an intervention of some sort. ie. You witness an attack and at great risk intervene to rescue the victim, losing your life in the process.
Its very hard to lay down your life when you are not prepared to fight for a just cause.
Of course, the scripture also applies to non violent intervention, such as rescuing a drowning man, but it cannot be exclusively claimed for that.

thecolorsblend said:

I see no real indication that Our Lord is morally opposed to war full-stop. My guess is He doesn't think it's ideal... but if the alternative is, oh I dunno, a horde of fanatical Moslems invading your country, raping your women and subjugating your children, He might not mind armed resistance.

Click to expand...

The morality of Jesus is not Utilitarian. "Less heinous" does not equal "righteous."

Do not resist the evil man is pretty clear.

Do not fear the one who can only kill the body is also pretty clear.

HighwayMan said:

And what do the Christians do then, when women and children are literally being raped and butchered at their feet? Do they stand there and plead with the attackers to stop (which hardly ever works), or do they pick up a sword to protect them?

Click to expand...

Or simply expect Caesar to handle it.

I say that only partially in jest, because I believe that is precisely what Jesus' expectation for the Body of Christ is.

Christians are ambassadors of Heaven assigned to the nations of the earth. Ambassadors do not engage in the wars of the nations they're assigned to. Kings of nations will fight to maintain their own wealth and power, and they will maintain order in their own nations.

There is zero indication in scripture that the ambassadors of Heaven are to engage in the wars of the nations they're assigned to any more than human ambassadors do.

Seventh Dad Adventists are probably correct on this point.

ViaCrucis said:

A just war is never a good war. There is no such thing as a good war. Another poster here said that, in theory, one can subscribe to the idea of a just war (and I think I mostly agree); but just war theory arose during a time when when battles were fought by people with swords and pointy sticks; the weapons of war have changed, and the immensity of destruction that can be accomplished renders the idea of a just war almost, if not entirely, impossible. Can war ever be just? In theory, yes; in practice, almost never, and probably never as long as we have the technology to obliterate virtually the entire population of the planet.

The reason why I think we can still speak of just war at all is because of a bit of 20th century history--the rise of Hitler to power, and the evils of the Nazi regime demanded a response from the nations of the world. The cost of not stopping Hitler was far, far greater than the cost of stopping him--though horrendously and awfully bloody it was. That, however, is a case most extraordinary, an evil which the world had never seen before or since.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

Even then, is it a Just War if it could have been prevented by earlier Just actions?

There is first the problem in Europe of supposedly Christian nations going to war against one another. There could be no justice in that circumstance--everyone was wrong.

Second, there is the problem that the Treaty of Versailles is widely understood to have been grossly unfair--and that was understood at the time. This resulted in growing resentment and hostility in the Germans who likely would have gone to war again at some point whether Hitler had come to power or not. A war resulting from unjust actions is not a Just War.

So WWII doesn't really count either--nobody's hands were clean.

Not everything that is faced can be changed but nothing can be changed until it is faced. Evil thrives when good men do nothing and without courage, there is no virtue. Even war is ultimately not about the bullets that you shoot or the blood that you spill, but it is the stand that you make against evil that God will bless and honour.

“The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

- there must be serious prospects of success;

- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the ‘just war’ doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good” (CCC 2309).

God defends His Children by intervening in the affairs / people / Nations of the "world".

God USES Men to defend His Children.

The buck does NOT stop with God because He has given Man and angels the spiritual gift of "free will" There are 3 proximate and interving causes between God's "only Good" creation and war / human strife on planet earth:
1. The chaotic "world" (kozmos)
2. The innate "sin nature" of all men to turn from God
3. The attack of spirit-beings by devil / demons

Q: "I think we have to consider why God hasn't intervened.".

A: False Premise: He has and does! 0T+ NT TIMES + NOW!!
God is NOT dead, nor doth He sleep!!

Isaiah 42:5 Thus says God the Lord,
Who created the heavens and stretched them out,
Who spread out the earth and its offspring,
Who GIVES breath to the people on it (Body/Soul combo)
And SPIRIT to those who walk in it,

Zechariah 12:1 ...Thus declares the Lord
who stretches out the heavens,
lays the foundation of the earth, and
FORMS the SPIRIT of man within him,

CHOOSE...NOW!!.

Deuteronomy 30:19
I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So CHOOSE LIFE in order that you may live, you and your descendants,

1 Chronicles 28:9...KING David to wise son Solomon
“As for you, my son Solomon,
know the God of your father, and serve Him with a whole heart and a willing mind;
for the Lord searches all hearts, and understands every intent of the thoughts.
If you seek Him, He will let you find Him; BUT
if you forsake Him, He will reject you forever.

John 3:36...John the Baptizer on Jesus: CHOOSE
1. He who believes in the Son has eternal life; (BELIEVER)
but
2.he who does not obey (TO BELIEVE IN!) the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” (UN-BELIEVER)

John 1
11 He came to that which was His own, but His own did NOT receive Him.
12 Yet to all who DID receive him,
to those who BELIEVED in his name, he gave the right to become "children of God"
— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but "born of God"

Revelation 3:20...CHOOSE!
Behold, I stand at the door and knock;
if anyone hears My voice and opens the door,
I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.

There has for many years an been an argument going on in churches involving scriptural authority that goes- 'Whatever the individual can do.... the church can do, and whatever the church can do... the individual can do. '

This is a very good lens by which to view individual self-defense and a county's self-defense. It definitely shows that the duties of both the individual and country are vastly different.

Since God does not judge which country gets awarded eternal life and which is awarded eternal punishment, it is very clear that the individuals must decide for themselves if the military will allow them to remain consistent with the New Testament.

It is consistent for the individual to act in self defense of themselves and their loved ones or even strangers. It is very different for a country to send individual people of that country (military) into possible hostile areas to achieve political victories via JUST WAR.

RDKirk said:

The morality of Jesus is not Utilitarian. "Less heinous" does not equal "righteous."

Do not resist the evil man is pretty clear.

Do not fear the one who can only kill the body is also pretty clear.

Click to expand...

"Clear" is probably not the word to use. Sacred scripture also says...

Sacred Scripture said:

For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same.

For he is God's minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God's minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil.
Romans 13:3-4 (DRA)

Click to expand...

So which is it? Is there ever a time when people, individually or collectively, should defend themselves?

thecolorsblend said:

"Clear" is probably not the word to use. Sacred scripture also says...

[quote='Sacred Scripture"]For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same.

For he is God's minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God's minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil.
Romans 13:3-4 (DRA)

Click to expand...

So which is it? Is there ever a time when people, individually or collectively, should defend themselves?[/QUOTE]

As has already been stated, the Body of Christ is one thing. The government of the king is another thing

You are conflating the two.

Francis Drake said:

So its OK when someone violently beats and rapes your wife and kids. You'd just stand back and not defend them because that would require violence on your part.
You're obviously confident that the slightest thoughts of defensive on your part would offend God more than the violence being done to your family offends Him.


This is an interesting scripture. To lay down your life for someone requires an intervention of some sort. ie. You witness an attack and at great risk intervene to rescue the victim, losing your life in the process.
Its very hard to lay down your life when you are not prepared to fight for a just cause.
Of course, the scripture also applies to non violent intervention, such as rescuing a drowning man, but it cannot be exclusively claimed for that.

Click to expand...

When this subject comes up Christians invariably bring up the what if and worst case scenarios. However, these scenarios don't change the facts of history and they don't change the faith. As I'v pointed out, in the historic Christian faith, Christians would not use violence. For the first 300 years of Christian history Christians would not use violence. Why do you suppose that is? Where do you suppose they got this idea that they were not to use violence? Do you suppose maybe it came from Jesus and the apostles? After all, it is what was believed in the beginning. The idea of just war comes from Augustine some 400 years later.

RDKirk said:

Or simply expect Caesar to handle it.

Click to expand...

How's that pan out for Cornelius?

When Jesus said "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" It was not limited to paying taxes.
Like all other kings, Caesar had conscription. Thus people like Cornelius ended up fighting for Caesar with little choice.

And how should Cornelius behave?

Luke3v 14Some soldiers were questioning him, saying, “And what about us, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages.”

Click to expand...

You will note that Jesus did not tell him to resign his commission and get a peaceable job