According to basic Christian philosophy, one should take a pacifistic approach towards warfare

The Biblical Justification for Warfare When Paul said that everyone ought to be subject to the governing authorities, he was indeed saying that one should obey the government of the doman in which one resides. The idea that therefore this implied that one must be subject to the laws of all nations was not the thrust of my argument, and hence Pro attacks a strawman. Rather, the point to be inferred here is that civil government is the only legitimate authority under which justice must be dispensed. Therefore, civil governments may justly undertake campaigns both to correct and resist wrongdoing. Since justice is dispensed on both the level of civil society and civil government, governments may legitimately engage in warfare. Pro has thus not responded to my previous argument. Recall earlier the observations from Wayne Grudem:"Now, if a government is commanded by God to protect its citizens from the robber of thief who comes from within a country, then certainly it also has an obligation to protect its citizens from thousands of murderers or thieves who come as an army from somewhere outside of the nation. Therefore a nation has a moral obligation to defend itself against foreign attacks who would come to kill and conquer and subjugate the people in a nation." [1]Nowhere did I argue that this passage implies that we are subject to the laws of other countries. Rather, my argument is that we ought to obey our own governments because they have been entrusted by God with the task of dispensing justice, whether this be internal or external to society. Indeed, the idea that justice can only be dispensed within society by the government of that domain strikes one asprima facie ludicrous, both on moral and Biblical grounds. Can one seriously say with a straight face that American involvement in preventing the spread of Nazi tyrrany during WWII was immoral? Moreover, why did God himself bothcommand and endorse warfare in the Old Testament? And why did he bless those who participated? Pro has not provided adequate responses to these questions. This, of course, brings me to the second point.Biblical Warfare Pro argues that my supposition that "a temple is intrinisically a 'house of peace'" is incorrect, for it conflicts with the purpose of my argument. Not so, for Pro is confusing my treatment of role of the priest and the role of the state. God's ultimate desire for mankind is for them to return to communion with their maker. In the Old Testament, this was primarily carried out through priests in the temple and tabernacle. War, because it results in death and destruction, alienates mankind from God. A temple, therefore, must be a house of peace. This is not to say that war is immoral or a bad thing. Rather, it illustrates the difference between the church and the state. The former is concerned more with bringing people to God, while the latter is concerned with dispensing earthly justice. This idea is expressed clearly in the New Testament, in which Jesus in Mark 12 tells us to "Render to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to render to God what is God's." There as thus two institutions: church and state, each with their own domain. Sometimes they overlap, sometimes they don't.With this in mind, it becomes clear why David was not allowed to build a temple. Whereas a temple was supposed to be a house of peace run by priests, David's profession was that of a warrior whose hands directly killed many. This is also why Pro's comparison to the Crusades is inadequate, for in David's example he had directly shed the blood of man. As I said earlier, David is forbidden to built the temple of God not because there is something intrinisically wrong about war, but because David was a man of war, whereas a temple is supposed to be a house of peace. Therefore, David is was not qualified to build the temple because it did not fit his job description -- not because he had engaged in immorality. Pro's responses have not adequately circumvented this argument.Moving now to Christ's mention that "two swords is enough," this was not intended as a commandment for one person to carry two swords, but as a response to two disciples who showed him their swords. Pro completely misses the context here, which I reproduce: He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” "That’s enough!” he replied. (Luke 22:36-38)Wayne Grudem elaborates on the meaning of this passage:"People commonly carried swords at that time for protection against robbers, and apparently at least two of Jesus' disciples, who had been with him for three years, were still carrying swords, and Jesus had not forbidden this... The fact that Jesus was going to be crucified meant an increasing danger of people attacking the disicples as well. When Jesus says, 'It is enough,' it is immediately in response to the disciples showing him 'two swords,' so 'enough' is best understood to mean 'enough swords.'" [2] There is, of course, an element of prophecy to this passage. But this does not preclude there from being both a dual theological and practical lesson to be gleaned here, as is evident throughout the Bible.But what about Peter's rebuke? Does it constitute a prohibition on force? 1) Suppose we grant the pacifist's argument that Jesus condemned Peter for using force. The prohibition, however, would only apply to the level of the individual, and not to state governments. Jesus can thus be seen as prohibitingvigilantee justice. 2) As Grudem notes, "this was because [Jesus] did not want his disciples to attempt to stop his crucifixion or to try to start a military uprising against Rome... in the very same verse, Jesus did not tell Peter to throw away his sword, but to keep it, for he said, 'Put your sword back into its place.'" [3]3) The meaning of "All who draw the sword will die by the sword," understood in proper context refers to the fact that all who use swords as a means of advancing the kingdom of God will not succeed. This is not understood as a wholesale condemnation on force.Christian Tradition As I have argued earlier, it has been the historic position of the Christian church that warfare is sometimes justified. Pro, therefore, owes us an explanation if he wishes to disagree with this -- he thus bears the burden of proof. This is not mitigated by the fact that some (A very small minority) Christian groups have held to pacifistic views of warfare. Indeed, most of the groups he mentions are considered by many scholars to be cults that are not representative of orthodox or mainstream Christianity. [4]Verses Supporting Pacifism?Since I now have some room, I'll respond to some of the verses that Pro previously listed.Verses which speak of not repaying evil with evil only work as a prohibition on warfare if we assume that war is evil. But that's what we're debating over! If war is indeed at times justified, then this entire argument falls apart, for Pro is arguing in a circle, for those verses only work if we asume in advance that war is evil. Pro is therefore assuming his conclusions.The idea of "praying for those who persecute you" and "overcoming evil with good," moreover, are perfectly compatible with warfare. For if the just war theorist is right, then war would in some cases be a good thing. Moreover, why not think that God answers prayer by means of a just war? Pro's arguments are flagrantly question-begging, for they all assume in advance that war is either evil or is not a live option. But this is just circular reasoning.I eagerly await Pro's response to my criticism of his "Pure Ethics" argument in the next round._____Sources1. Wayne Grudem, Politics According to the Bible, pg.3882. Ibid, 2033. Ibid, 1954. See Walter Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults