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

The Biblical Data on War: OT and NTIn his rebuttal, Pro charges me with misinterpreting Romans 13:1-4, arguing that it does not sanction civil defense, but the punishment of criminals. Pro bases this on the last two sentences, which read:But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Both God's appointment of the government to "bear the sword" and "punish the wrongdoer" is unqualified. That is, there are no specified limits on who the government may exercise its authority. Why think then that the application of this verse is limited only to the punishment of internal offenders? "Wrongdoer" applies not just to the murderer in one's society, but also to the foreign country that is carrying out systematic genocide. It would be ludicrous to suggest that this passage applies only to wrongdoers inside a country, but not wrongdoers outside a country. Indeed, this interpretation is stretched and contrived, as "wrongdoer" is unqualified. Theologian Wayne Grudem writes,"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]We see this many times in the Old Testament, where God himself commands his people to go to war. Yet, if war is both evil and forbidden by God, then it would be contrary to his nature to command what is evil, and contradictory to command what is forbidden. But Pro has a response to this, he argues that in 1 Chronicles 22:8, David was forbidden from building a temple because of the blood he had shed in wars. This is taken to be a condemnation of war.Unfortunately, this interpretation is read into the text. 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. [2] To read this passage as a condemnation of war is to ignore the biblical data in which God endorsed war, blessed those who participated in it, and in which he himself even participated. Indeed, Ecclesiastes 3:8 suggests that there is a time for war, and a time for peace. Pro writes,"God accepted that the Jews had to fight wars to survive, and because they were the chosen people he allowed it. However, this did not take away from the sins they committed through killing."The Israelites commited no sins in warfare. The biblical understanding of the word "murder" in the Ten Commandments refers to the unlawlful killing of another human killing. "It is never used to refer to killing in war (other Hebrew words are used for this)... The command is not speaking about killing in war, and the original Hebrew readers would not have understood it to apply to soldiers who kill in combat." [3] Indeed, it's bizzare to think that God, being all good, would have commanded the Israelites to deliberately commit evil for evil's sake. This interpretation once again does not square with the biblical data.Pro argues that God accepted the necessity of war to continue his people, and that this didn't make it ethical. But this interpretation too is strained. In the OT laws regarding divorce (An institution that God tolerated but still viewed as unethical), guidelines were laid down on when it was permissible to divorce one's spouse. But notice that God never actively commanded someone to divorce his spouse. Indeed, all of the laws regarding it were passive in nature. When it comes to the institution of war, God is seen actively commanding individuals to go to war (Deut. 20:1, for example). Had war been an institution that God merely tolerated, he would have only issued passive laws regarding it, for he would not have commanded that his people deliberately engage in evil.Going back now to Luke 22:36, there are dual purposes for this verse. This is not only meant as a fulfillment of a prophecy, but also an endorsement of self-defense. Jesus was also encouraging his disciples to carry a sword for self-defense ("buy one)". At that time, it was commonplace for one to carry swords as a means of defense against robbers and thieves. Moreover, the verse indicates that at least two of Jesus' disiples had been carrying swords for the three years they had been with him, yet Jesus did not forbid it. In fact, he encourages it.Christian TraditionPro argues that the mere fact that Christian tradition was oriented toward just war theory does not prove my thesis. Indeed, I never meant it as such. I explicitly stated that this indicates that the burden of proof is against him, since he is advocating an idea which has had little precedent in church tradition. Pro also cites several early church fathers which advocated pacifism. However, these church fathers did not advocate pacifism per se; "instead, they objected to military service mainly because of the role of pagan religious practices in the military. Even with such objections, a diversegence in Christian opinion existed, and Christian involvement in and support for military service grew steadily from the second century." [4]Now, I mentioned the crtieria for Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello, only to provide an indication of what a just war would look like. As such, they were not meant as arguments in and of themselves, but as a description of what warfare from a just war perspective would look like. Hence, I will not elaborate on this due both to space concerns and its secondary role in the debate.Pro's "Pure Ethics" Argument As a counter-analogy to Pro's "pure ethics" argument, suppose that you are walking home one day when you pass a dark alley. You notice some screams coming from inside and walk to investigate. You then come across a gang rape in progress. You are armed with a handgun with enough rounds to shoot every member of the gang, who are also armed. Should you shoot? Or should you let them continue raping the innocent victim because you could possibly damn them to hell if you killed them? Clearly in such a scenario, you have a moral duty to use lethal force to prevent a great injustice from happening. Refraining from action would itself be immoral.Or consider the case of Nazi Germany during WWII. Would it have been better to simply let the Nazis live so they could possibly convert and risk their taking over the world, or would it have been justified to make war against them for the purpose of safeguarding liberty? Pro's own analogy fails because there is nothing intrinsically wrong with sending someone to hell, for their own condemnation was brought upon by themselves, and not you. Someone may, out of their own graciousness, choose to sacrifice their own life -- but this is neither a requirement or a command.Biblical Passages Due to the number of passages presented and because of space considerations, I cannot respond to them here. I will cover them in more detail in my next response. But as a preliminary response, notice that all of these verses have to do with personal revenge and vigilantee justice. While on the level of the individual this may sometimes be prohibited, government is specifically entrusted with these duties, such that the Christian may engage in them.Sources 1. Wayne Grudem, Politics According to the Bible, pg.3882. Earl Radmacher, Ron Allen, and H. Wayne House (eds), Nelson's Bible Commentary (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson), p.2683. Grudem, PATTB, pg.3894. Darrell Cole, When God Says War is Right, pg.8