Reformed theology and justified war.

[Jash Comstock]

Being a soldier and veteran I have an invested interest in this subject, and it has been on my mind lately, so I thought I'd ask my fellow PB'ers.

What is the general consensus amongst reformed theologians concerning the idea of justified war?
What are the characteristics of a just war vs. an unjust war?
What historical figures have written on the subject of just and unjust war?

Any links, articles, books, or sermon recommendations would also be appreciated.

 

[Scott1]

Others will have some theological references that will be helpful.

But, it is important to know what is implicit, that war can be just.
God nowhere in His Word prohibits war; rather, He commanded it many times. Even chastised Israel for not doing it, and to the full.

 

[RamistThomist]

Being a soldier and veteran I have an invested interest in this subject, and it has been on my mind lately, so I thought I'd ask my fellow PB'ers.

What is the general consensus amongst reformed theologians concerning the idea of justified war?
What are the characteristics of a just war vs. an unjust war?
What historical figures have written on the subject of just and unjust war?

Any links, articles, books, or sermon recommendations would also be appreciated.

Most Reformed will defend some aspect of a just war ala Augustine. Indeed, the confession teaches this.

Chapter 23; Section II.–It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate when called thereunto; in the managing whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth, so, for that end, they may lawfully, now under the New Testament, wage war upon just and necessary occasions.

Shaw comments,

To determine the several cases in which war may be justifiable would be out of place here; it may, however, be generally stated, that aggressive wars, or such as are undertaken to gratify views of ambition or worldly aggrandisement, cannot be justified; but that defensive wars, or those which, as to the first occasion of them, are defensive, though in their progress they must often be offensive, are lawful.

To answer your specific questions,

1. The magisterial Reformed almost to a man acknowledge just war. Interestingly enough, George Whitefield preached a sermon praising King George II for destroying the Romanist uprising in Scotland!
2. I'm quoting from memory so I might miss something: a) defensive b) the outcome must be measurable, reasonably attainable, and worth the cost; c) there is some ambiguity on this, but collateral damage must be nil to minimum
3. Pride of place goes to John Knox. Reading him might make some people very uncomfortable. The most scholarly account is by Samuel Rutherford, Lex Rex. It has not been refuted.

 

[Shawn Mathis]

There are a dozen books and tracts on the subject from a Reformed perspective I went through last summer. I taught a SS class on the topic: Limits of Submission to Government. It was video-taped but not uploaded yet. So, I'll give you a list of works to work through at your leisure. If you do not hear back from me, please contact me to remind me to get at least the audio of the class up at sermonaudio (there are a few up now).

You can google most of these and find them (except Beza) online:
1. Shields, Defensive Arms Vindicated, republished 1782
2. Defensive War in a Just Cause
3. De Jure Regni Apud Scotus, Buchanan
4. A Short Treatise on Political Power, Ponet
5. How Superior Powers Ought to be Obeyed, Goodman
6. Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos
7. Tenure of Kings, Milton
8. On the Rights of Magistrates, Beza
9. Lex, Rex, Rutherford
10. Viret on Resistance: Journal of Modern History, Pierre Viret And The Sixteenth-Century French Protestant Revolutionary Tradition, Robert D. Linder, Vol. XXXVIII, June 1966, No. 2
11. Peter Martyr: From his commentary on Romans; and Commonplaces
12. Althusiaus on Resistence, from Politica

Here is a summary of the class (too bad the outline form is garbled):
I. Arguments from Forefathers

A. A Short Treatise on Political Power, Ponet
1. “By this ordinance [given to Noah] and law He instituted political power and gave authority to men to make more laws.”
2. Decisions to die, flee or fight are issues of the conscience.

B. How Superior Powers Ought to be Obeyed, Goodman
1. You ought to obey God rather than man. God commands you to follow His commandments first.
2. We are to help the ox in the ditch, how much more our neighbors being oppressed by tyrants?

C. Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos
1. Two types of covenants: between God, magistrate and people; and between the magistrate and the people. [cp. 2 Sam. 5:3; 2 kg. 11:17; 2 Chr. 23:16]”

D. On the Rights of Magistrates, Beza: “peoples were not created for the sake of rulers, but on the contrary the rulers for the sake of the people”
1. If in lesser contractual law, the one violating the contract can be repulsed to save one’s life, how much more against a nation?
2. Just resistance when: overt tyranny “thoroughly obvious”; if no recourse save arms; carefully thought through to avoid making things worse.

E. Lex, Rex, Rutherford: “Every man by nature is a freeborn man…”
1. “What is warranted by the direction of nature’s light is warranted by the law of nature, and consequently by a divine law; for who can deny the law of nature to be a divine law?”
2. Not defending oneself can be a form of suicide
3. Prophets complained about the lack of help: “they expressly cry out against the sin of non-resistence [Jer. 22:2, 3; 5:31; Is. 58:6] ”

II. Arguments from Bible

A. Romans 13:1-7: Only describes lawful authority (not tyrants)
1. The magistrate is directed to reward good and punish evil only; nothing is stated about resisting magistrates who do not punish evil; therefore, “resist” is only forbidden against lawful authority
2. If “resistance” is absolutely forbidden (instead of relatively), then when a magistrate becomes like a devil, he cannot be resisted. But James 4:7 commands resistance to the devil (his works not his person as such); therefore, some resistance is allowed and submission is relative not absolute.
3. If one can “resist” a righteous man (Gal. 2:11), then one can resist a wicked man on certain occasions (like tyranny)

B. 1 Peter 2:11-17: similar reasoning as Romans
1. Submission is the default position; much can be bore (see Matt. 5)
2. v.14 (like Romans 13) gives the definition of the magistrate as an office for punishing evildoers.

C. Luke 22:36: Christ commands disciples to purchase a sword. If an instrument of violence is allowed, then the purpose of the instrument is allowed: violence.

D. Hebrew 11:33, 34: “who through faith subdued kingdoms… became valiant in battle, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.” [That act which is from faith is pleasing to God; war was from faith; therefore it is pleasing]

E. Old Testament
1. Defensive: Gen. 14:12 1 Sam. 14:44: Jonathan protected by army from Saul; Neh. 4:8-14: Jews defend wall while trusting God; Est. 9: Jews defend themselves
2. Deut. 20:10-20 (war laws); Prov. 24:6; Ecc. 3:3; Proverbs 24:11–12 “Deliver those who are drawn toward death, And hold back those stumbling to the slaughter. If you say, ‘Surely we did not know this,’ Does not He who weighs the hearts consider it? He who keeps your soul, does He not know it? And will He not render to each man according to his deeds?”

F. Sixth Commandment: Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt preserve life
1. Large Catechism Question 99: How to apply the Law. Especially 99:7, 8.
2. LCQ 99.5: what is forbidden is always forbidden (suicide, even by indirect means); what is commanded is not always done all the time: when to fight and die and flee is circumstantial: the people, their ability, opportunity and potential outcomes.

 

[raydixon9]

This series was pretty good especially hearing from a pre-9/11 perspective.

America's Wars:
A Biblical Overview and Evaluation
Second Annual Credenda/Agenda History Conference
Annual History Conference (1997)

These lectures review and critique the wars in which the United States has been involved, including the first Gulf War and Somalia. Too often, the telling of these stories has been led by blind, unbelieving scholars. Here, however, the listener finds a scriptural telling of these wars, distinguishing between the noble and ignoble, the righteous cause and unrighteous.

The following lectures are included in this set:

1. A Christian View of War -- Douglas Wilson

2. French/Indian, Independence, 1812 -- Steve Wilkins

3. Mexican War -- Douglas Wilson

4. War Between the States -- Steve Wilkins

5. Spanish/American & WWI -- Douglas Wilson

6. World War II -- Tom Garfield

7. Wars of the New World Order -- Steve Wilkins

8. Questions and Answers -- Douglas Wilson, Steve Wilkins, and Tom Garfield

 

[Scott1]

this series was pretty good especially hearing from a pre-9/11 perspective.

America's wars:
A biblical overview and evaluation
second annual credenda/agenda history conference
annual history conference (1997)

these lectures review and critique the wars in which the united states has been involved, including the first gulf war and somalia. Too often, the telling of these stories has been led by blind, unbelieving scholars. Here, however, the listener finds a scriptural telling of these wars, distinguishing between the noble and ignoble, the righteous cause and unrighteous.

The following lectures are included in this set:

1. A christian view of war -- douglas wilson

2. French/indian, independence, 1812 -- steve wilkins

3. Mexican war -- douglas wilson

4. War between the states -- steve wilkins

5. Spanish/american & wwi -- douglas wilson

6. World war ii -- tom garfield

7. Wars of the new world order -- steve wilkins

8. Questions and answers -- douglas wilson, steve wilkins, and tom garfield

Warning. Titus 3:10: Messers Wilson, Wilkins are 'federal vision' proponents, having hardened themselves in unrepentance.

 

[Sylvanus]

I won't go too far in commending every one of the following individuals--as many are well-known for their straying from the Reformed positions--but because so many of the Patriot clergy ("Black Robe Regiment") were forced to develop their thoughts on the justness of their cause (specifically the American Revolution), they do present some good thoughts to test in light of the Scriptures. Be discerning however:

Samuel West, Natural Law: The True Principles of Government (1776):
Samuel West, [Natural Law: The True Principles of Government (1776)]

Jonathan Mayhew, A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers (1750):
http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/becomingamer/american/text5/mayhewsubmission.pdf

John Carmichael, A Self-Defensive War Lawful (1775)
John Witherspoon, The Dominion of Providence Over the Passions of Men (1776)
Elisha Williams, The Essential Rights and Liberties of Protestants (1744)
Jonathan Parsons, Freedom from Civil and Ecclesiastical Slavery (1774)

Other than those, I would agree with most of the suggestions already:

Rutherford's Lex Rex
Beza
Martin Luther, Temporal Authority: To What Extent it Should be Obeyed
Magdeburg Confession? (hard to find)

I'm not sure it is possible to find a "Reformed consensus" for every context or contingency, other than: the state has the right of the sword, and it is to be used for those purposes or qualifications outlined in Romans 13, 1 Peter 2:14, etc.; the question might be: does Afghanistan/Iraq fit those qualifications? That will likely get people going different directions..

 

[Sylvanus]

I won't go too far in commending every one of the following individuals--as many are well-known for their straying from the Reformed positions--but because so many of the Patriot clergy ("Black Robe Regiment") were forced to develop their thoughts on the justness of their cause (specifically the American Revolution), they do present some good thoughts to test in light of the Scriptures. Be discerning however:

Samuel West, Natural Law: The True Principles of Government (1776):
Samuel West, [Natural Law: The True Principles of Government (1776)]

Jonathan Mayhew, A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers (1750):
http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/becomingamer/american/text5/mayhewsubmission.pdf

John Carmichael, A Self-Defensive War Lawful (1775)
John Witherspoon, The Dominion of Providence Over the Passions of Men (1776)
Elisha Williams, The Essential Rights and Liberties of Protestants (1744)
Jonathan Parsons, Freedom from Civil and Ecclesiastical Slavery (1774)

Other than those, I would agree with most of the suggestions already:

Rutherford's Lex Rex
Beza
Martin Luther, Temporal Authority: To What Extent it Should be Obeyed
Magdeburg Confession? (hard to find)

I'm not sure it is possible to find a "Reformed consensus" for every context or contingency, other than: the state has the right of the sword, and it is to be used for those purposes or qualifications outlined in Romans 13, 1 Peter 2:14, etc.; the question might be: does Afghanistan/Iraq (or America's use of their military) fit those qualifications? That will likely get people going different directions..

 

[RamistThomist]

Oliver O'Donovan has also written on this.