on War, Bearing
Arms, and Resistance to Evil
Tell A Friend | Add to Favourites | Print this Page
The URL of this page is:
Double-Click the Link below to Download the
Full PDF Version of this Book
Structure of the
Nazarene Remnant Church of
The Sixth Commandment:
“Thou shalt not
kill.” (Exodus 20: 13)
“If 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, and will
forgive their sin and heal their land.” (2
Chronicles 7: 14 RSV)
said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the
sword." (Matthew 26: 52)
"Beloved, never avenge yourselves but leave it to the wrath of
God. For it is written vengeance is mine I will repay, says the Lord." (Romans 12:
heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you,
Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right
cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak
as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to him who begs from you, and
do not refuse him who would borrow from you.” (Matthew 5: 38-42, RSV)
The Nazarene Remnant Church of God restores and affirms the ancient and not so ancient (for example, the old
teachings of the Quakers on this important subject) teaching of non-resistance to force, refusal to bear arms, and war. The
so-called teachings of the "Christian" churches of the world teaches the doctrine of the "just war," which is
nothing other than the doctrine of "an eye for an eye," a doctrine that has long ago been rescinded in favour of
the doctrine of love through the outpouring of the Birthright Holy Spirit, which is freely available to all men and
women over the age of 30 years who repent and
become baptised, and begin faithfully keeping the New Moon Festivals (For an introduction to this vital subject see
our free book The New Moon Festivals: the “First Works” of Salvation, here: http://NazareneRemnant.org/the-new-moon-festivals-the-first-works-of-salvation.html ).
Because the doctrine of non-resistance to force is the true ancient teaching on this subject, I
feel that the true Christian Church can do no better than honour gentle Christian folk from the past who
have given their lives to teach the world the true doctrine of peace and love.
One such person was William Lloyd Garrison,
and Leo Tolstoy tells his story in his book, The Kingdom of Heaven Is Within You:
"The son of William Lloyd Garrison, the famous champion of the emancipation of the negroes'
wrote to me that he had read my book, in which he found ideas similar to those expressed by his father in the
year 1838, and that, thinking it would be interesting to me to know this, he sent to me a declaration or
proclamation of "non-resistance" drawn up by his father nearly fifty years ago.
This declaration came about under the following circumstances: William Lloyd Garrison took part
in a discussion on the means of suppressing war in the Society for the Establishment of Peace among Men,
which existed in 1838 in America. He came to the conclusion that the establishment of universal peace can
only be founded on the open profession of the doctrine of non-resistance to evil by violence (Matthew 5: 39),
in its full significance, as understood by the
Quakers, with whom Garrison happened to be on friendly relations. Having come to this
conclusion, Garrison, thereupon composed and laid before the society a declaration, which "was signed at the
time—in 1838—by many members." (Kingdom of Heaven Is Within You, p. 2)
Here are a few comments from the introduction to this important Declaration, from Tolstoy's
"Among the first responses called forth by my book were some letters from American Quakers.
ln these letters, expressing their sympathy with my views on the unlawfulness for a Christian of war and the use of force of any
kind, the Quakers gave me details of their own so-called sect, which for more
than two hundred years has actually professed the teaching of Christ on non-resistance to evil by force,
and does not make use of weapons in self-defense. The Quakers sent me books, from which I learnt how they
had, years ago, established beyond doubt the duty for a Christian of fulfilling the command of
non-resistance to evil by force, and had exposed the error of the Church's teaching in allowing war and
ln a whole series of arguments and texts showing that war-that is, the wounding and killing
of men-is inconsistent with a religion founded on peace and good will toward men, the Quakers maintain
and prove that nothing has contributed so much to the obscuring of Christian truth in the eyes of the
heathen, and has hindered so much the diffusion of Christianity through the world, as the disregard of
this command by men calling themselves Christians, and the permission of war and violence to
"Christ's teaching, which came to be
known to men, not by means of violence and the sword," they say, "but by means of non-resistance to evil,
gentleness, meekness, and peaceableness, can only be diffused through the world by the
example of peace, harmony, and love among its followers."
"A Christian, according to the teaching of God himself, can act only peaceably toward all
men, and therefore there can be no authority able to force the
Christian to act in opposition to the teaching of God and to the principal virtue of
the Christian in his relation with his neighbours."
"The law of state necessity," they say, "can force only those to change the law of God who,
for the sake of earthly gains, try to reconcile the irreconcilable; but for a Christian who sincerely
believes that following Christ's teaching will give him salvation,such considerations of
state can have no force."
Now to the Declaration of William Lloyd Garrison ...
Declaration Of Sentiments Adopted By Peace Convention'
“ Boston, 1838.
We the undersigned, regard it as due to ourselves, to the cause which we love to the country in
which we live, to publish a declaration expressive of the purposes we aim to accomplish and the measures we
shall adopt to carry forward the work of peaceful universal
We do not acknowledge allegiance to any human government. We recognize
but one King and Lawgiver' one judge and Ruler of mankind. Our country is the world, our countrymen are all mankind. We love the land of our nativity only
as we love all other lands. The interests and rights of American citizens are not dearer to us than those of
the whole human race. Hence we can allow no appeal to patriotism to revenge any national insult or
We conceive that a nation has no right to defend itself against
foreign enemies or to punish its invaders, and no individual possesses that right in his own case, and the
unit cannot be of greater importance than the aggregate. lf soldiers thronging from abroad with intent to commit rapine and destroy life may not be
resisted by the people or the magistracy, then ought no resistance to be offered to domestic troublers of the
public peace or of private security.
The dogma that all the governments of the world are approvingly ordained of God and that the
powers that be in the United States, in Russia, in Turkey, are in accordance with his will, is no less absurd than impious. It makes the impartial Author of our existence unequal and
tyrannical. It cannot be affirmed that the powers that be in any nation are actuated by the spirit or guided
by the example of Christ in the treatment of enemies; therefore they cannot be agreeable to the will of God, and therefore
their overthrow by a spiritual regeneration of their subjects is inevitable.
We regard as unchristian and unlawful not only all wars, whether offensive or defensive, but all preparations
for war; every naval ship, every arsenal, every fortification, we regard as unchristian and unlawful;
the existence of any kind of standing army, all military chieftains, all monuments commemorative of victory
over a fallen foe, all trophies won in battle, all celebrations in honour of military exploits, all
appropriations for defense by arms; we regard as unchristian and unlawful every edict of government requiring
of its subjects military service.
Hence we deem it unlawful to bear arms, and we cannot hold any office which imposes on its incumbent the obligation to compel men to do
right on pain of imprisonment or death. We therefore voluntarily exclude ourselves from every legislative and judicial
body, and repudiate all human politics, worldly honours, and stations of authority. lf we cannot occupy a seat in the
legislature or on the bench, neither can we elect others to act as our substitutes
in any such capacity. It follows that we cannot sue any man at law to force him to return
anything he may have wrongly taken from us; if he has seized our coat, we shall surrender him our cloak
also rather than subject
him to punishment.
We believe that the penal code of the Old Covenant—an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a
tooth—has been abrogated by Jesus Christ, and that under the New Covenant the
forgiveness instead of the punishment of enemies has been enjoined on all his disciples in all
cases whatsoever. To extort money from enemies, cast them into prison, exile or execute them, is
obviously not to forgive but to take retribution.
The history of mankind is crowded with evidences proving that physical coercion is not adapted
to moral regeneration, and that the sinful dispositions of men can be subdued only by
love; that evil can be exterminated only by good; that it is not safe to rely upon the strength
of an arm to preserve us from harm; that there is great security in being gentle, long-suffering, and
abundant in mercy; that it is only the meek who shall inherit the earth; for those
who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.
Men are Necessary to
Change a Crime into a Virtue?
“In another pamphlet, entitled How Many Men are
Necessary to Change a Crime into a Virtue? Adin Ballou [another
champion of non-resistance] says: ‘One man may not kill. lf he kills a
fellow-creature, he is a murderer. lf two, ten, a hundred men do so, they, too, are
murderers. But a government or a nation may kill
as many men as it chooses, and that will not be murder, but a great and noble
action. Only gather the people together on a large
scale, and a battle of ten thousand men becomes an innocent
action. But precisely how many people must there be to make it
so?- that is the question. One man cannot plunder and pillage, but a whole nation
can. But precisely how many are needed to make it
permissible? Why is it that one man, ten, a hundred, may not break the law of
God, but a great number may?” (Quoted in Leo Tolstoy’s book, The Kingdom
of Heaven Is Within You, p. 6.)
Hence as a measure of sound policy-of safety to property, Life, and liberty-of public quietude
and private enjoyment-as well as on the ground of allegiance to Him who is King of kings and Lord of Lords,
cordially adopt the non-resistance principle, being confident that it provides for all
possible consequences, is armed with omnipotent power, and must ultimately triumph over every assailing
We advocate no Jacobinical doctrines. The spirit of Jacobinism is the
spirit of retaliation, violence, and murder. It neither fears God nor regards man. We would be filled with the spirit of Christ. lf we abide
evil by our fundamental principle of not opposing evil by evil we cannot participate in sedition, treason, or
violence. We shall submit to
every ordinance and every requirement of government, except such as are contrary to the commands of the
Gospel, and in no case resist the operation of law, except by meekly submitting to the penalty of
But while we shall adhere to the doctrine of non-resistance and passive submission to enemies,
we purpose, in a moral and spiritual sense, to assail iniquity in high places and in
low places, to apply our principles to all existing evil, political, legal, and ecclesiastical institutions,
and to hasten the time when the kingdoms of this world will have become the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ.
It appears to us a self-evident truth that whatever the Gospel is designed to destroy at any period of the
world, being contrary to ir, ought now to be abandoned. lf, then, the time is predicted when swords shall be
beaten into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks, and men
shall not learn the art of war any more, it follows that all who manufacture, sell, or wield
these deadly weapons do thus array themselves against the peaceful dominion of the son of God on earth.
Having thus stated our principles, we proceed to specify the measures we propose to adopt in
carrying our object into effect.
We expect to prevail through the Foolishness of Preaching. We shall endeavour to promulgate our views among all persons, to whatever nation, sect, or grade
of society they may belong. Hence we shall organize public lectures, circulate tracts and publications, form
societies, and petition every governing body. It will be our leading object to devise ways and means for effecting a radical change in the views, feelings, and practices of society
respecting the sinfulness of war and the treatment of enemies.
ln entering upon the great work before us, we are not unmindful that in its prosecution we may
be called to test our sincerity even as in a fiery ordeal. It may subject us to insult, outrage, suffering,
yea, even death itself. We anticipate no small amount of misconception, misrepresentation, and calumny.
Tumults may arise against us. The proud and pharisaical, the ambitious and tyrannical, principalities and
powers, may combine to crush us. So they treated the Messiah whose example we are humbly striving to imitate.
We shall not be afraid of their
terror. Our confidence is in the Lord Almighty and not in
man. Having withdrawn from human protection, what can sustain us but that faith which
overcomes the world? We shall not think it strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try us, but rejoice
in as much as we are partakers of Christ's sufferings.
Wherefore we commit the keeping of our souls to
God. For every one that forsakes houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father,
or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for Christ’s sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
Firmly relying upon the certain and universal triumph of the sentiments contained in this
declaration, however formidable may be the opposition arrayed against them, we hereby affix our signatures to
it; commending it to the reason and conscience of mankind, and resolving, in the strength of the Lord God, to
calmly and meekly abide the issue.” (Source: The Kingdom of Heaven Is Within
You, by Leo Tolstoy, pp. 2-4. ISBN 9781466325982)
Are World Wars
the Dirty Work of
Satan and His Followers
“Satan cannot do evil except through a human
body. Although ‘a murdered from the beginning,’
it cannot murder except
with human hands. It does not have the power to
kill or even harm by itself. It must use
human beings to do its devilry. Although it
repeatedly threatened to kill the possessed and the exorcists, its threats
were empty. Satan’s threats are always empty. They are all lies.
In fact, the only power that satan has is through human belief in its
lies. Both patients became possessed because they bought its
false seductive promise of ‘friendship.’ Possession was maintained because they
believed its threats that they would die without it. And the possession was ended
when both chose to believe its lies no longer but to transcend their fear by trust
in the resurrected Christ and to pray to the God of Trust for deliverance. During
each exorcism satan’s lies were confronted. And each exorcism was concluded
successfully by a conversion of sorts—a change of faith or value system. I now know
what Jesus meant when he so frequently said, ‘By your faith you have been
Satan can use any human sin or weakness—greed and pride, for
instance. It will use any available tactic:
seduction, cajolery, flattery, intellectual argument.
But its principal weapon
is fear. And in the postexorcism period, after its
lies had been exposed, it was reduced to haunting both patients with its
dully repetitive threats: ‘We will kill you. We will get you. We will torture
you. We will kill you.’” (From Peck, M Scott, People of The Lie: The Hope For
Healing Human Evil, Rider Publishing, Melbourne, 1983, pp. 202-208)
The Theory of the Just
By Wade Cox
Christian Churches of God, Australia
Summary: This paper is an historical and philosophical analysis of
Just War Theory that demonstrates the development of the process with Augustine of Hippo and through the
orthodox or catholic system from the fifth century. The meaning of the papal bull Unam Sanctam is explained and the implications that holds for war and Just War
Theory as well as for the concept of the church as an exclusive organised body, membership of which is essential
to salvation. The history of the doctrine up until modern times is of great importance to Christians who adopt
any position on military service or warfare.
Up until the reformation,
the Roman Catholic Church had justified its exercise of civil and ecclesiastical power by a series of subtle and
erroneous philosophical contrivances. These subtleties sought to explain the use of force and the interference
of Church in state power despite the biblical sanctions of the New Testament. The argument became known as Just War Theory and,
after the Reformation, could not be accepted in total as some of the argument derived from the patristic
literature. For the reformers, biblical authority alone was the standard and, hence, the concept of Just War
Theory had to be secularised in order to expand its terms of reference. To understand its origins and, hence,
deal with its premises the historical development must be understood.
From the close of the first century, Christian doctrine had been under attack from various quarters, some passing
as Christian, some later being attributed as Christian such as the Gnostics. The Christian sect was pacifist and
continued so almost in total until the beginning of the 4th century when a forced fusion of Western Christian and
Elagabalistic churches occurred under Constantine. In order to adjust to the seduction of empirical recognition,
two factions emerged which claimed to be Christian but which had long since been tainted with apostasy. The
factions came to be known as the Athanasian faction
Alexandria (296-373 CE) and
the Arian faction after Arius, Presbyter of Alexandria
(250-336), both of whom were deposed by packed synods, for Arius at Alexandria in 321 and for Athanasius at Tyre in
335. The history of the conflict is too detailed to go into here but it was instrumental in the production of many
theories and doctrines and a by-product of
one was Just War Theory.
The Church was faced with
the dilemma of being an official state religion and continuing the exercise of civil and military
power contrary to the instruction of Christ’s
doctrine. Doctrine had to
be promulgated. The first comprehensive biblical analysis we have of the use of military force occurred in the
writings of Augustine, a North African thinker, who was baptised
a Christian and was educated in Punic, a variant of Hebrew as well as Latin. From 373-383, he was a Manichean
and Platonist philosopher. He was rebaptised in 387 an Athanasian. Ambrose of Milan with Theodosius had gained
control of the Roman Church for the Athanasian faction in 381 and ordered the Council of Constantinople.
Ambrose’s involvement with Augustine was instrumental in the latter's adoption of that creed, which at the time
was no doubt seen as a prudent course. Theodosius suppressed paganism after defeating Eugenius in September
Athanasian/Arian disputes led to bitter persecution by the Athanasians or Trinitarian faction. The Goths
and Vandals were Unitarians (the Gothic Bible dates from 351). They were later termed Arians by the
Trinitarian faction to disguise the real nature of the dispute. The disputes were to continue to arise even
later when the Empress Placidia sent the Goths, aided by Vandals, to oppose the revolt of Count Boniface in
Africa in 427. They were accompanied by Maximinius, a Unitarian Bishop. Augustine had to publicly defend the
Athanasian or Trinitarian sect in 428.
large the formulation
of Just War Theory stems from the writings of Augustine of
It is a rationalisation of
the endorsement of Christianity of its adoption as the syncretic state religion. Christianity’s adoption as the state religion meant
consequential involvement in the military and civil infrastructure.
faction persecuted other sects. Just War Theory attempts to justify those activities.
Augustine's position was
adopted by one of the ecclesiastics educated in his schools and who became a disciple of his thought. This most
powerful cleric became Gregory 1 (or the
Great). He successfully fused civil and ecclesiastical power together. In 590 he commenced a
union of church and state. The union was to form a series of empiric groups, which achieved relative continuity
until 1850 - lasting some 1,260 years. 1,260 years is three and a half prophetic times. The significance of this time scale should not be lost on
The doctrines established by
Augustine and Gregory were substantially unchanged until events of the thirteenth century were to precipitate a further spate of
theorising. Firstly, by Gregory IX
in 1232 in his conflict with the Greeks. In 1236, Gregory IX with Frederick II asserted that Constantine the
Great had given temporal power to the popes and that emperors and kings were only his auxiliaries, bound to use
the material sword at his direction. From 1265-1272 Aquinas developed this theme in the Summa
Theologica (at II II, 40. c.~271) and together with writings of Bernard of Clairvaux and Hugo of St Victor
et. al. inspired the writing of the Bull Unam Sanctam issued by Boniface VIII on 18 November 1302.
This became the definitive word
on the dual power argument and the legitimate use of force.
The modern doctrine of Just
War Theory is dependent upon the status quo and the existence of the state as is. It further rests upon the assumption that
the crime of aggression is the measure of justification of Just War. Following from this there are
divisions of Jus ad Bellum dealing with the determination of a Just War and Jus in Bello
regulating conduct of the participants.
To see how these
distinctions are made, and from whence they derive, we must look atsome premises of Augustine and later of Aquinas. We will examine their
accuracy and then look at Unam Sanctam. From this Modern Just War
Theory will be examined.
From Augustine’s political
writings we see the following premises. At C a, he reflects his earlier Platonist days when he quotes Cicero:
that a state should be so constituted as to be eternal. Thus death is
not natural to a republic as to a man; and, no war is to be undertaken
save for safety or for honour.
From reference to the
Saguntine’s choice of destruction of the state rather than breaking faith Augustine points out that Cicero did
not say which was preferred, safety or faith (the Saguntines chose to keep faith with their allies because of
their word even though they knew that it meant extermination). Hence, the dilemma of safety, and by extension
winning, is implied to be in conflict with morality here as faith. He concludes with ...
But the safety of the city
of God is such that it can be retained, or rather acquired by faith and with faith, but if faith be abandoned no
one can attain it.
At C b he says …
Yet the natural order which
seeks the peace of mankind, ordains that a monarch should have the power of undertaking war if he thinks it
advisable and that soldiers should perform their military duties in behalf of the peace and safety of the
He poses the most
What is the evil in war?
Is it the death of some who will soon die in any case that others may
live in peaceful subjection? This is mere cowardly dislike not
There are two major areas of
objection to this premise.
The first is
that it is directly
contrary to the commandmentsand
it attempts to insinuate that a temporal ruler can order one to commit an act against biblical law.
The second is that if the
argument is admitted that the death of some is acceptable, so that others may live in peaceful subjection,
we admit a series of doctrines; euthanasiaon economic
grounds and executionon doctrinal
grounds or even on ethnicity
Augustine attempts to list
the real evils of war as love of violence, revengeful
cruelty, fierce and implacable enmity, wild resistance, and the lust for power, etc.
These would appear to be
objections of Jus in Bello (Justice in War) and therefore relate to restrictions on participants. He
makes the premise based on Romans 13:1 that there is no power but God who either orders or permits,
so that a righteous man may be under an ungodly king but he may fight on two grounds. That:
it is plainly the will of
it may be an unrighteous
command on the part of the king but the soldier is absolved because his position makes obedience a duty.
Further he stated How
much more must the man be blameless who carries on war on the authority of God? The limitations of this position were evident at Nuremburg. [Nazarene Remnant
comment: “Eichmann's defence at Jerusalem followed the example of General Alfred Jodl at Nuremberg.
Jodl denied all responsibility for his actions. He said that it is "not the task of a soldier to act as judge
over his supreme commander. Let history do that or God in Heaven" (International Military Tribunal, 1950,
p. 517). The tribunal did not entertain the plea from high-ranking officials who were regarded as the
policy-makers and programme designers. As a matter of fact, Jodl's plea did not sit well with existing German
law and precedent. A German Supreme Court in 1921 had heard and rejected this very plea from two submarine
officers who had obeyed orders to massacre the survivors of a sinking ship. This judgement has never been
repudiated (Lord Russell,
1962, p.310.) Moreover, the German Army field manual declared each soldier
responsiblefor his own
a standard provision to discourage
indiscipline, pillage, and rape. No soldier in the army Jodl commanded had the duty of blind obedience he
claimed for himself. The tribunal didn't leave the matter of judgement to God or to history and its judgement
was definitive: Jodl and the others received capital sentences. That Eichmann should choose a line of defence
which had already proved so unsuccessful indicates not only his desperation but also his bad judgement. (Von
Lang, J (Ed) Eichmann Interrogated, 1984). … Eichmann had neither the strong beliefs nor the will-power
to be a consistent anti-Semite or anything else. He was vain, supercioious, a man who very often tried to get
along with everyone by telling them what they wanted to hear. He was also very stupid; his perceptions of the
motivations and desires of others was none too keen. The essential point about Eichmann is that it was not that
the bureaucratic system had prevented him from exercising what Immanuel Kant had called 'reflective
judgement' to distinguish
right from wrong. He lacked that ability in the first place, because he refused to engage the rational side of his spirit
to discover right from wrong for himself, and
then act on that discovery.” (From Little Atrocities: Eichmannism
in the Church. This book aims to show how committed Christians will commit evil, such as
bearing arms and going to war, with remarkable
ease, under the cloak of obedience
biblically unsound on a series of points. Firstly, his
biblical examples in support of the above are misused. Luke 3:14 relates to the baptism of John the Baptist
before the introduction by Christ of the New Covenant. In all cases those baptised by John for repentance were
always rebaptised and did not, until their laying on of hands, have the power of the Spirit. The wars permitted
under the Old Covenant were, in the first place, to ensure the unhindered occupation of Canaan by Israel for two
reasons. Firstly, to replace a nation which had forfeited its right by disobedience and secondly, to safely
establish the biblical narrative and the plan of salvation.
Matthew 22:21 refers to the
tribute money and rendering unto Caesar all that is Caesar’s. Augustine attempts to infer that because the
tribute money was used to pay soldier’s wages then Christ was indirectly condoning war.
Matthew 8:9-10 refers to the
centurion who asked Christ to heal his servant. Because he was commended for his faith and he was not rebuked or
told to change his profession but rather the opportunity was taken to explain that there would be those chosen
not of Israel, this example is misused. There is no record of this man being baptised unless he was Cornelius at
The argument at Romans
13:1-6 requires submission to authority and the payment of taxes as a requirement of the faithful. The fact that those of
this world bear the sword and are raised by God does not mean the called or elect are to do the
Christ's response to Pilate
at John 18:36 was My Kingdom is not of this world. If it were my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by
the Jews. At verse 11 he had commanded Peter to put his sword away. From Pentecost it is not recorded
biblically or in the early Church records that any Apostle or elder ever bore arms or condoned it.
Augustine's argument stems from two
points. Firstly, he was an
Athanasian apostate who did not understand the plan of salvation and, secondly, the Athanasian faction (now
called Orthodox or Catholic) were attempting to rationalise their faith with their new found power; and doctrine
was adjusted accordingly.
Gregory was to adapt
Augustine's rationalisation to reconstitute a temporal and ecclesiastical empire under the supreme authority of
Gregory IX reiterated this
position which led to the doctrine of the status quo in that all states existed by the authority of Rome. When
this authority was withdrawn, it was seen that internal disorder generally eventuated, as all states were
released from oaths of allegiance.
The argument of
Just War Theory status quo is largely derived from this premise
of Pontifical Authority. Augustine’s, and Gregory's, justification of war worked
well while there was a common enemy or external threat to the empire (preferably heathen). By 1000 AD the empire
was expanding well in the establishing of Catholic hierarchies with the archbishoprics of Gniezno in Poland in
1000 and Gran in Hungary in 1001, and in 1018 the Byzantines occupied Bulgaria.
By 1031 Muslim Spain
fragmented with the dethroning of the last Caliph of Cordoba and in 1050 they were expelled from Sardinia. By
1092 the Almoravids had imposed their rule on southern Spain with only three independent emirs left. In 1094 El
Cid took Valencia. In 1095
Urban II proclaimed the Crusade which set
out from Constantinople in 1097. The historic demonstration of the argument of the status quo was
seen from the year 1041 with the occupation of Melfi by the Normans under Tancred d'Hauteville.
All feudal states in Europe relied on the church for smooth
running. The largest
feudal system ever created was the German or Holy Roman Empire. The incursion by the Normans of Melfi on the
Lombardy/Byzantine border in southern Italy was seen as a serious destabilising influence. An alliance of the
eastern Byzantine and western Holy Roman Empire together with the Pope attempted to crush them but were defeated
at Civitate and Leo IX was captured.
repercussions were to flow from this as the Pope blamed the Byzantines for his defeat. The result was the
East/West schism of 1054. As a result of the weakened position of the papacy, some internal reforms of the
church were forced. However, Nicholas II took the election of the papacy out of the hands of the clergy and the
people of Rome by declaring the Pope solely elected by the Cardinals. To restore stability in the authority
question he recognised the Normans, who by 1060 had conquered all southern Italy, and in 1061 removed the
Muslims from N.E. Sicily. The dispute over the appointment of bishops became of fundamental importance in this
question. A dispute erupted between Emperor Henry IV and Pope Gregory VII (Hildebrand) in 1076. After Henry's
excommunication, followed by surrender and penance in 1077, it finally resulted in Henry's occupation of Rome in
1084 and the election of Pope Clement III who crowned him. Hildebrand held out in the Castel San Angelo to be
later rescued by the Norman Robert Guiscard.
Far from being irrelevant
conquests and squabbles, these struggles were fundamental to the question of who established the status quo and
the legitimacy of state identity,
which was fundamental to Just War Theory.
Over the period coinciding
with the Norman expansion and from about 1066 a great upsurge in building and the creation of abbeys occurred.
From 1076 (at Salerno) the foundations were laid
for the establishment
of Universities. In 1098
Robert founded the Cistercians at Citeaux and the school of Dialectic was opened by William of Champeaux in
Paris in 1104 which commenced the university there. In 1107 the Synod of Westminster settled the appointment
of bishops controversy, in England, between Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, and Henry I with joint
investiture agreed. At this time also, city expansion commenced in western Europe and the Age of Reason (later
aided in 1210 by the founding of the Franciscans) was under way, although Abelard’s doctrines were condemned by
the Council of Sens in 1141. In 1115 Bernard founded the Abbey at Clairvaux. In 1122 the Concordat at Worms
between Pope Calixtus II and Henry V, the German or Holy Roman Emperor, settled the appointment of the clergy
question in Europe which whilst appearing to be a compromise was a defeat for the Empire which desperately
needed the exclusive loyalty of its clergy. With this decision the establishment of the states and the status
quo remained firmly within the papacy.
By 1158 Frederick
Barbarosa's recognition of student rights at Bologna marked the formal start of the university there and the
University of Paris emerged as a regulated body. By 1160-62 Henry the Lion Duke of Saxony conquered the
Wends of the Lower Elbe who were forced to accept Roman Catholicism and in 1164 the Swedish Archbishopric of
Upsala was founded.
With the establishment of a
relatively stable feudal state system under Roman Catholic domination with the subjugation of internal unrest
and external threat, two things occurred. Firstly, a population explosion and, secondly, an interest in
philosophy and science developed.
The conquest of the crusades
began to collapse, commencing in 1145 with Turkish reconquest of Edessa and Saladin's annihilation of the Army
of Jerusalem in 1187. The situation caused the Pope to introduce new crusades headed by the Kings of England and
France, i.e. Richard Lionheart and Phillip II.
An interesting reaction to
the new situation was that of a spirit of intolerance which arose in Europe. The Church of God had established
itself in Southern France, Spain and to some extent Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ukraine in the east.
Keeping the same festivals as the original Jewish Church, it was identified with the Jews. In 1182 Phillip II
issued an edict banning all Jews from France. The south was composed of either English fiefs or lands claimed by
them and consequently the church, called Albigensian, was still occupying the areas of Toulouse, Languedoc,
Gevaudan and parts of Provence and Guyenne becoming a repository for the banished "Jews" as did Spain and later
In 1208, the year that saw
OxfordUniversity in existence, Innocent III
called for a crusade against these heretics. The sect called Cathars (i.e. Cathari or Puritans) had sprung up in the same areas
and it was their alleged practices which led to the justification for the crusade.
In 1226 Louis VII took
Avignon as part of the crusade and there were a series of papal edicts issued relating to the justification for
the crusade and the conduct of the crusade. In 1229 the crusade ended with the French crown annexing Languedoc
and the Inquisition established in Toulouse. Originally Benedictine controlled, the establishment of the
Dominicans at Toulouse in 1215 to combat this heresy saw them assume control of the Inquisition.
Under the Dominicans, the Inquisition reached new heights of
perversion, sadism and avarice.
The extending of the
university system to Cambridge
in 1213 and
Padua in 1222 (from Bologna) saw a philosophical rationalisation of theories of Justification of War and of
crusades and heretical suppression by the church. The church
became drunk on the blood of the saints.
The absurdities of Just War
authority was highlighted by the conflict between Gregory IX and Emperor Frederick II, when Gregory
excommunicated Frederick for not going on a crusade in 1227, for going on a crusade in 1228 and for recovering
Jerusalem, without papal permission in 1229.
In 1241 the Mongols invaded
Poland and Hungary. They withdrew on receiving news of the death of Ogadai Khan, but the defeat of Henry of
Silesia at Liegnitz and Bela IV of Hungary at Mohi created some uncertainty.
The proliferation of the
centres of learning and inquiry, and the philosophical problems of the legitimate pursuit of war were raising
serious questions amongst churchmen and the philosophical and ethical questions raised by the Albig(h)ensian
crusade and the establishment of the Inquisition required explanation.
In order to rescue the
Church of Rome from its philosophical dilemma,Thomas Aquinas, as one of its leading dogmatists, was prompted to take
Augustine's works and pose a series of inquiries. The answers to the points of inquiry at Question 40 on War
were fundamental to Just War Theory for Athanasian Christians and hence the Western world.
of inquiry are:
1. Are some wars
2. May clerics engage in
3. May belligerents use
4. May war be waged on
In answering the first
point, Aquinas demonstrates clearly but not exhaustively that it is always sin to wage
war on the following grounds:
a. It is proscribed by God
with the punishment specified, vis. all who live by the sword shall die by the sword (Matthew 26: 52).
b. It goes against the
divine commands of Scripture. The example Aquinas uses is from Matthew 5: 39 where Christ does away with the
doctrine of an eye for an eye and states:
but I say unto you, do
not resist one who is evil But if anyone strikes thee on the right cheek turn to him the other
This is also echoed by Paul
in his letter to the Corinthians (at 2Cor. 11:20).
For you bear it if a man makes slaves of you or takes advantage of you or put on airs or strikes you in the face
(although he himself was too weak for that).
This point was made after
the point that Satan poses as an
angel of light and his
servants disguise themselves as servants of righteousness (verse 12-15). This text is
very relevant to this whole question of war and the redress of wrongs.
2Corinthians 11:12-21 12 And what I do I will continue to do, in
order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same
terms as we do. 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful
workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 And no
wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15
So it is not strange if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will
correspond to their deeds. 16 I repeat, let no one think me
foolish; but even if you do, accept me as a fool, so that I too may boast a little. 17 (What I am saying I say not with the Lord's authority but as a fool, in this
boastful confidence; 18 since many boast of worldly things, I too
will boast.) 19 For you gladly bear with fools, being wise
yourselves! 20 For you bear it if a man makes slaves of you, or
preys upon you, or takes advantage of you, or puts on airs, or strikes you in the face. 21 To my shame, I must say, we were too weak for that!
Again at Romans 12:19
Beloved, never avenge
yourselves but leave it to the wrath of God. For it is written vengeance is mine I will repay, says the
c. Anything contrary to
virtue is a sin. As war is contrary to peace it is therefore always a sin.
d. In the fourth point,
Aquinas draws on current church practice, which outlaws war tournaments and denies victims ecclesiastical
burial. Consequently if practising for war is wrong then the act itself is therefore plainly wrong.
Despite a clear case,
Aquinas then goes on to rationalise the position by reference to a number of philosophies commencing with
Augustine's misinterpretation of Luke 3:14 relating to the fact that John did not tell the soldiers to lay down
their arms but rather to do violence to no man. As we have seen, this was under the Old Covenant and
Christ laid specific instructions, which Augustine ignored.
His reply to this point is
based on the fact that the civil worldly powers allowed by God are to be obeyed as they wield the sword as the
servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. Whilst denied to the individual, groups of Christians may
exercise civil power with resort to arms.
The objection to this is that Christ's comments in John 18:36 that his kingship
was not of this world clearly precludes this interpretation of Aquinas and Augustine. In order to circumvent
this objection it was necessary for Gregory and the church to declare the Kingdom of God on this earth in
the form of the Roman Church and Empire, and the papacy as the Vicar of Christ.
This argument is fatuous on
the following grounds;
Firstly, Daniel 2:44 shows
that in the last days of the ten kings, the God of Heaven will set up a Kingdom which shall never be destroyed.
It shall break in pieces those kingdoms, bringing them to an end. The comment is that the sovereignty will not
be left to another people. The stone is Christ and
all of these kingdoms spoken of will be brought to an end forever. The fact that there is a
multiplicity of warring nations continually extant defeats the Roman argument.
Secondly, the comments in
Revelation indicate a Millennium of 1,000 years which Rome attempted to appropriate and Aquinas no doubt
accepted as being the period expected to end at 1590 with judgment and the resurrection. As we know, 1590 passed
without such an event and with it the argument. Revelation has been rearranged and reinterpreted to accommodate
Catholic theory as has Daniel 2 and 11 been conveniently ignored. Aquinas’ reply in the first inquiry is
therefore irrelevant to Christianity and his three requirements are purely philosophical speculations of a
worldly nature symptomatic of an apostate cleric.
His three necessary points for the conduct of a Just War
1. The authority of the
sovereign on whose command war is waged (in that the power to counsel and declare war belongs to those in
2. A just cause is required.
From Augustine it is ascribed as one which avenges wrongs, either in punishing states which refuse to make
amends for outrages done by its subjects or to restore what it has seized injuriously.
This point is so totally
against the sentiments expressed by Christ at Matthew 5:38-42 that one must marvel at the duplicity of Aquinas
in stating it.
38 “You have heard that it was said, `An eye for an eye and a
tooth for a tooth.' 39 But I say to you, Do not resist one
who is evil.But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him
the other also; 40and if any one
would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; 41 and if any one
forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give
to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you.” (RSV)
The relevance in engaging in
war to redress wrongs assumes some control over the size and nature of war or that the seizure of property is to
be greater than that estimated to be lost in the war. History has shown this premise to be totally erroneous as
indeed it demonstrably was when Aquinas wrote it. Its intent was to justify (along with the third premise) the
conduct of the religious internal and external crusades.
3. The right intention.
Participants must intend to promote the good and to avoid evil. Aquinas restates Augustine's argument
Among true worshippers of
God those wars are looked on as peacemaking which are waged neither from aggrandisement nor cruelty, but with
the object of securing peace, or repressing evil and supporting the good.
Aquinas allows that wars can
have the first two requirements yet still be wrong because of perverse intention. Augustine's consideration of
intent and conduct are used as exclusions of this category thus Jus in Bello considerations collectively held or
held by the power can be Jus ad Bellum criteria.
Augustine's argument is that
to draw the sword is to arm oneself or to spill blood without command or permission of superior or lawful
authority. Aquinas argues from this that use of the sword by authorities of the sovereign; or a public person in
zeal for justice is by the authority, so to speak, of God and is therefore not
He accounts for the fact
that even those who use it sinfully are not always slain but they will always die by the sword since they
will be punished eternally for their sinful use of it unless they repent.
Aquinas' argument here has
no biblical basis, indeed it is contrary to Scripture and is certainly the product of a worldly
Aquinas' second Article of
Inquiry is whether it is lawful for clerics and bishops to fight.
In dealing with this premise
he uses the authority of Gregory (Hom in Ev XIV) and that of Leo IV who ordered clerics to meet the Saracens. He
also makes a major premise in the theory of condonation of offences when he introduces at objection 3 that
according to Romans 1:32 They who do such things are worthy of death, and not only they that do them, but
they also that consent to them that do them. Those, above all who seem to consent to a thing, are those that
induce others to do it. As Adrian induced Charles to go to war with the Lombards by this precedent they are also
allowed to fight. It would seem here that Aquinas argues that the inducing of others is not only condonation but
also consenting participation by logical extension. Indeed this is what must be deduced from it.
At objection 4 Aquinas
condones the concept of the crusade or Holy War on the sanction of patristic literature but rightly quotes
Christ at Matthew 26:52 instructing Peter to put up again thy sword into the scabbard, (the
Vulgate has its place although scabbard is from John 18:11).
It is in this premise that
Aquinas introduces the concept of non-combatants on the premise of importance of task. War is forbidden to a
cleric on the premise that it is of secular nature (from 2Tim. 2:14 where Aquinas paraphrases Paul's comments).
He further decrees that all who shed blood become irregular and, therefore, clerics would be rendered unfit for
their primary duty as war is directed to the shedding of blood. On these grounds any who are called to the
faith, ministry or not, would be precluded, but Aquinas does not address this point.
He mentions that the
Prelates are precluded on the grounds that the weapons
available to them are spiritualas stated by Paul at 2Corinthians 10:4 The weapons of
our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God. For a cleric of Aquinas' ability to argue that clerics
are precluded from warfare by this text and argue elsewhere that the laity is allowed to engage in warfare is
absurd. The previous verse states For though we walk in the flesh we do not war after the flesh. Verse 4
was also cut short by Aquinas and includes to the pulling down of strongholds.
2Corinthians 10:4 for the
weapons of our warfare are not worldly but have divine
power to destroy strongholds. (RSV)
Aquinas argues also from
Joshua 6:4 that clerics are permitted to accompany troops in battle but not to engage. He also asserts that it
is the duty of clerics to depose and counsel other men to engage in Just Wars but are forbidden to take up arms,
not as though it were a sin but because such an occupation is unbecoming their personality.
He also asserts that
although it is meritous to wage a Just War it is rendered unlawful for clerics on the same grounds as marriage
becomes reprehensible in those who have vowed virginity.
Whilst tedious, the examples
quoted above are useful in coming to grips with the sort of mind required to rationalise the absolute conflicts
that arise from the positions adopted by the church between the fourth and thirteenth century. These very premises occupy man’s thinking
and have distorted his attitudes almost beyond rectification.
The application of immunity
from battle and the role of non-combatant stem directly from Aquinas. From his arguments, it is perfectly
reasonable to hold that all clerics should be instantly shot as the subject of intensive military operation on
the grounds of argued culpability greater than the participants. His doctrine allows the argument of systematic
extermination from this and the following grounds of all clerics who argue for a Just War.
Aquinas’ third article shows
clearly why war leads to subterfuge and deception in his example Ambushes and that this directly
contravenes biblical law (e.g. Mat. 7:12). In what is probably the most laughable of rationalisations this
cleric justifies secrecy in campaigning, not on grounds of practicality but by Matthew 7:6 Give not that
which is holy to dogs. Further, it is argued from Augustine (QQ in Heptateuch, qu X super jos), provided
the war be just it is no concern of justice whether it be carried on openly or by ambushes, proving this
from Joshua 8:2.
Joshua 8:2 and you shall do
to Ai and its king as you did to Jericho and its king; only its spoil and its cattle you shall take as booty for
yourselves; lay an ambush against the city, behind it. (RSV)
Aquinas demonstrates why
ambush contravenes principles of holy and good conduct yet overturns his objection on the most tenuous of
We therefore develop from
this that in Just War Theory there are no limits to deception or propaganda. Aquinas argues, however,
that there are limitations to deception. Deceiving the enemy through false statement or by breaking promises are
in breach of the rights of war and covenants which ought to be observed. This is derived from Ambrose (De Offic
1). The total inoperability of the sentiments and the conflict of Aquinas' position are evident.
Aquinas argues from
Apocryphal writing (1Maccabees ch. 41) that it is lawful to fight on holy days. Perhaps this is why this erroneous writing is included in the
He is aware of the censure
of Isaiah at 18:3 of smiting with the fist, etc. on fast days but confuses these with Sabbaths. In the most
extraordinary piece of rationalisation one would have thought him capable, he justified, from John 7:23, that
because Christ healed on the Sabbath it was therefore permissible that they should also tear each other in
pieces on the Sabbath to protect the common weal of the faithful because not to fight would be to
Catholic doctrine became
dependent on the rationalisation of this cleric and at the Council of Trent the Summa Theologica was
elevated along with the patristic writings and Bulls to equality with Holy Scripture as the three pillars of the
Catholic faith (see Catholic Encyclopedia article St. Thomas).
From these writings the
codification of Just War Theory emerged in the Bull Unam Sanctam [Latin - The One Holy (i.e. The
Church)]. Issued on 18 November 1302 during the dispute with Phillip the Fair it arises from the Roman Council
of October 1302 and was incorporated in the Corpus juris canonici and thus is established as definitive canon
law on the subject of authority and force.
The main dogmatic assertions
concern the unity and necessity of belonging to the church and the position of Pope as supreme head and the duty
arising therefrom of submission to him for salvation. This position is held to emphasise the higher importance
of the spiritual in relation to the secular.
The main propositions of the Bull are:
Firstly, unity of the church
and the necessity to belong to it are derived by reference to the one ark of the flood and to the seamless
garment of Christ. As there is unity of the body so there is unity of the head in the Pope as successor to St
Peter, i.e. he who is not subject to the Pope denies he is Christ's sheep. This position is in total opposition to
the doctrines of the New Testament church and its structure, and NT prophecy, specifically Revelation
chapters 2 and 3.
Second, the following four
principles and conclusion emanate from the Bull:
1. Under the control of the
church are two swords i.e. two powers which is an expression of the medieval theory of the two swords, the
spiritual and the secular. This is substantiated by the customary reference to the swords of the Apostles at the
arrest of Christ (Lk. 22:38 & Mat. 26:52).
Luke 22:38 And they said,
"Look, Lord, here are two swords." And he said to them, "It is enough." (RSV)
Matthew 26:52 Then Jesus
said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.
2. Both swords are held to
be in the power of the church, the spiritual wielded by the hands of the clergy and the secular to be employed
for the church by the hands of the civil authority but under direction of the spiritual power (this answers
perfectly Revelation 13:15).
Revelation 13:15 and it was
allowed to give breath to the image of the beast so that the image of the beast should even speak, and to cause
those who would not worship the image of the beast to be slain. (RSV)
3. The one sword must be
subordinate to the other, the civil power must submit to the spiritual which has precedence because of its
greatness and sublimity having also the right to guide and establish the secular power, having power of
judgment over it when it does not act rightly. An earthly power is judged by a spiritual authority, which in
turn is judged by the highest spiritual authority (the papacy) which in turn is judged by God. (It is seen from this that Just War authority is rigidly feudal or
4. The authority, although
granted to and exercised by man, is divine and granted to Peter by divine commission and confirmed in him and
his successors. Whoever opposes this power ordained of God opposes the law of God and, like a Manichean (who
hold a dualist theology), to accept two principles. Now therefore we declare, say, determine and pronounce
that for every human creature it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman
From the declaration on the
margin of the text of the record the last sentence is noted as the real definition of the Bull. Declaratio
quod subesse Romano Pontifici est omni humanœ creaturœ de necessitate salutis (tr. it is here
stated that for salvation it is necessary that every human creature be subject to the authority of the Roman
This has been the constant
teaching of the church and it was declared in the same sense by the Fifth œcumenical council of the Lateran in
1516. ... The Bull also proclaims the subjection of the secular power to the spiritual as the one higher in rank
and draws from it the conclusion that the representatives of the spiritual power can install the possessors of
secular authority and exercise judgement over their administration ...
This is a fundamental
principle, which had grown out of the entire development in the early Middle Ages of the central position of the
papacy in the Christian national family of Western Europe. It has been expressed from the eleventh century by
theologians like Bernard of Clairvaux and John of Salisbury, and by popes like Nicholas II and Leo IX. Boniface
VIII gave it precise expression in opposing the procedure of the French King. The main propositions are drawn
from the writings of St Bernard, Hugo of St Victor, St Thomas Aquinas and letters of Innocent III.
The Bull and the Canonical
position derive from the actual conditions of medieval Western Europe (Catholic Encyclopaedia (1912), article Unam Sanctam, pp.
It is therefore
demonstrated exhaustively from the above that the Just War
position is a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Churchand is evolved
from a justification of its external conquests and expansion and its internal bigoted
From 590 to 1850, for 1260
years, this power attempted to achieve world domination by whatever means at its disposal, both civil and
theological, permeating every aspect of law and society, exercising ultimate power and control. By terror and repression, justified by philosophical and biblical
rationalisation, it became a
whoregorged on its
internal minorities and drunk with the blood of the saints and martyrs (Rev. 17:6).
With the Reformation of the
seventeenth century the reformers sought to codify its ethical conduct while renouncing the papacy and found
itself in extreme philosophical and historical contradiction.
In relation to Just War
Theory it follows, without the authority of Rome, the doctrine of the Status quo has no meaning.
Certainly it is open to attack along the simplistic line of Stalin (vis. How many divisions has the
Pope?) and of Napoleon (God is on the side of the big battalions). The doctrine exists only so far as
nations recognise and restrict themselves to it.
Because of this inherent
problem the nations and leaders have sought to replace Rome with a secular world authority and the current
movement for a World Government is gathering momentum supported by Middle Europe whose nations see a
revival of the Holy Roman Empire of European world domination. This new United States of Europe was scheduled to
come together in 1992 as a complete functioning state. 1990 saw the Warsaw Pact disintegrate.
The United Kingdom ratified
the Single European Act of 1986 and ceded authority to the European Parliament in effect doing away with the
rights of the monarchy and the absolute sovereignty of the British people (the details are in T. C Hartley,
Foundation of European Community Law, Oxford, 1981 and show the
development from the Treaty of Rome leading up to this event). England has so bound itself to the European
system under the Treaty of Rome that internal political reorganisation may only be possible legally by
succession from Europe which of itself can be declared illegal by Europe and could justify invasion on the grounds of Just War Theory as
Under the doctrines established by canon law, world peace is impossible unless Europe and Rome achieve total world
domination exercising full civil and ecclesiastical power. History has shown that when it is considered achievable Europe
and Rome will act to realise this aim. Thus historically Just War Theory can only be seen as a tool
of European Athanasian Christian self-justification for its religio-political ambitions. This doctrine applies
equally to modern Islamic Hadithic doctrine and to Marxist-Leninist ideology. The current attempts at superimposing
Marxist ideology on Roman Theology in South America is seen as a way of fusing two of these three groups. The new
age religious movement is another facet of this syncretic amalgam for world authority and hence established power
structures, which justify the status quo.
The Book of Revelation shows, by allegory, how this historical sequence is to come
to pass. It shows the sequence of cause and effect commencing with the first horseman of the Apocalypse: that
religion, which arms
itself with the bow and seeks to conquer setting off a chain reaction which was to span over 1,400 years and
ultimately lead to the establishment of a world government, which, given total power, persecutes those who are
in its power, and are not of it, until it is
overthrown by the return of Christ. Philosophers, of course, dismiss the religious aspects of
the argument and seek to make some sense of the arguments on the merits and hence fail to come to grips with its
aims and parameters.
Modern Just War Theory
follows closely the considerations laid down by Catholic theologians. The conditions are:
4. Peaceful aim
a. The good to be achieved
should outweigh the harm done
b. You should not use
excessive means to accomplish your ends
6. Possibility of
Proportionality conditions are invariably exceeded in the ensuing hostilities as they increase. The Holy War
traditions are supposedly opposed to the body of Just War Theory but as has been demonstrated Just War Theory
developed as a justification for Holy War and religious persecution.
philosophers are in a serious predicament. Given the perverted nature of the biblical
rationalisations involved in the premises of Just War Theory espoused by Rome, they are left with few
alternatives. The alternatives are chiefly that of pacifism or similar perversion or of
While war was relatively
unsophisticated, this was of itself somewhat harmless. However, the escalation of war in its modern phases from
1860 with the American Civil War into the wars of the twentieth century has shown the absurdity of the concepts
of Just War Theory limitations. From Clauswitz, we have seen modern war explained in terms, which shows its
tendency to totality and extremes of destruction. If it is an act of violence pushed to its utmost
bounds, then, given the capacity to destroy the world as we know it, war must be seen
as an act of insanity of the ultimate kindwhere humanity
and all life would be destroyed.
The modern limitations
placed upon it are, in a sense, the highest form
of gambling. Morality is
seen as having no place in international relations being for domestic consumption. Indeed morality is seen as
being dangerous in these considerations and the interest of the state is seen as the only moral consideration.
It is for this reason that both biblical and secular power looks to unified world government. Biblical argument does away with nations
at Christ’s return. Some political leaders espouse world government. The assumption that world
government will eliminate war is held true and the cost to individual liberty ignored. The end result
will be mass extermination.
In the slow evolution of war
as a political tool we have seen the slow elimination of considerations of honour and sentiment or morality.
Somehow these considerations are always sacrificed on the altar of success, practicality and efficiency.
Efficiency of action is paramount and invariably the doctrine of the end justifies the means
From these considerations
the tendency towards the absolutes will always outstrip the bounds or restrictions placed upon it. Its tendency
to the absolute will render it liable to get out of control and therefore subvert its political
Limited war is only possible
when one side is not threatened with total defeat and has supremacy in weapons to the point of controlling its
destiny. Where two nations are locked equally in war, they are only limited by their technology and some agreed
restrictions on Jus in Bello considerations. The case of chemical warfare is an example, although
the wars in the Middle East show that previously held assumptions about these considerations are
War has a demonstrated end
result and will always tend to the extreme. The causes are deeply rooted in erroneous religious considerations
or philosophical considerations, which justify the taking of human life and the enforcement of religious or
ideological belief to extermination of non violent or minority groups. A fundamentalist Christian will argue
that it is not permissible to fight even in defence of one's nation and life and some philosophers tend to claim
that defensive operations are the only permissible acts under Just War Theory. It seems therefore
that even this is false.
Non violent action seems
only to work where the ruling power is bound by constraints, which allow it to succeed. In the case of India, by
a legal system which guaranteed the participants a form of legal framework within which to operate. It is
doubtful if Ghandi would have been as successful against Hitler for example.
Similarly, it cannot be
argued that Jus in Bello considerations rest on any other premise than what participants agree to be
reasonable standards of conduct at the time. However, there is no absolute rationality to them. Indeed, having
once embarked on a course of war, modern warfare renders such conditions untenable and ultimately enforceable
only by supremacy of arms.
Just War Theory
is as untenablenow as it was
when the Roman clerics developed it to justify an unbridled lust for world domination, power and
wealth.Membership of a body or
world organisation is totally unnecessary for salvation. The doctrine that the Church is a corporate or physical
structure or organisation, membership of which is necessary to salvation, is a heresy. It is an even greater
heresy when it preaches contrary to God’s laws. The head of every
man is Christ and the head of Christ is God (1Cor. 11:3). The elect of Christ will follow him
everywhere he goes. The 144,000 follow him from their sealing. They are not defiled by church systems. They move
with Christ, the pillar of Fire and Cloud (see Rev. 14:1-5).
horseman of Revelation or the Apocalypse, that of false religion, was released from the Councils of the early
Church. It established and
set in motion the second
horseman of war. When the 1,260 years had been completed, the false religious system had alienated the
world. It had divided it into armed camps and established a military system that set off the chain events of
revolution and modern warfare. Commencing with the American Civil War, the first of the modern wars, it
developed into the wars of the twentieth century. Coupled with the technology of war is that of the materialism
of the military industrial complex. The third and fourth horsemen are unleashed and follow from the first two.
The forthcoming Third World War and the subsequent wars will kill over two thirds of the planet. Pray fervently
"Thy kingdom come".
(Copyright 1995, 1999 Wade
Cox: The papers on this site
may be freely copied and distributed provided they are copied in total with no alterations or deletions. The
publisher's name and address and the copyright notice must be included. No charge may be levied on recipients of
distributed copies. Brief quotations may be embodied in critical articles and reviews without breaching
copyright. PO Box 369 Woden, ACT 2606 Australia; PO Box 45 Rockton Ontario LOR 1XO Canada. Web
sites: http://www.logon.org and
The URL of this page is: