Jumpstarter 8 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 8

The lesson argues there is “no just war theology” in Old or New Testament or the first 300 years of the church, and that “just war” develops with Ambrose/Augustine; how should that historical claim affect the level of confidence modern Christians have when they call a present war “biblical” or “just”?

Another way to ask: If “just war” wasn’t taught in the Bible or the early church but developed later, how sure should Christians be when they call a war today “biblical” or “just”?

Direct Answer Dean’s claim should drastically lower our confidence: calling a modern war “biblical” rests on something he says is not clearly taught in Scripture and wasn’t articulated for centuries, meaning Christians should be cautious and humble, not triumphal.

Support from Transcript:

Dean explicitly states: “There is no just war theology in the Old Testament. None in the New Testament. None in the early Christian church.”
He argues conservatives “pretend like there was some sort of unchanging just war concept through the Bible,” but “it’s just not what you find.”
He distinguishes “holy war” (wars directly commanded by God) from later “just war” theory (principles humans apply): “There’s holy war… there’s no just war teaching.”
In the Boston debate clip, the theologians concede just war is at best “implicit,” and Dean presses that this is a “4,000-year gap.”
He dates just war’s development: “until the 400s… St. Ambrose and St. Augustine,” and warns Christians have fought “in the name of God… all for a theology that is… ‘implied.’”

Discussion Follow-ups What would it look like to stop using confident spiritual labels (“God told us,” “biblical war”) and instead speak the way Dean does—recognizing God’s sovereignty while refusing to justify Christian violence?

Jumpstarter 8 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 8 of 10