However, you need to add the word "unjustly". See Calvin's exact words. In other words, an unrighteous attack upon your person, your family (parent, child, wife), or your neighbor may be counter-attacked and still be "just", even if that counter-attack results in the death of the original attacker. Furthermore, the principle may be extended to a military situation where men are operating under compunction of authority. This is why Augustine counseled that the Bible is against "malatia" (hatred) but not against "militia".

Great points you make, and I particularly like the way Calvin phrases his statement; for that which is required to be just is again returned to the Lord who is entirely just and from whom comes all justice.

God previously alluded to the undesirability of murder back in Genesis 9:6 when he said "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image."

I wonder if we can more usefully interpret #6 by looking backwards to that statement in Genesis 9:6, for it describes neither killing no murder but the underlying action of the shedding of blood. The shedding of blood in itself carries with it no concept of justice or injustice, but is rather a prohibition on a certain action.

Thanks again for your very instructive comments.

As for killing, let's look at the the 6th Commandment which is best translated "thou shalt not murder"… not "kill". See these googled links: http://www.biblestudy.org/question/what-does-thou… or http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/notkill…. or http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nokilling.html John Calvin, whom I think we both honor, said that the commandment means "that we should not unjustly do violence to anyone".

I find your thoughts on this fascinating. The question here is not whether one kills with God's aid, but whether one is justified in killing at all without God's explicit permission. The default position of scripture is clearly not to kill others, and so can we move away from that based upon human argument, or should we remain within it at all costs and respond by prayerful petition to God to either instruct us or resolve the situation?

Note that the English language is the product of a number of successful invasions of what you now call England; and that it is spoken by you in the USA is the product of yet another successful invasion by a foreign force. It would be horrendously short-sighted to condemn the German invasion of Europe without also condemning all former invasions whether successful or unsuccessful.

We are happy with the concept that the German invasion was illegal, and that those lands which were captured had to be returned to their former inhabitants. Yet, we are unhappy with the concept that the American invasion was illegal, and that all of North America should be returned to the indigenous peoples. On what basis do we decide it was OK to overrule the sovereign right of the American Indigenous peoples but not for Hitler to overrule the sovereign rights of parts of Europe? If one is wrong, then so is the other. If one should rightfully be reversed, then so should the other.

The American Indigenous peoples are forced to accept most of their lands being seized and occupied, and the continued rule of a foreign government, because they are too weak and isolated to repel the white invaders; yet parts of Europe are somehow right and entitled to roll back German rule because they are stronger and have strong allies?

The only Biblical examples of this kind of restraint and prayer are when God wants to demonstrate His own power apart from that of the arms of men… the Walls of Jericho, David and Goliath, etc.

Speaking of God's sovereignty, I was just thinking that we would probably be speaking German today instead of English if the Japanese had not bombed Pearl Harbor. That doesn't make WWII into a "holy war" for America, but it does justify its decision to go to war… and what a difference it made.