St. Augustine is the most commonly known inventor of the just war theory, which is that war is sometimes justified if the outcome is peace, but did any other early church father other than St. Augustine believe and affirm the doctrine of the just war theory?

In light of the conflict between Ukraine and the Russian Federation, a number of countries, including those with significant catholic and Protestant populations (as well as Christians in their respective parliaments) have allowed for the transfer of military aid to Ukraine.* Is there any basis for, or against, aiding others in conflict, whether the combatants are Christian or not? I ask this as I've previously come across the concept of "Just War", but have been struggling to find anything related to the in-direct support of war. *I may use the example of recent conflict, but I'm aware that there are also numerous historical examples of countries with notable Christian populations and Heads of State that supported conflict, but were not directly involved in the conflict by sending soldiers.

Just really a question of curiosity on how the faith has, at times, turned down the wrong path of aggression and violence, specifically wondering what passages of the New Testament were used as justification for such action.

I've often heard from skeptics of Christianity, "Look at the many atrocities done in the name of Jesus in places like the Crusades. How can you claim that Jesus is loving?" I know that these claims are preposterous. Look at all the many more wonderful good works done in Jesus' name! But that's beside the point. The Old Testament often speaks of wartime and killing those who occupied Israel in ancient times, but war is rarely mentioned in the literal sense in the New Testament. What is an overview of Assemblies of God / Pentecostal views of killing in war, or of war in general?

I'm asking in the context of the Catholic Church's doctrines on just war and self-defense. 1. Is it justifiable to kill an innocent person in order to prevent a greater evil, with no other practical alternatives available in the situations described below? 2. Is there any difference with intentionally killing innocent people and allowing innocent people to die to prevent a greater evil such as in World War II when the Allies didn't want the Germans to know that Enigma had been broken? Context: My question was heavily edited but was primarily motivated by warfare and espionage wherein sometimes double agents have to kill innocent people or allow innocent people to die in order to maintain their cover because their mission is crucial in the sense that a lot more people will die. I don't see how them doing that is any different from ending an ectopic pregnancy on the former case in this passage from Wikipedia : > advocates of double effect typically consider the intentional terror > bombing of non-combatants having as its goal victory in a legitimate > war morally out of bounds, while holding as ethically in bounds an act > of strategic bombing that similarly harms non-combatants with > foresight but without intent as a side effect of destroying a > legitimate military target Of course double agents will usually do everything in their power to minimize the loss of innocent lives by convincing their false superiors to take hostages or to tolerate in some way, but if there's no other practical alternative, why not kill innocent people? It's not like you intend to do it like what terrorists do. It's something you have to do in the while being undercover in the enemy camp (it could be a drug gang or terrorist group). Thought about it more and it seems that you're actually being forced or blackmailed by the enemy. So really, it's like they're killing the innocent people. I think what's important here is intention. No double agent intends for innocent people to be killed. Those innocent people are collateral damage. Terrorists incorrectly use the term "collateral damage" since they intend for innocent people to be killed. I'm going to give some examples: 1. In Harry Potter, Snape kills Dumbledore in order to prove to Voldemort that Snape is not loyal to Dumbledore. This is extremely critical in the plot to defeat Voldemort. There are no practical alternatives and not doing so leads to a lot more death and suffering if Voldemort comes to power. It's not really something Snape does out of his own free will. Voldemort intends to kill Dumbledore so Snape is forced. 2. In a thriller I saw, the protagonist, who was with legitimate authority, had to shoot her partner in order to prove to the drug dealers that she was not working with the legitimate authority. If the protagonist refuses, the protagonist, her partner and countless others will die, and the drug dealers will succeed in their drug dealing. Again, it's not really something the protagonist does out of her own free will. The drug dealers intend to kill her partner so the protagonist is forced. Are they not forced? Is there a really a choice to make?

> The ends justify the means. - attributed (perhaps unjustly ) to Niccolo Machiavelli Christian proponents of Just War Theory would surely reject the quote above as being entirely antithetical to their doctrine, but are no doubt committed to 'doing something'* in response to the spread of evil. With these things in mind, how do they formulate an appropriate response to a foe that does not share their inhibitions in terms of means used? For example in asymmetrical warfare , insurgents who utilize terror tactics will often be aware of the principles that their enemy operates under and will exploit them for maximum effect - utilizing human shields , booby-trapping corpses, or using children to carry explosives etc. - what are the relevant principles that ensure that a Just War can continue to be prosecuted both **justly** and **effectively** in the face of tactics such as these and not sacrifice one at the expense of the other? Which, if any, scripture references are used to support these principles? ***edit:*** I believe many of the down-votes to this question are a result of misunderstanding the intent of the question. I apologize for any lack of clarity about this and have edited the title in response to feedback to hopefully make the intent of the question clearer. Further clarification of what I am trying to acheive with this question can be gained by considering the counterpart question (linked below) addressed to Christian Pacifists. Further description of who this question is addressed to can be found in the 'Chrisitan Proponents' linked Q & A. ---------- *This is a reference to the quote of Edmund Burke in the counterpart question to this one : > The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Which sects of Christianity are support the idea of "Just War"? What are the arguments that they give that support this view? How do they see their views on this issue being related to the Bible?