Like Dave, I believe in providence and that we are responsible agents. However, I disagree that this has anything to do with fighting off an intruder. I can safely assume that most here would not lie, or commit adultery, or steal to spare themselves or their family from suffering. We will not do these things because we believe God has removed these options for us as Christians. I believe that peace and non-violence are also taught by Jesus in the Gospels in a clear way. Since I have incorporated this value, violence is yet one more possible but disallowed option for me. Since even a casual reading of the NT shows that suffering is part of a godly life I should not violate Jesus' command of love and peace to spare myself or my loved ones. Of course everything in me would want to spare my family from suffering but to what lengths am I willing to go to do this?
So I really don't see the providence vs. moral agent as relevant here. What is relevant is whether you believe peace and non-violence is central to the gospel. If not, beating an intruder in self-defense is a clear and reasonable option. If yes, obedience demands a non-violent solution. Many of the martyrs of the past prayed as their accusers dragged them off to certain death. It seems that these peace-loving 'charismatics' who would pray in the face of danger are in good company historically.
As for the swords, the text itself does not tell us what their purpose is. People seem happy to see these as defensive weapons, but the text does not say that. For all we know, Jesus intended them to be used to cut firewood (like a machete). Where the text is silent, we should exercise caution lest confuse our rational understanding with what the text is saying.
