WWJD

[highnote]

I couldn't think of a better Subject heading so I chose WWJD.

This is NOT an attack post. I'm just looking for someone to give some opinions.

I know that in the Old Testament killing and waging war was acceptable under certain circumstances. What does the New Testament have to say about killing (not murder) and waging war?

The reason I ask is that I was given a wristband from a member of my church with "WWJD" printed on it. She said it stands for "What Would Jesus Do".

So I ask myself, "What would Jesus do if someone came to his town and killed (murdered?) over 2,000 people like NYC experienced on 9/11?" I don't know the answer, but didn't he say "Turn the other cheek"?

So I'm still struggling with the whole idea of invading Iraq. Because I ask myself "Would Jesus do that?"


To summarize:

What does the New Testament say about killing and waging war?

and

Would Jesus wage war on Iraq? (Maybe this is not the best question. Maybe a better one is "Would Jesus approve of wagering war on Iraq (or Afganistan, etc.)."

I sincerely thank you for your thoughts.

Regards,
John Swetye

[so.cal.fan]

How many people have died needlessly throughout history because they or their killers were convinced God was on their side?

[Buckeye]

Let me put it this way . . .

We're apes !

Get it straight in your head.

Just like it's always been, it will either be them or us.

Magic has nothing to do with it nor does Jesus Christ.

I am such an "idiot"

Sure I am.

[highnote]

Originally posted by so.cal.fan
How many people have died needlessly throughout history because they or their killers were convinced God was on their side?

I think the key word you used is "convinced". There are 3 types of beliefs: Opinions; beliefs; convictions.

Opinions are like a table with three legs -- easily knocked over. Opinions can be changed.

Beliefs are a little stronger than opinions. Not so easily changed.

Convictions are beliefs that can not be changed. It doesn't matter if the conviction is true or false. The person with the conviction thinks it's true.

When two peoples come together with opposing convictions they are bound to clash.

[highnote]

Originally posted by Buckeye
Let me put it this way . . .

We're apes !

Get it straight in your head.

Just like it's always been, it will either be them or us.

Magic has nothing to do with it nor does Jesus Christ.

I am such an "idiot"

Sure I am.

Buckeye,
Thanks for your reply.

You might be right that we're apes. I know a lot of born again Christians whose convictions are otherwise. Their conviction is that Evolution is false.

The part I don't understand is that if they live by the Bible and obviously put a lot of faith in the New Testament, how do they (or any Christian) justify war?

It just seems to me that this is against everything Jesus taught.

Can anyone else add some more to help me understand this paradox?

Thanks again.
John

[so.cal.fan]

I'm not a Christian, but I sure respect something Jesus said:

Do onto others as you would have them do onto you, I think they call it the Golden Rule?
I'm pretty sure Jesus' message was to Love.....not Fear and Hate, this was the message of all our enlightened masters over the history of our planet........I guess the problem is that we are not very enlightened, yet. Too many people just don't get it.....or perhaps they haven't evolved yet.......I like to think there is hope for the world.......and I think Jesus pretty well summed it up.

[highnote]

Look at what Ghandi was able to accomplish without ever firing a bullet. Or Martin Luther King.

[Lefty]

It's a matter of survival. Do we want to survive or let terrorists reign? I opt for survival.
But, I think Jesus would approve of freeing two countries and stopping torture, mass murder and rapes.
As for as Ghandi and Martin Luthor King, the terrorists we're fighting today would behead them if they had the chance. They even shot that poor woman who was only in Iraq to help.

[Tom]

Originally posted by swetyejohn
Look at what Ghandi was able to accomplish without ever firing a bullet. Or Martin Luther King.

Had either tried the same techniques on muslems, they would have been killed before we ever heard of them. You cannot make peace with the islamic terror machine. You can only destroy it. Or be destroyed.
WWJD is not a q question that mortal man can apply to himself. We are mortals, not sons of God. Big difference. Perhaps the question should by, What would Jesus think of ME if I do X.

[highnote]

Tom,
Good point. I wonder what He does think?

js

[kenwoodallpromos]

The Old Testament had changing rules (Abraham tried to sacrifice Isaac because child sacrifice was ok then); An eye for an eye was often the justice legally. Jesus stopped women fron being stoned; he also chased people out of churches (same as moaques) who misuse them.
Jesus did not save those being crucified the same time as him- he allowed for civil systems to continue. He did not approve of violence just because someone would not become your religion.
Jesus would have said that Hussein's violations of his own 1991 cease fire agreements (the 1991 war never ended) including attemptd and actual murder by Hussien was justification for us to go in and put a stop to it.

[highnote]

Thanks, Ken. -- js

[jots]

John, this might answer some questions.
www.intouch.org/War/index_38027182.html

Also, you might take a look at www.biblebb.com/macqaindex/w.htm

If that doesn't help may I recommend www.realanswers.net Bob George of People To People Ministries. If you don't find a suitable answer to your question PTP has a live radio broadcast at 6:05 Central Time M-F that you can call in toll free and present that question to Bob (or e-mail). In my opinion, Bob George is the best Bible teacher on this planet. He presents only the Truth, no hidden agenda, no denomination affiliation, just solid biblical truth. But as Bob say's, don't take his word for it, get in the word of God and see for yourself. Hope this helps :)

[Dave Schwartz]

John,

You have asked a seemingly-provocative question with (I believe) the obvious intent of wanting to hear that Jesus said something like, "War is wrong and should be avoided at all costs."

(I will preface this, as you did, with "this is not an attack.")

I spent some time this morning searching the bible at http://bible.gospelcom.net/ looking for keywords that relate to your question.

It turns up nothing in context to what you are looking for. There were references to "don't murder," "murder is wrong," etc. in the same context as adultery, stealing or bearing false witness is wrong (i.e. sinful).

So, there are no hits. Does that mean that Jesus did not have an opinion about war? I doubt it.

So, we find no meaningful references in the New Testament but if we search the Old Testament I will find many references. Why is that?

The answer is that the Bible does not begin with the New Testament any more than Jesus begins with the New Testament.

Recall certain things about Jesus:

1. First, he was a Jew and a Rabbi.
I don't think this needs much expansion but I will point out that Jesus was not just "a" Rabbi, but a very well-respected Rabbi.

Mark 1:22
The people were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law.


2. He believed in the principles of "The Law."
As a Rabbi, he was certainly well acquainted with the laws of Judaism. Further, he was fully supportive of those laws.

Matthew 5:17-18
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."


3. There are plenty of Old Testament references to "war."
Many of these references will not be to your liking if you are looking at a clapboard sign to wear at peace marches.


mass genocide can be acceptable
1 Samuel 15:18
And he sent you on a mission, saying, 'Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; make war on them until you have wiped them out.'

Marrying a Captive Woman
Deuteronomy 21:10-11
When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife.

Note: The inference here could easily be about the spoils of war.

God drives war at times by forcing the action
Joshua 11:20
For it was the LORD himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the LORD had commanded Moses.


Taking territory from war is acceptable
Joshua 11:22-23
No Anakites were left in Israelite territory; only in Gaza, Gath and Ashdod did any survive. So Joshua took the entire land, just as the LORD had directed Moses, and he gave it as an inheritance to Israel according to their tribal divisions. Then the land had rest from war.


Taking territory from war is not always acceptable
Deuteronomy 2:19
"When you come to the Ammonites, do not harass them or provoke them to war, for I will not give you possession of any land belonging to the Ammonites. I have given it as a possession to the descendants of Lot."



Okay, so let's wrap this up, shall we?


1. Jesus was probably against war, as we all should be.

2. War should be the last resort, but should probably not be delayed unduly by lengthy negotiatians. (Searches for words such as "diplomat," "negotiate," "emmissary" and their derivitives produce no hits.)

3. War is sometimes necessary when there is cause. Jesus did not comment on this because it needs no commentary.


Now, a question for you - Armed with these newly presented "Biblical truths," will you change your position on the war in Iraq?

My opinion is that most "peace-at-all-cost" types (I don't know if you fall into that category.) often go searching in the scriptures for something to support their position. When they don't find it or, worse yet, they find just the opposite, they do not embrace the "message behind the Book."

Instead, they simply choose to ignore The Book because it does not agree with their thinking. In other words, "If the Bible is going to interfere with my life then I will simply ignore that part."

To address that, I offer you the passage that has had the greatest impact on me, personally.

Proverbs 3:5-8
Trust in the LORD with all your heart and
lean not on your own understanding;
in all your ways acknowledge him, and
he will make your paths straight.

Do not be wise in your own eyes;
fear the LORD and shun evil.
This will bring health to your body
and nourishment to your bones.




Best Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Dave Schwartz]

Ken,

You said: "The Old Testament had changing rules (Abraham tried to sacrifice Isaac because child sacrifice was ok then)"


Actually, Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac because God commanded it. Not because the rules changed.

The rules have never changed. Read deeper, please.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[highnote]

Originally posted by Lefty
It's a matter of survival. Do we want to survive or let terrorists reign? I opt for survival.
But, I think Jesus would approve of freeing two countries and stopping torture, mass murder and rapes.
As for as Ghandi and Martin Luthor King, the terrorists we're fighting today would behead them if they had the chance. They even shot that poor woman who was only in Iraq to help.

Lefty,
Thanks for your thoughts. I can appreciate your feeling that way. A lot of people feel the same way given 9/11 and the beheadings of so many innocents.

I also agree Jesus would approve of freeing two countries, etc. He may not agree with the methods used, but until Jesus returns or another Ghandi appears we've got to work with what we've got.

When they shoot innocent people like that woman it is because they are desperate. I don't know how else to explain it. In normal times that would never happen. In times of war people seem to go insane.

[Dave Schwartz]

John,

I cannot help but notice that you did not respond to my post. Am I in your twit filter list?


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[highnote]

Originally posted by Dave Schwartz
John,

You have asked a seemingly-provocative question with (I believe) the obvious intent of wanting to hear that Jesus said something like, "War is wrong and should be avoided at all costs."

(I will preface this, as you did, with "this is not an attack.")

Dave,
So much to reply to!

Thanks for taking the time to look all this up. I really appreciate it. It is very informative.

You're right that I want to hear Jesus said war is wrong. However, I know better. What I want and what I get are often two different things. :)


So, we find no meaningful references in the New Testament but if we search the Old Testament I will find many references. Why is that?

The answer is that the Bible does not begin with the New Testament any more than Jesus begins with the New Testament.

Good point. I think Christians tend to forget that.

Recall certain things about Jesus:

1. First, he was a Jew and a Rabbi.
I don't think this needs much expansion but I will point out that Jesus was not just "a" Rabbi, but a very well-respected Rabbi.

He must have been a child prodigy. The stories you read in the NT talk about him studying with older Rabbis while he was very young. How many kids would have done that?

Mark 1:22
The people were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law.

He must have had a tremendous grasp of "The Law".


3. There are plenty of Old Testament references to "war."
Many of these references will not be to your liking if you are looking at a clapboard sign to wear at peace marches.

:) That's OK. I usually just wear a rainbow wig and a carry John 3:16 sign.

By the way, my son was born on 3/16 and his name is John.


mass genocide can be acceptable
1 Samuel 15:18
And he sent you on a mission, saying, 'Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; make war on them until you have wiped them out.'

That's a tough one to accept. But who I am to argue with the Word of the Lord?

The other difficulty with this is what if your enemy is reading the same book and they use it to justify genocide on us? Their convictions are so strong, you can't change their views. Are they wrong? Maybe. But try telling them that. Dropping bombs on them is not going to change them, that's for sure. It will probably just make them more vengeful. Of course, if you kill them all, then problem solved.

Marrying a Captive Woman
Deuteronomy 21:10-11
When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife.

Note: The inference here could easily be about the spoils of war.

Again, what if your enemies believe the same thing? They kill us and take our wives. Is it OK for them to do it to us?

I guess this kind of goes back to my original post -- how should one interpret this?


God drives war at times by forcing the action
Joshua 11:20
For it was the LORD himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the LORD had commanded Moses.

I don't understand this one. Who was it that might be destroyed totally?




Okay, so let's wrap this up, shall we?


1. Jesus was probably against war, as we all should be.

Maybe Jesus waged a different type of war -- a war without killing. I suppose that's called a peaceful revolution or something. Of course, it wasn't too peaceful for him. He could have fought. He probably could have ordered his followers to revolt. Instead, he chose to die. Same with Ghandi. In the end, he was killed, but I don't think he ever had to fire a shot to free the people. Martin Luther King caused a lot of change in this country. He died because of it.

2. War should be the last resort, but should probably not be delayed unduly by lengthy negotiatians. (Searches for words such as "diplomat," "negotiate," "emmissary" and their derivitives produce no hits.)

Unduly lengthy negotiations is hard to define. I suppose it depends on the circumstances. In some cases, a year might be too long. In other cases, 10 years might not be long enough.

3. War is sometimes necessary when there is cause. Jesus did not comment on this because it needs no commentary.

You may be right that war is sometimes necessary. I'm not convinced of it. But I don't rule it out, either. I think it is a lot easier to think of war as a solution than it is to find a peaceful alternative. Because of the difficulty in finding that solution, war might be justifiable because while people are sitting around trying to figure out how to accomplish change peacefully, they are being attacked or people are dying needlessly. Iraq is a good example. A lot of peaceful tactics were tried. Since none were found we started a war with them.

I think it takes a great leader to find that elusive peaceful solution. Those great leaders don't come around everyday. How many Moseses have their been? Or Jesuses. etc. Sometimes we have to go with what we've got.


Now, a question for you - Armed with these newly presented "Biblical truths," will you change your position on the war in Iraq?

To be honest, I don't know if these truths will change my position. But you've given me a lot to think about and it may ultimately change my position. As I said a paragraph or two earlier... Sometimes we have to go with what we've got. Going to Iraq may have been the best thing to do. A lot of people who are smarter than me thought so. A lot of people with a lot more knowledge of religion and deeper faith than I thought it was the right thing to do. That's why we elect leaders. We think they're smart enough to do what's best for us.

Maybe if I'd have lost a family member in the 9/11 attacks I'd feel stronger. Then again, if I had lost someone I might be too biased and it would be better if someone more rational made the decision.

It gets complicated.



My opinion is that most "peace-at-all-cost" types (I don't know if you fall into that category.) often go searching in the scriptures for something to support their position. When they don't find it or, worse yet, they find just the opposite, they do not embrace the "message behind the Book."

I don't know if I'm in that category either. If I was Jesuit or Amish it would be a lot easier. I was raised Methodist and then became Catholic as an adult. So maybe that's why I seem so confused? :)


Instead, they simply choose to ignore The Book because it does not agree with their thinking. In other words, "If the Bible is going to interfere with my life then I will simply ignore that part."

I can see that. On the other hand, I've heard differing interpretations of the same passage in the Bible. So that makes me wonder who is right?


To address that, I offer you the passage that has had the greatest impact on me, personally.

Proverbs 3:5-8
Trust in the LORD with all your heart and
lean not on your own understanding;
in all your ways acknowledge him, and
he will make your paths straight.

Do not be wise in your own eyes;
fear the LORD and shun evil.
This will bring health to your body
and nourishment to your bones.


That's very nice. Thank you. It is an amazing Book.

[highnote]

Originally posted by Dave Schwartz
John,

I cannot help but notice that you did not respond to my post. Am I in your twit filter list?


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Sorry Dave. I read it this afternoon. Then took a walk in the woods with my family and thought a lot about it. Then we went out for dinner and a movie. Then I replied to it. Then I just got this message.

What the heck is a twit filter?

You're not a twit. I have a lot more respect for you than that!

Fellow degenerate horseplayer maybe. But twit? No. :)

Regards,
John

[Dave Schwartz]

John,

Thank you for your insightful reply. You have reinforced my confidence in the fact that you were asking a serious question.

You know, there are a lot of veterans around this place. Some served their country for many years and others for just a few. I am sure that there are very few of us that would ever say that were is a good thing.

On those rare occasions when I have had the opportunity to speak with people who were adamantly against war, it always boils down to a statement that sounds like, "There must be a better way."

Unfortunately, humans have been fighting wars for thousands of years without finding a better way.

And, frankly, endless talk is not it.

I close with a single point:

All the lives that have been lost in Iraq, (and I include Iraqis in the body count) are far less than those killed under Saddam in a normal year.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[highnote]

Originally posted by Dave Schwartz
John,

Thank you for your insightful reply. You have reinforced my confidence in the fact that you were asking a serious question.

You know, there are a lot of veterans around this place. Some served their country for many years and others for just a few. I am sure that there are very few of us that would ever say that were is a good thing.

On those rare occasions when I have had the opportunity to speak with people who were adamantly against war, it always boils down to a statement that sounds like, "There must be a better way."

Unfortunately, humans have been fighting wars for thousands of years without finding a better way.

And, frankly, endless talk is not it.

I close with a single point:

All the lives that have been lost in Iraq, (and I include Iraqis in the body count) are far less than those killed under Saddam in a normal year.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Dave,
Thanks again. You make a good argument.

Maybe there is no best answer. Nothing I've read here has convinced me that war is the best solution. I still think peace is a better solution, but that it is much harder to find a peaceful solution -- especially if you're under attack!

So war might be the best available solution. Probably better to go to war and kill the enemy and unfortunately innocent woman and children in order to prevent even more killing of innocent women and children. Or to prevent a dictator from ruling with terror.

So to answer my own question about What would Jesus think: He'd probably think the human race has not become enlightened enough to all just get along, so would forgive us for going to war.

Again, being Amish or a Jesuit would make the decision to go to war much easier. You wouldn't. You'd die before killing someone else.

I'm not sure I would have the courage to die without fighting back. It would probably be easier to pick up a weapon and fight the enemy.

I don't know. I've never been faced with that situation.

I hope that what we're doing in Iraq is the best solution. There are obviously huge problems in the middle east. Maybe democracy will help stabilize their society so that they can begin building a strong economy. Once people are working and well fed they will only fight if their way of life is threatened rather than having to fight to improve their way of life.

DISCLAIMER: I don't know if my argument is complete. I wanted respond, but I'm kind of in a rush -- got to take the kids to a Thanksgiving Parade. So forgive me if I've made some stupid statements. :)

Regards,
John

[Lefty]

When there is evil in the world that has avowed to kill everyone inclding their own thjat won't come in under their particular "umbrella" there is no choice but to kill it. All through history there has been evil and you can't negotiate with evil but you must kill it.

[GameTheory]

I went to a Catholic high school (though I'm not Catholic), and was taught that there are justified (moral) wars and unjustified (immoral) wars. In a typically Catholic fashion (they don't leave things "fuzzy" like many Christian denominations do) they have a list of specific criteria that must be met to call a war justified. I don't recall the list...

[highnote]

Originally posted by GameTheory
I went to a Catholic high school (though I'm not Catholic), and was taught that there are justified (moral) wars and unjustified (immoral) wars. In a typically Catholic fashion (they don't leave things "fuzzy" like many Christian denominations do) they have a list of specific criteria that must be met to call a war justified. I don't recall the list...

What was/is the Pope's position on the U.S. led war on Iraq?

I seem to recall he did not agree with the Bush administration's decision. But am not certain.

[boxcar]

Very good posts on this thread, especially by John, Jots and Dave. (I see, Dave, that you've begun your journey through the bible. I pray that it will be a spiritually profitable one for you.)

John, I would caution you to look upon catchy phrases (such as "WWJD") with healthy skepticism. For example, when I first heard this phrase many moons ago, I had to immediately ask, "Why not ask what the entire counsel of God has to say on this matter, or that issue?" It seemed to me at that time that the underlying motive behind this viscerally-induced "WWJD" phrase was, at minimum, to subtly imply that Jesus' words in the NT were more authoritative than the words of the prophets or even Jehova himself in the OT. But this dichotomizing approach between the two testaments puts its adherents on very dangerous footing; for it's sure to lead its advocates to a very skewed understanding of God himself and his revelation to mankind.

As Dave has essentially pointed out, the OT is the very foundation upon which the NT rests. The Old predicts or prefigures the New; the New, therefore, fulfills the Old. The Old speaks to the shadows and types to which the New reveals the antitypes. In short, the NT is concealed in the OT; and OT is revealed in the NT.

Therefore, from the foregoing description of the relationship between the OT and NT, it should become self-evident that the 66 books of the bible form one, cohesive, unifying message. But you shouldn't infer from this that there aren't elements of continuity and discontinuity between the two testaments. The acid (hermeneutical) test for determining what portions of the Old are discontinued is to look for explicit instructions to that effect in the New. For example, as I pointed out in another thread recently, all ceremonial apsects of the Mosaic law are now legitimately obsolete. Why or how? Because Christ is the antitype (fulfillment) to those old ceremonial shadwows and types, and the New substantially and essentially states that those things in the Old are now obsolete.

Using this hermenetical approach to scripture, therefore, to rightly understand what [all] scripture teaches about warfare in this New Covenant economy, we'll find that while God isn't a "hawk", nonetheless warfare is a means by which the omnipotent, immutable and sovereign Lord of the Universe executes temporal judgment upon wicked nations. And there is absolutely nothing whatsoever in the NT that contravenes this OT revelation. Consider, for a moment, this passage:

Dan 2:19-21
19 Then the mystery was revealed to Daniel in a night vision. Then Daniel blessed the God of heaven; 20 Daniel answered and said,

"Let the name of God be blessed forever and ever,
For wisdom and power belong to Him.
21 "And it is He who changes the times and the epochs;
He removes kings and establishes kings;
He gives wisdom to wise men,
And knowledge to men of understanding.
NAS

If there is any doubt as to what the prophet Daniel meant by v. 21, all one has to do is read the rest of the Book of Daniel to find out. This book, btw, is 'till this day one of the most controvesial in all the bible; for it was to this prophet that God revealed the precise order of succeeding kingdoms, beginning with the Babylon to which Daniel was carried captive. Daniel prohesied the fall of Babylon, then the rise of the Medes-Persians and this empire's fall, then the rise of Greece and its end, and the rise of the Roman empire and its decline.

What's even more remarkable is the King of kings and Lord of lords achieved his eschatological purposes not through "holy wars" or "holy crusades" -- or even through his chosen people Israel, but through the heathen nations themselves! He used one wicked, heathen nation to bring down another -- one after another, until they all fell.

Some other passages that teach us that the theistic God of the bible deals with the nations of the earth are:

Ps 75:6-8
6 For not from the east, nor from the west,
Nor from the desert comes exaltation;
7 But God is the Judge;
He puts down one, and exalts another.
8 For a cup is in the hand of the LORD, and the wine foams; It is well mixed, and He pours out of this;
Surely all the wicked of the earth must drain and drink down its dregs.
NAS

Prov 8:12-17
2 "I, wisdom, dwell with prudence,
And I find knowledge and discretion.
13 "The fear of the LORD is to hate evil;
Pride and arrogance and the evil way,
And the perverted mouth, I hate.
14 "Counsel is mine and sound wisdom;
I am understanding, power is mine.
15 "By me kings reign,
And rulers decree justice.
16 "By me princes rule, and nobles,
All who judge rightly.
17 "I love those who love me;
And those who diligently seek me will find me.
NAS

Dan 4:17
7 "This sentence is by the decree of the angelic watchers,
And the decision is a command of the holy ones,
In order that the living may know
That the Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind,
And bestows it on whom He wishes,
And sets over it the lowliest of men."
NAS

Luke 1:51-52
51 "He has done mighty deeds with His arm;
He has scattered those who were proud in the thoughts of their heart.
52 "He has brought down rulers from their thrones,
And has exalted those who were humble.
NAS

So, while Christ didn't come to preach a social or political gospel to mankind, we should not think for a moment that the triune Godhead has suddenly become disinterested in the affairs of nations. We must never lose sight of the fact that there is one thing which God cannot do: He cannot deny himself (2Tim 2:13), that is to say, he can't be anything but what he is, e.g. holy and good, and loving and merciful toward his elect -- but at the same time a God of justice, righteous indignation and vengenge toward the unrepentant wicked. Moreover, he cannot deny his own attributes, e.g. eternalness, sovereignty, omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, immutablity, etc.. He is who he is, and cannot change.

Boxcar