An additional thought that is good to bear in mind is that the real issue was over God's character; not the law, not God's government, but His character:



Now, of course, there are statements which speak of God's law and His government being attacked, but these are simply byproducts of His character; that is, attacking His law *is* attacking His character, since the law is a transcript of His character.



This the Great Controversy in a nutshell. Once we know the problem, it's easy to identify the solution. The truth about God must be made known, to counteract Satan's lies.



It's interesting to compare this with DA 22 (immediately following the above quote from DA). The 144,000 embark on the same task as Christ; to make God's character known.

I can see how my questions led you to think this way, Tom, but all I did was ask if A&E rebelled in the same way or for the same reasons Lucifer did. I see more dissimilarities than I do similarities. What about you?

Yes, representing God's character aright is paramount, but so is obeying the law. Yes, the law is a transcript of God's character, and it is a reflection of God's character that He is so careful to honor and glorify His law. But there are ways in which the law is not a transcript God's character, namely, the law cannot pardon or save sinners. It can only condemn them. Only Jesus pardons, only Jesus saves. In these ways the law is not like God. Each one of the following passages clearly teach these truths. Listen:

Paul had ever exalted the divine law. He had shown that in the law there is no power to save men from the penalty of disobedience. Wrongdoers must repent of their sins and humble themselves before God, whose just wrath they have incurred by breaking His law, and they must also exercise faith in the blood of Christ as their only means of pardon. The Son of God had died as their sacrifice and had ascended to heaven to stand before the Father as their advocate. By repentance and faith they might be freed from the condemnation of sin and through the grace of Christ be enabled henceforth to render obedience to the law of God. {AA 393.1}

The Lord does not save sinners by abrogating His law, the foundation of His government in heaven and earth. God is a judge, the guardian of justice. The transgression of His law in a single instance, in the smallest particular, is sin. God cannot dispense with His law, He cannot do away with its smallest item, in order to pardon sin. The justice, the moral excellence, of the law must be maintained and vindicated before the heavenly universe. And that holy law could not be maintained at any smaller price than the death of the Son of God.--RH, Nov. 15, 1898. {2MCP 565.2}

But while Christ saves the sinner, He does not do away with the law which condemns the sinner....The law shows us our sins, as a mirror shows us that our face is not clean. The mirror has no power to cleanse the face; that is not its office. So it is with the law. It points out our defects, and condemns us, but it has no power to save us. We must come to Christ for pardon. He will take our guilt upon His own soul, and will justify us before God. And not only will He free us from sin, but He will give us power to render obedience to God's will. {RC 55.5}

As the sinner looks upon the Saviour dying on Calvary, and realizes that the sufferer is divine, he asks why this great sacrifice was made, and the cross points to the holy law of God which has been transgressed. The death of Christ is an unanswerable argument as to the immutability and righteousness of the law. In prophesying of Christ, Isaiah says, "He will magnify the law, and make it honourable" (Isa. 42:21). The law has no power to pardon the evildoer. Its office is to point out his defects, that he may realize his need of One who is mighty to save, his need of One who will become his substitute, his surety, his righteousness. Jesus meets the need of the sinner; for He has taken upon Him the sins of the transgressor. "He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed" (Isa. 53:5). The Lord could have cut off the sinner, and utterly destroyed him; but the costlier plan was chosen. In His great love He provides hope for the hopeless, giving His only-begotten Son to bear the sins of the world. And since He has poured out all heaven in that one rich gift, He will withhold from man no needed aid that he may take the cup of salvation, and become an heir of God, joint heir with Christ. {1SM 323.1}

As you look into the Lord's great moral looking glass, His holy law, His standard of character, do not for a moment suppose that it can cleanse you. There are no saving properties in the law. It cannot pardon the transgressor. The penalty must be exacted. The Lord does not save sinners by abolishing His law, the foundation of His government in heaven and in earth. The punishment has been endured by the sinner's substitute. Not that God is cruel and merciless, and Christ so merciful that He died on Calvary's cross to abolish a law so arbitrary that it needed to be extinguished, crucified between two thieves. The throne of God must not bear one stain of crime, one taint of sin. In the councils of heaven, before the world was created, the Father and the Son covenanted together that if man proved disloyal to God, Christ, one with the Father, would take the place of the transgressor, and suffer the penalty of justice that must fall upon him (MS 145, 1897). {6BC 1070.4}

"... attacking His law *is* attacking His character, since the law is a transcript of His character." As stated above, in my last post, how does this apply to those aspects of the law which are not like God, namely, the fact the law condemns but cannot save or pardon sinners? Would attacking these aspects of the law be attacking God's character? If so, why?

No, this isn't all you did. The first thing you did was to assert that Adam and Eve did not rebel. Then I said they didn't, and quoted something from Ellen White which said Adam and Eve were "rebels" and Arnold quoted something which said that they rebelled. I then asked you, given these quotes, if you agreed that Adam rebelled. You said no, he didn't rebel, but he gambled. And you reiterated that you did not believe that Eve rebelled.

This was all last month. It is only recently that you started asking questions. Your first action was to assert, without qualifying your assertion in any way, that Adam and Eve did not rebel, and you never backed away from that assertion, in spite of quotes which stated clearly that they were "rebels" and that they rebelled.



I think Satan's actions were worse, making God's offer to pardon him even more striking. Satan knew what he was doing; he deceived angels (and later men) by misrepresenting God's character, for the person of winning their homage. Adam and Eve had no hidden agenda like this.

I would simply say that representing God's character aright is paramount. One cannot represent God's character without obeying the law, which is a transcript of His character. The way you put it implies it is possible to do this.



There are ways in which the law is not a transcript of God's character? I wouldn't say that.



I think this is accurate. The law describes love. Love to God, and love to man. Hence it is the "law of love." What would someone look like who kept the law perfectly? He would look like Jesus Christ. The law, rightly understood, is a wonderful thing. It is an embodiment of the principles of love. The problem is that people often look at the law in a limited way, as simply specifying behavior.

The expression "the law condemns" is really not talking about the moral law per se, which simply says, "Thou shalt" or "thou shalt not." The moral law does not say "or else you will be killed." The phrase "the law condemns" is a metaphor which describes a principle. The principle is that one cannot earn forgiveness by obedience to the law. Forgiveness is dependent upon a different principle, the principle of grace.

T: The phrase "the law condemns" is a metaphor which describes a principle.

M: Please back this idea up with an inspired quote. Thank you. I have quoted lots of places where it says, the law cannot save or pardon, that it can only condemn and point people to Jesus as the only source of salvation. Not once are these statements qualified by saying its only a metaphor.

You wrote:



Can you support this with an inspired quote? Of course not. So what basis do you have to suggest others do what you don't do?

I don't disagree with your statement here, which is obviously true, but you arrived at this conclusion by using your brain, not because some inspired quote told you she was using poetic license.

The law no more has a brain than nature does. It takes a brain to condemn, or save, or pardon, which is a "human trait," as you put it.