Ellen White wrote prolifically about it. Angels spoke tons about it. The law is the focus. The unfallen have no questions about God. They are perfectly secure in His love. Satan's tactic since the cross is to prove the law was abolished at the cross. His goal is to prevent the development of the 144,000 so that he can prove the fallen cannot obey the law. If he can discredit the law he can exonerate himself and avoid the death sentence. It's more about Satan saving his hide than it is about God disproving his accusations.

What I've been saying is that the Great Controversy is primarily about God. God is the most important thing, not His law! Christ came primarily to reveal God. This is the central theme of Scripture. It is easy to demonstrate from Scripture that Christ is the key, and that His purpose was to reveal the Father.



Why do think I would care about this?



Because you made that, or appeared to me to be making it, a central piece of what you were asserting.

Your "in view of this" looks to be completely out of place.



What I'm saying is that the Great Controversy is primarily about God. I'm saying that the primary purpose (or "whole purpose" to use Ellen White's words) of Christ's earthly mission was the revelation of God, and understanding God's character is what the Great Controversy is primarily about.



I have said that the law is involved. I have not said the law is not involved. My point has been that the Great Controversy is primarily about God's character.



He distorted God's character as a means to gain power, in order to exalt himself.



Where does Ellen White say, "the great controversy is primarily about the law, although God's character is also involved."?

Given that the whole purpose of Christ's earthly mission was the revelation of God, how is what you are suggesting possible? Also, if what you are suggesting were true, you should be able to establish your position from Scripture. That is, demonstrate from Scripture that the Great Controversy is primarily about the law, although God's character is also involved.

On the other hand, I can easily demonstrate from Scripture that the purpose of Christ's earthly mission was the revelation of God. Indeed, everything Christ did at any time in all the Gospels can be understood in these terms, and should be, as revealing the Father. That's what Christ was all about.

Yes, the law is also important. It's important know that it can and should be kept. But the focus of the Scriptures is not the law but Christ. Christ is the way to the Father (and the context of this statement, in John 14, is that we come to the Father by means of Christ's revelation of Him).

John says that the law came through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. Hebrews puts it this way:



which reminds me of the following:



(More later)

Ok, so you mean Ellen White's interpretation cannot be proven from Scripture. In my opinion, her interpretation is correct, and makes more sense than yours. The issue involved was primarily one of character. John 12 speaks to the same theme.



What I meant was you cut off what I said, and made it appear as if I were asking something I wasn't really asking.

Here's what I asked:



So I'm asking that even if it were not necessary for Christ to die to pay a penalty, wouldn't this purpose have remained?



You said:



I took this to mean that if the law were not immutable, then there would be no need for Christ to die. This implied that this is the only reason for which Christ died, since if He didn't need to prove the law were immutable, He wouldn't have had to die. So I pointed out another reason for which He died, to demonstrate this wasn't the only reason for which He died.



I know it's also there. I've been saying it's also there. I've been saying that the *primary* focus of the Great Controversy is God's character. You've been asserting that it's not, that it's about the law. So I've been asking you to demonstrate your assertion from Scripture.

Ellen White wrote more about God than she did the law. And angels speak much more about God than the law. So, by this argument, God is the focus.



They don't have any questions about the law either. They *did* have questions about God, was well as about Satan. The questions was dealt with by Christ's revelation of God. This is what the Great Controversy is about.



That's been *a* tactic. Just one among many. This is only an issue for a small percentage of people. Most people have no knowledge, much less care, about these issues. But millions upon millions of people have questions about God.





That's a goal. However, their primary purpose is the revelation of God's character:







His argument regarding the law was God related. That is, he has argued that God is unjust and severe for requiring obedience to the law. There are many examples from the SOP discussing this principle. Here's an interesting one:



Notice the "to lower their conception of God's character" comment.

Here's another one:



Notice what Satan's "constant effort" is: "to misrepresent the character of God".



Satan knows he's lost.



When Satan is successful in misrepresenting God's character (i.e., successful in that people believe his misrepresentations), the law becomes a non-issue. If one fears/hates God, one can hardly keep the law. Consider the Pharisees. Apparently their concern was all about the law, but they hated and feared God, which is evident by their treatment of God in the flesh.

Interestingly, in 1888, the same thing happened. Ellen White comments that had Christ been physically present, He would have been treated in a similar manner as the Jews treated Him (i.e., had Him crucified). We had preached the law until we were as dry as the hills of Gilboa, and when messengers came who spoke of the matchless charms of Christ, they were treated as Christ was when the same thing happened about 2,000 years ago.

As aside, 2,000 years ago, Christ would have 9. We're getting close to the time when He went to the temple. In 21 years, it will be 2,000 years since He began His ministry. This doesn't have anything to do with our discussion. I'm just rambling. Kind of interesting to think about.

This is a false dichotomy. How can you separate what you are from what you do? How can a just person make an unjust moral law? How can a perfect person create a faulty moral law? How can an immutable person create a changeable moral law? If any doubt remained in relation to God’s law, Jesus’ revelation of God in any other aspect would avail nothing.


The law is a revelation of God’s character and Jesus was a revelation of God’s character, which means that Jesus was also a revelation of God’s law, or He revealed God’s character by living out the law.


He had no means of gaining power except by getting adepts, allies or subjects. And he could only get this by leading creatures to disobey God. He distorted God’s character to these creatures in order to accomplish this purpose.


Well, she says that "from the first, the great controversy had been upon the law of God.” She speaks of “the long-standing controversy concerning the law of God,” and of “the controversy between Satan and the Prince of heaven in regard to the changeless character of that law.” When she speaks of the character of God in relation to the great controversy, she also mentions the law: “From the opening of the great controversy it has been Satan's purpose to misrepresent God's character, and to excite rebellion against His law.”


She is adding details. You cannot prove it just from Rev. 12:10; perhaps if you add Col. 1:20, John 12:31, 32 and other texts you could try to prove it.
As to the interpretation I gave, it is supported by Ellen White.

“Christ on the cross, not only draws men to repentance toward God for the transgression of His law--for whom God pardons He first makes penitent—but Christ has satisfied justice; He has proffered Himself as an atonement. His gushing blood, His broken body, satisfy the claims of the broken law, and thus He bridges the gulf which sin has made. He suffered in the flesh that with His bruised and broken body He might cover the defenseless sinner. The victory gained at His death on Calvary broke forever the accusing power of Satan over the universe. (MS 50, 1900). {7BC 974.2}


Yes, if the law were not immutable, then there would be no need for Christ to die. Do you disagree with this?


I’ve already given you several passages. When Christ says that He came to reveal the Father, as I pointed out previously, He did so by living out the law. Being the embodiment of the law, Christ revealed in His life God’s character. Again, you are making a false dichotomy.

I haven't had time to follow all of the discussion here yet, but just wanted to comment on this statement. The fact that something is required for one reason does not invalidate other reasons and suddenly make the first singular. Such would be a logical fallacy.

The same would be true about aspects of God. For instance, we are told that God is light. If I believe that God is light, does this exclude a belief that God is love, God is a consuming fire, God is one, God is life, etc.? Of course not.

Jesus came to die to fulfill the law. He came to die "as an atonement." But He also came to die to show us His love, and thereby attract us to Him. One cannot justly argue that any of these reasons, or any additional reasons we might add, are mutually exclusive.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Agreed.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

This is another logical fallacy. If she wrote more about God than about the cross, does this mean the cross is not the focal point?

When it comes to the "Great Controversy," since the controversy is between God and Satan, of course both will be frequently mentioned. This does not negate the fact that Ellen White specifically pinpoints the central issue in this controversy to be the law.



In one sense, Tom, I can see where you are coming from in saying that Satan's controversy was with God Himself. This is true of course. However, the reason for the controversy was centered on the fairness of God's law. That is the specific complaint that Lucifer/Satan has always brought forward.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I'm not doing this. I'm saying the Great Controversy is primarily about God. This does not separate anything.



Why would the fact that the Great Controversy is primarily about God imply that God would be making an unjust moral law?



Why would the fact that the Great Controversy is primarily about God imply that God would be creating a faulty moral law?



Why would the fact that the Great Controversy is primarily about God imply that God would be creating a changeable moral law?



Who at the time of Christ had doubts about God's law? The Jews? You think they had doubts as to whether the law was changeable? or unjust? This was a burning issue?

Or was a more pressing issue the misunderstandings they had about God's character?



What I've been saying is that the Great Controversy is primarily about God. That the Great Controversy is primarily about God doesn't imply the negation of any of the things you mentioned.



What was his purpose? To exalt himself. How did he achieve this? By misrepresenting God's character.



1.Lucifer wanted to win the homage of God's creatures to himself.
2.Therefore he misrepresented God.
3.With his own evil characteristics he sought to invest the loving Creator.
4.Thus he deceived angels. Thus he deceived men.



Where does she say that the GC is primarily about the law, although God's character is also involved? This is what you claimed she said.



This summarizes things in a nutshell. There are two parties to the controversy, and each must reveal their principles and characters. God revealed His character, and the principles of His kingdom through Jesus Christ, most clearly seen by means of the cross. This is how He won the Great Controversy. Satan revealed his character and the principles of his kingdom as well, principally by means of how he treated Christ, also most clearly seen by means of the cross.



Where is Rev. 12:10 discussed here?



I asked you the following question:





What you need to demonstrate, to provide evidence for your assertion, is that Christ said something to the effect that the primary focus of the Great Controversy is the law, as opposed to God's character, as this is what you are asserting. I don't understand how you can claim I'm making a false dichotomy when you say that the Great Controversy is primarily about the law as opposed to about God. How are you not making the same "false dichotomy" you claim I am?

Regarding Christ's revealing God's character by being obedient to the law, it's certainly true that in that Christ kept the law, He revealed God's character. But I recall your saying elsewhere that the law did not include certain elements, such as mercy and pardon. I suppose grace could be added to this as well. Didn't Christ also reveal these other aspects of God's character? In this case, Christ's obedience to the law would be a subset of what He revealed in regards to God's character, wouldn't it?

This is MM's logical fallacy. I was pointing out the fallacy.



Again, this isn't my argument. I asked this question:



MM answered as above, that Ellen White wrote a lot about the law, etc. So I pointed out that if this is the reason why one should think the Great Controversy is primarily about the law, as opposed to being about God, the fact that Ellen White wrote more about God than the law doesn't work for the argument MM put forth.



The Great Controversy is a controversy involving two principles. One of the principles is Satan, the other Christ (or, one could phrase it as between Satan and God, but Christ is God's representative, so it works either way). Let's consider the following quote:



The parable of the wheat and the tares comes to mind. Satan claimed that God's character and government were deficient. Satan claimed that he had a better way; that his character and his principles of government were superior to God's. Now it's clear that the law is involved in this, as the law of God is the law of His government, but it's only a part of the picture. The whole picture involves Satan -- his character and government, vs. Christ (or God) -- His character and government.

Satan was given the opportunity to develop his government, so that its principles could be seen, as well as given the opportunity to reveal his character. At the cross the Great Controversy was won. Why? Because at the cross Satan's claims were shown to be false, and Satan's character was revealed to be a murderer, as Christ had claimed. Satan was revealed to be the one who was lying, and Christ vindicated God.



I'm interrupting this statement with another one, to make clear what this phrase is speaking in reference to:



The whole purpose of Christ's earthly mission was "the revelation of God." Given this was the whole purpose of His mission, it's difficult to conceive of how something else could be more important than this!

Please note that Christ's work, the work that he accomplished, is declared to be that of making manifest the character of God.

Going on with the other statement:



The battle was won. Why? Because the character of the principles had been clearly revealed. Christ finished His work of revealing the awesome beauty of God's character, and Satan revealed his own ugly character.



So this was it. The character of each of the principles had been revealed. The Great Controversy was won, as far as the unfallen beings were concerned. It still remains to be decided by human beings, as God's character is still unknown: