Tom, I agree with GC and Rosangela. Satan's goal is to discredit the law. That has been his focus from the very beginning. The unfallen are secure in God's love. Have been from the day they chose to side with God (instead of with Satan). The only thing left for them to see is the 144,000 faithfully obeying the law during the time of trouble. This will only serve to confirm their faith - not establish it.

They had a false conception of both God’s character and His law. By their lives, they virtually proclaimed that the law was unjust, and that it was impossible to keep it.


What was his purpose? To exalt himself. How did he achieve this? By leading creatures to rebel against God. How does a creature rebel against God? By rejecting His principles, that is, His laws.


I don’t remember having put these words in quotation marks. Which means the words are mine, not hers, and that I’m trying to summarize what I see in her writings. As the quotes above show, she says the controversy is “upon the law of God,” “concerning the law of God,” “in regard to the changeless character of that law.” Are there similar expressions in relation to the character of God referring to the great controversy? Not that the character of God isn’t involved, which it obviously is, but as GC said, “Ellen White specifically pinpoints the central issue in this controversy to be the law.”


God’s principles are expressed in His law, and Satan’s principles are expressed in everything that represents a transgression of the law.


In the words “The victory gained at His death on Calvary broke forever the accusing power of Satan over the universe.”


No! God’s character was attacked simultaneously with the law. You cannot dissociate the two. There is no way this can be done.
In which way did Christ reveal God?

“He came to this world to live God's law in human nature. He came to testify to the world's unfallen, to seraphim and cherubim, to angels and to men, that Satan's rebellion against God and his law was without foundation or excuse, that in his law God had revealed his character. This character Christ represented by living that law, thus vindicating it, and showing its immutability. This Satan could not tolerate. He could not bear to lose all that he had attempted in heaven, and in attempting which he had lost heaven. He and his evil angels united in a desperate companionship with disloyal and evil men. They resolved to use the whole power of their corrupt energies in putting out of the world the light of truth.” {RH, January 23, 1900 par. 11}


The work of the Messiah is expressed primarily in terms of the law.

“The LORD is well pleased for His righteousness’ sake; He will exalt the law and make it honorable” (Isa. 42:21).

“Sacrifice and offering You did not desire; My ears You have opened. Burnt offering and sin offering You did not require. Then I said, ‘Behold, I come; In the scroll of the book it is written of me. I delight to do Your will, O my God, And Your law is within my heart’" (Ps 40:6-8).


What I’m saying is that God’s character was attacked in heaven primarily through an attack to the law. So both things are intertwined. While you, in the past, expressed the idea that the attack to the law was just a smokescreen.


But these aspects of God’s character are also directly related to the law. Forgiving grace is related to the penalty of the law. As I see it, forgiving grace is not revealed by the law, but is directly related to the law, and it’s forgiving grace granted through an atonement that demonstrates the immutability of the law.

The immutability of the law wasn't an issue at all for the Jews. This was an issue for contemporaries of Ellen White, as Protestants had developed this issue, therefore much of Ellen White's writing are concerned with this issue.

Regarding the Jews, they had distorted the law precisely because of their false views of God's character. They believed God would be honored by the way they "kept" the law. In order to clear up the misconceptions the people had regarding the law, Christ revealed the Father.

The same problem exists today.



He (Lucifer) sought to gain control of heavenly beings, to draw them away from their Creator, and to win their homage to himself. Therefore he misrepresented God, attributing to Him the desire for self-exaltation. With his own evil characteristics he sought to invest the loving Creator. Thus he deceived angels. Thus he deceived men. (DA 21, 22)

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.



Ok, so you're not claiming she actually said that the Great Controversy is primarily about the law, although God's character is involved, just that one could rightly infer these things from what she wrote.



If it were true that the Great Controversy was more to do about the law than about God, we should be able to establish that point from Scripture. From Scripture we see that the whole purpose of Christ's earthly mission was the revelation of God. And Ellen White makes the same point. Also one can see from Christ's own teachings that He was all about revealing His Father.

How often did Christ speak of His Father? How often did He speak of the law?

Christ said, "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father." EGW eloquently pointed out "Hanging upon the cross Christ was the gospel."

You have made that claim that the Great Controversy is primarily about the law of God, although the character of God is also involved. I'm inviting you to prove this from Scripture. In order to do this you need to show, at a minimum, not simply that Christ mentioned the law somewhere, or that Christ's mission involved the law in some way, but that the Great Controversy concerns the law of God more than the character of God.



God's principles are expressed in Christ. He is the
Word of God, God's thought made audible, the full revelation of God, not the law. The whole purpose of Christ's mission was the revelation of God.



This has nothing to with my question, as far as I can tell. My question is if it weren't necessary to prove the law was immutable, then wouldn't the purpose have remained for Christ's mission, which was the revelation of God? To make this more specific, at the time Christ came, the Jews had no concept of the law's being immutable. So Christ did not come to show them this. However, He did come to reveal the Father to them.

That the law was immutable is just one issue. It's not the only purpose for which Christ came. Indeed, according to the SOP the "whole purpose" of Christ's mission was the revelation of God. Now it's certainly true that if His whole purpose was the revelation of God, and that He in show doing proved the law was immutable, one could argue that the latter is encapsulated in the former. But this isn't my question. My question is that even if it weren't necessary to show that the law was immutable (as it wasn't, for the Jews, as they had no question about this), would His "whole purpose" have still remained, which was the revelation of God? To assert that revealing one simultaneously reveals the other is not an adequate response to the question I'm actually asking.



This isn't what you need to show to establish your assertion. You need to show, at a minimum, that the Great Controversy involves the law *more* than it involves the character of God. Not simply that it involves the law.



I have claimed that the Great Controversy is primarily about the character of God, although the law is involved. You claim the reverse, that it's primarily about the law, although God's character is also involved. You say I'm presenting a false dichotomy. I'm asking why this claim doesn't apply as much to your assertion as it does to mine.



That they are "related" to the law is irrelevant to the point. The point is that while Christ's obedience to the law did reveal God's character, Christ's revelation of God involved more than simply this, if your previous characterization of the law is correct, that it didn't involve pardon, mercy or grace.



Christ's revelation of the Father involved more than His simply being obedient to the law, given your previous characterization of the law as not involving mercy or pardon.

Then I extend to you the same challenge as I did to Rosangela, which is to show from Scripture that the Great Controversy is primarily about the law, as opposed to God's character. To do this you need to show, at a minimum, that the Great Controversy is more about the law than it is about God.

Good luck!

Tom, the Bible does not divorce the law and God's character. So what you're asking is impossible. Satan's goal from the beginning has been to motivate sinners to break the law. Jesus' goal from the beginning has been to motivate sinners to keep the law. The law is the focus. Satan works to turn us against God. Jesus works to turn us to God.

I just asked you to back up the assertion that you agreed to from Scripture, which was that the Great Controversy is primarily about the law of God, although the character of God is involved. You say this is impossible to do. I agree!

Tom, this is funny. Do you really think that Satan has to use the same strategy at all times? What Satan tried to do in heaven is what he tries at all times – “prove the law of God faulty, and the Lawgiver fallible” (ST, November 19, 1894 par. 5). If the law is unjust and impossible to be kept, as the Jews implied by their lives, the result is the same as if the law had supposedly been changed. In all cases the message sent is that the law is faulty, and the Lawgiver fallible.


The only thing you are forgetting to mention is what they were deceived into. They were deceived into rebellion. They were deceived into transgression of the law.


Ellen White repeatedly says that the controversy is specifically about the law. By these repeated assertions of yours, what you are saying is that she is contradicting both herself and the Bible.


This is irrelevant. What is relevant is, How often does He speak of His mission, and what does He say about it? How many passages are there specifically about this? A search in my Bible with the words “I came/have come to” yielded the following entries: Matt. 5:17, Luke 12:49, Luke 12:51, John 10:10, John 12:27, John 12:47. I believe John 17:6, 26, Luke 4:43, Matt. 18:11, Matt. 20:28, Luke 9:56, Luke 19:10 could also be added to this list. Any other suggestion?


This does not make any sense Tom, because the words “great controversy” do not even exist in the Bible. The only thing that occurred to me were the passages which spoke of Christ’s mission in the gospels, quoted above. After that we can expand this to the rest of the Bible.


I think you became somewhat lost in this discussion. Nobody is saying that the law is the full revelation of God, as opposed to Christ. What is being said is that, when Satan’s selfish thoughts began in heaven, what prevented him from going ahead with his objectives of self-exaltation was the law, which backed up God’s authority. Therefore, the law became the main object of his hatred and attacks, for by attacking it he would be achieving a double purpose: bringing discredit both upon the law and upon its Author – or, in Ellen White’s words, he would be proving “the law of God faulty, and the Lawgiver fallible.”


The Jews? Christ didn’t die to prove to the Jews that the law immutable, but to prove this to the universe.

"Much was involved in this controversy. Intense interests were at stake. The questions to be answered were: 'Is God's law imperfect, in need of being amended or abrogated? or is it immutable? Is God's government stable? or is it in need of changes?' Not only before those living in the city of God, but before the inhabitants of all the heavenly universe, were these questions to be answered." {TDG 14.1}

"The atonement of Calvary vindicated the law of God as holy, just, and true, not only before the fallen world, but before heaven and before worlds unfallen." --Signs of the Times, June 20, 1895.

Satan had attacked the law of God before the universe before man came to existence – they needed this answer.


I’m not speaking of Christ’s obedience, but of His death to pay the penalty for the sinner in order to make it possible for God to forgive him.
My perspective here is completely different from yours. The law represents God’s moral government. God cannot forgive willful transgression of His law without the execution of the penalty. Either the law is changed or the penalty is paid. Jesus paid the penalty because the law could not be changed. God received the penalty in Himself, thus making an infinite sacrifice. This means that the law is immutable – it cannot be changed for the sinner to be forgiven.

“Christ died because there was no other hope for the transgressor. He might try to keep God's law in the future; but the debt which he had incurred in the past remained, and the law must condemn him to death. Christ came to pay that debt for the sinner which it was impossible for him to pay for himself. ... That precious grace offered to men through a Saviour's blood, establishes the law of God. Since the fall of man, God's moral government and his grace are inseparable. They go hand in hand through all dispensations. ‘Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other.’" {RH, March 8, 1881 par. 4, 5}

Let's try focusing on one point, Rosangela, as this is the point I'm particularly interested in. You claim that the Great Controversy is primarily about the law, although the character of God is also involved. I have suggested that if this is the case, you should be able to demonstrate this from Scripture.

And so, I invite you to make a case that this is so from Scripture. To do this, you need to show, at a minimum, that Scripture presents the Great Controversy as being more about the law than about God's character.

The only part of your post that I saw which discusses this is the following, so I'll comment on this.



The fact that the words "Great Controversy" don't exist in the Bible does not mean that the theme does not. Or do you wish to assert this? That the Great Controversy does not exist in Scripture? If not, this point is moot.

As I mentioned, I know of one author who has written two books on the subject, of over 1000 pages combined, so there is plenty of material on the subject. He refers to the theme as "spiritual warfare," but it's the same theme we know as "The Great Controversy." Here's an excerpt from a recent book:



Ok, to recap:

1.You have claimed that the Great Controversy is primarily about the law, although the character of God is also involved. I have responded that if this is the case, you should be able to demonstrate this from Scripture, and have invited you to do so.

2.You had said that this doesn't make any sense, because the words "The Great Controversy" do not occur in Scripture, but the fact that words to not exist do not mean the theme or idea does not. Unless this is what you wish to assert, that the Great Controversy theme does not exist in Scripture.

I'll add that if you want to get into other points, such as those you've raised in your post, we can do so, but I'd like to see if we can make some progress specifically on this point.

"God is love" (1 John 4:8) & "...love is the fulfilling of the law" (Romans 13:10)


Perfect harmony.
______

Tom,

I have already presented most of the biblical evidence I could remember, while you presented none.

Just to recap, this is what I've said the Bible says specifically about the great controversy:

Since the passages of Ezek. 28 and Isa. 14 don’t contain information which could be relevant to our discussion, the strategy Satan used in heaven can only be inferred from the strategy he used on earth with Adam and Eve. Here he 1) lied about God’s character, and 2) led man to disobey God. The two aspects are involved.

What Christ Himself said about His mission: Matt. 5:17, Luke 12:49, Luke 12:51, John 10:10, John 12:27, John 12:47. I believe John 17:6, 26, Luke 4:43, Matt. 18:11, Matt. 20:28, Luke 9:56, Luke 19:10 could be added. In most of the passages, He says He came to save man, to give His life, etc. The only passages which are of interest to our discussion are Matt. 5:17-19 and John 17:6, 26, the first speaking that He came to fulfill the law and the latter speaking He came to reveal God’s character.

What the OT says about the mission of the Messiah: Isa. 42:6, 42:21, 49:6, 52:13-53:12, 61:1-3, Ps. 40:6-8. Among these, the ones I think are relevant to our discussion are Isa. 42:21 and Ps. 40:6-8, which speak of the work of the Messiah in terms of exalting the law and living the law.

When Christ died on the cross He both revealed God’s character of love, by dying for man, and proved the law of God immutable, for if the law could have been changed or abolished to meet man’s needs, Christ would not have needed to die.

Finally, the last great battle in this controversy will be over the law of God: Rev. 12:17; 14:12.

Now you are welcome to present your side of the question.