Old Covenant vs New Covenant

[Samie]

There is no place in Scripture that speaks of "sanctified by faith that is in Christ". 

I simply substituted "Christ" for "Me" in the verse you yourself quoted from the KJV.

[Samie]

^KJV Acts 26:18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

[Samie]

Romans 1 says the following:

 This points out that all have enough knowledge that they should glorify God and be thankful to Him.

Yes. all men has knowledge about God. But I think you are not getting what I mean by what I ask. It is about personal knowledge of Christ and what He did on the cross for the salvation of men. Do all people with the ability to think know about this?

[pnattmbtc]

KJV Acts 26:18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

I've explained several times that you are misreading this.  You are misreading "faith that is in me" to mean "faith that is inside me" instead of "faith in me", or, as Young's Literal Translation puts it, "faith towards me."  The Greek is clear.

I've explained that it is not valid to base a Bible believe on a misreading of a translation in English.  You have to consider the Greek.

I'm not getting what you're not understanding here.  You just keep repeating your misreading of the English.

It would be like you saying that you believe in an immortal soul, and I ask why, and you say that Luke 23:43 says "Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.", and I say the comma is in the wrong place, that this isn't what the Greek says, and you just keep requoting the mistranslation.

You misreading of the text is not taking into consideration what the Greek says.  The Greek is clear that Jesus is the object of the faith, not the subject (i.e. "faith in Jesus" not "Jesus' faith").

[pnattmbtc]

There is no place in Scripture that speaks of "sanctified by faith that is in Christ". 

Samie:I simply substituted "Christ" for "Me" in the verse you yourself quoted from the KJV.

That would work if the Bible were written in English, but, alas, it was written in Greek.  In the Greek it says that are satisfied by faith in Christ. (i.e. our faith in Him, or towards Him, as the YLT renders it). 

[Samie]

Mastery of Greek does not always make one right. You have your own reading of the verse. I have mine. If we insist on both our readings, we are going no further. Your reading makes man to have a part in his being sanctified. My reading makes man to have no part. This is why I offer Heb 10:10 that seems to prove my point. Still you keep mum on Heb 10:10 on whether man has part or no part in his being sanctified.

[pnattmbtc]

Mastery of Greek does not always make one right. You have your own reading of the verse. I have mine. If we insist on both our readings, we are going no further. Your reading makes man to have a part in his being sanctified. My reading makes man to have no part. This is why I offer Heb 10:10 that seems to prove my point. Still you keep mum on Heb 10:10 on whether man has part or no part in his being sanctified.

Samie, is English your native language?  If it isn't, please look up the verse in your native language, and tell me what it says. 

[pnattmbtc]

This points out that all have enough knowledge that they should glorify God and be thankful to Him.

Samie: Yes. all men has knowledge about God. But I think you are not getting what I mean by what I ask. It is about personal knowledge of Christ and what He did on the cross for the salvation of men. Do all people with the ability to think know about this?

I've understood you to have asked if all who can reason can be under the New Covenant regardless of when they lived. I've answered yes, and am giving Romans 1 as evidence that all have enough knowledge to do so, which is what I understand Paul to be arguing.

[Samie]

Samie, is English your native language?  If it isn't, please look up the verse in your native language, and tell me what it says. 

Before that, can you please tell me your take on Heb 10:10? Does man have a part in his being sanctified or none?

[pnattmbtc]

Mastery of Greek does not always make one right. You have your own reading of the verse.

 

But your reading has not basis in reality.  The Bible was written in Greek.  Sometimes the Greek is translated incorrectly, or the translation is ambiguous and can be misunderstood, which is what you've done here.  To insist on believing the misunderstanding of the translation is to base your believe on something you're just making up.

I have mine. If we insist on both our readings, we are going no further.

We can't go any further if you refuse to acknowledge valid points and just ignore evidence that has been presented to you.

Your reading makes man to have a part in his being sanctified. My reading makes man to have no part.  

Your reading is wrong.  It has no basis in fact.  It's not a reading of what was actually written. 

[Samie]

I've understood you to have asked if all who can reason can be under the New Covenant regardless of when they lived. I've answered yes, and am giving Romans 1 as evidence that all have enough knowledge to do so, which is what I understand Paul to be arguing.

You stated that "Anyone, at any time, could be under the New Covenant (by believing in Christ), or under the Old Covenant (by unbelief)". So I asked under what covenant is one who lived and died not knowing about Christ. You replied that "A person can know about Christ through nature and the Holy Spirit, so anyone (who has the ability to reason) can be under the New Covenant." You are coming to me as believing that everyone who has the ability to reason can know about Christ. That's why I posted:

Yes. all men has knowledge about God. But I think you are not getting what I mean by what I ask. It is about personal knowledge of Christ and what He did on the cross for the salvation of men. Do all people with the ability to think know about this?

[Samie]

But your reading has not basis in reality.  The Bible was written in Greek.  Sometimes the Greek is translated incorrectly, or the translation is ambiguous and can be misunderstood, which is what you've done here.  To insist on believing the misunderstanding of the translation is to base your believe on something you're just making up.

We can't go any further if you refuse to acknowledge valid points and just ignore evidence that has been presented to you.

Your reading is wrong.  It has no basis in fact.  It's not a reading of what was actually written. 

Your insistence on Acts 26:18 seems to tell me you are not comfortable with Heb 10:10 as to whether man has part or no part in his being sanctified. I maintain man has no part. It's all God's work FOR man. Here's another example of man's no participation in his being sanctified:

^NKJ Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations."

[pnattmbtc]

Acts 26:18New King James Version (NKJV)

18 to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.’

The KJV was written over 300 years ago, and idioms in English have changed.  A native English speaker today wouldn't say "by faith which is in me" but simply "faith in Me", as the NJKV has it. 

[Samie]

The KJV was written over 300 years ago, and idioms in English have changed.  A native English speaker today wouldn't say "by faith which is in me" but simply "faith in Me", as the NJKV has it. 

Our reading of Scriptures must not lead us to one verse against another. If one verse alone cannot resolve an issue, consult other verses. We are not to weave our doctrine upon a single verse or two to the exclusion of all others.

[Samie]

Does sanctification & justification have something to do with our salvation? If yes, then is salvation by grace or by works? If by grace, then man has no part both in his being sanctified or justified. Man is but a recipient of God's grace.

^NKJ Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.

 

^NKJ 2 Timothy 1:9 who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began

[pnattmbtc]

The KJV was written over 300 years ago, and idioms in English have changed.  A native English speaker today wouldn't say "by faith which is in me" but simply "faith in Me", as the NJKV has it. 

Samie: Our reading of Scriptures must not lead us to one verse against another. If one verse alone cannot resolve an issue, consult other verses. We are not to weave our doctrine upon a single verse or two to the exclusion of all others.

Of course, but the reason I presented Acts 26:18 is because you said the Scriptures didn't teach that we have any part to play in being sanctified, but Acts 26:18 says that we do; we are sanctified by faith in Christ.

If we want to have a complete understanding of sanctification, we need to consider all the Scriptures have to say on the topic, of course.  So it's possible in some other context that the Scriptures speak of sanctification in a way where man doesn't play a part, but that wouldn't negate that there are Scriptures, at least one, that point out that what we do does play a part in our sanctification.  I'd expect there are many others.  This is just one. 

[pnattmbtc]

Does sanctification & justification have something to do with our salvation? If yes, then is salvation by grace or by works? If by grace, then man has no part both in his being sanctified or justified.

Where do you get this idea from?  There's nothing in Scripture which says that if salvation is by grace then man has no part to play in his salvation.

[pnattmbtc]

Samie, what about John 3:16?  What does this mean?

[Myron]

What was the date that EGW endorsed Waggoner's view of the covenants?  She was probably speaking of a particular presentation, book, or article.  Things that Waggoner wrote later wouldn't necessarily receive that same endorsement from EGW.

Also, both the Scriptures and SDA Fundamental Belief number 18 require that all teachings be tested by Scripture even if they are written by Ellen White or endorsed by her.

 The date was around 1896.  Waggoner prepared Sabbath School lessons which were dealing with the subject.  His view of the Covenants didn't change with time, however, so regardless of when you look, you'll see the same idea.  The basic idea that Waggoner had was that the covenants were not matters of time but of condition.  Anyone, at any time, could be under the New Covenant (by believing in Christ), or under the Old Covenant (by unbelief).

Yes, of course, everything needs to be tested by Scripture, but everything Waggoner wrote was based on Scripture, and he gives the Scriptural arguments, so the testing is right there.  I mention the endorsement in case someone is impacted by such a thing, we have her stating flat out that Waggoner's view was correct, and the thing the argument was over is the same thing which has been argued ever since.

The date was much earlier than this, although I don't know precisely when and will not bother to look it up.  Waggoner's writings were at the center of the controversies during the 1888 General Conference session.  I had always assumed he and A. T. Jones wrote on the same subject since they both brought considerable controversy to that General Conference and were both rejected and to my understanding both had Ellen White's endorsement (Waggoner did, I do not know that Jones did nor do I really care.)  About 2 years ago someone called my attention to the matter because I had made reference to this assumption and was being told in no uncertain terms that Jones did not teach righteousness by faith and his teachings were in no way related to Waggoner's, something I quickly confirmed for myself through further research.

The 1888 General Conference fully and completely rejected the teachings of both these men, even though Ellen White told them God had shown her in vision that Waggoner was correct and the doctrine of righteousness (justification) by faith needed to be adopted by this denomination.  This rejection prompted Ellen White's statement that year that Jesus would have returned long before then had the Advent people simply believed and taught God's truth correctly. This is a statement that is false on the face of it for a number of reasons, not the least of which being that the Father set the appointed times (this one included) before the foundation of the Ages (usually translated world), that Jesus himself did not know the day or hour (Matthew 25) but only the Father did, and no act of man can sway God's sovereignty on this matter in spite of the constant teaching of Ellen White the contrary.  

This rejection did remove this denomination from the stream of light emanating over them from God as referenced in the vision from Early Writings p. 55 that is under discussion on another thread.  The fact that this denomination eventually did come back into this light, at least on this one issue, is largely irrelevant because it meant they missed out on the next major revelation of God in 1910.  The three major feast days of Israel are prophecies outlining three indispensable doctrines that all must include and fulfill before they can enter into the kingdom.  I have explained these before so no details here but reminder is necessary.  Passover is justification by faith; Pentecost is the majority of the process of sanctification, although it does begin before this revelation of the law and learning to hear God's voice; Tabernacles is the adoption of fully mature sons of God (priests) and is fulfilled at the second coming.  This is the legal basis and proof of Ellen White's claim that it will take seven days to travel to heaven, although she never studied deeply enough to learn this for herself, and did not provide the proper significance to her vision because of this.

Because one cannot go directly from Egypt into the Promised Land our rejection of righteousness (properly justification) by faith ended our journey right there. This was the true meaning of Ellen White's 1888 statement, which if I am not mistaken she says God told her in vision.  Because she never really understood the prophecy of the feast days she interpreted this word from God by other means and related it only to the second coming.  By rejecting Passover we refused even the Abrahamic Covenant which was ratified on that day (Exodus 12:41 And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years, even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the Lord went out from the land of Egypt.)  If you do not go through Passover you do not start the journey; you are not even really a believer.  I have always taught that this is about whether you are an Old Covenant believer or a New Covenant believer, but seen in this light that is not the distinction; it is about whether you even believe at all.

The next major step in Israel's journey is the stop at Sinai.  This is where Pentecost was offered to them and rejected by them.  Pentecost is not about speaking in tongues, it is about hearing God's voice.  The false Pentecostals of today claim it is about putting aside the law and living by the spirit.  Well, the fulfillment of Pentecost 50 days after Jesus' resurrection and fulfilling of the wavesheaf offering shows us that it is about the receiving of the spirit, but the potential fulfillment of Pentecost at Sinai shows us that running from God's voice and the word it speaks to us is what prevents us from receiving his spirit. 

There is a spirit God sends to these people.  We find that Saul is a major Pentecostal type in the Old Testament because he was crowned king on Pentecost.  At his coronation Samuel said, "Is it not wheat harvest to day? I will call unto the Lord, and he shall send thunder and rain; that ye may perceive and see that your wickedness is great, which ye have done in the sight of the Lord, in asking you a king."  Saul was a good king and prophet during his first year, but after that time his open rebellion against God began.  After his 18th year when God finally rejected him fully and told him he would not have a dynasty to follow after him God sent an "evil spirit from God" to torment him.  Everyone else seems to have been able to discern both that this evil spirit was evil and that it was from God.  Apparently Paul could not, and apparently its leading was used to justify his persecution of David who he considered to be a usurper of his throne and that of his sons.  He failed to recognize that it was God's throne and he was simply its custodian/steward.  Saul saw this spirit as the Holy Spirit and it is this lawless spirit that most who call themselves Pentecostal follow today.

Because Pentecostals had also rejected God and prefered the evil spirit from God the next move of God did not go to them but went to yet another people who had stayed true to the Spirit of God.  This was the sonship message associated with the fulfillment of the feast of Tabernacles and the consecration of the priests, two very similar ceremonies showing two different aspects of the same thing.  Without all three of these messages we cannot be ready for entrance into the Kingdom as its priest under the Melchizedek order.  This message was revealed in the mid-1940s and then the people to whom it was given misunderstood it and tried to pass it back to the Jews, who were fully rejected back in 66 AD when they killed James the brother of Jesus in the temple. 

It was about this same time that Adventists finally accepted the doctrine of Justification by Faith and entered the ranks of believers.  As I learned a few years ago this was done in order to receive recognition from the National Council of Churches.  I learned this from Adventists who hate the fact that we made this ecumenical move and had to reverse our stand on both major doctrinal positions of the 1888 General Conference in order to do so.  These people do not realize that contrary to the profession of Adventists of the past we were not Christian, and they only wish to perpetuate the sins of our fathers, not admit them and repent of them as God requires.

[pnattmbtc]

Myrons: The date was much earlier than this, although I don't know precisely when and will not bother to look it up.  Waggoner's writings were at the center of the controversies during the 1888 General Conference session.  I had always assumed he and A. T. Jones wrote on the same subject since they both brought considerable controversy to that General Conference and were both rejected and to my understanding both had Ellen White's endorsement (Waggoner did, I do not know that Jones did nor do I really care.)  About 2 years ago someone called my attention to the matter because I had made reference to this assumption and was being told in no uncertain terms that Jones did not teach righteousness by faith and his teachings were in no way related to Waggoner's, something I quickly confirmed for myself through further research.

The 1888 General Conference fully and completely rejected the teachings of both these men, even though Ellen White told them God had shown her in vision that Waggoner was correct and the doctrine of righteousness (justification) by faith needed to be adopted by this denomination.  This rejection prompted Ellen White's statement that year that Jesus would have returned long before then had the Advent people simply believed and taught God's truth correctly. This is a statement that is false on the face of it for a number of reasons, not the least of which being that the Father set the appointed times (this one included) before the foundation of the Ages (usually translated world), that Jesus himself did not know the day or hour (Matthew 25) but only the Father did, and no act of man can sway God's sovereignty on this matter in spite of the constant teaching of Ellen White the contrary.  

 There's so much here, meaning many different things, I cannot comment on much, but a few comments.  The endorsement of the covenants was 1890.  The Sabbath School lessons came later, around 1896 or 1897, and I was thinking the endorsements corresponded to that, but they didn't, although Ellen White endorsements did continue in general for both Jones and Waggoner through 1896.

Jones and Waggoner taught the same thing, so much that they could be confused with one another.  One time Waggoner preached one week, and Jones the next, in the same location, and they told Jones, "Waggoner just preached on this last week".  They both worked at the same place, and studied and spoke together, so it's not surprising.

It is not that the doctrine of justification by faith in general needed to be accepted by the denomination.  This is a common misconception.  The doctrine of justification by faith had always been accepted by the denomination, and this is easily confirmed by just seeing what the published belief of the denomination were.  Also, there were many conversations between Ellen White and James White shortly before James White passed about the importance of bring Christ to the people, and making this a focal point.  Ellen White refers to these conversations in her comments during the 1888 General Conference session.  No, it wasn't that the denomination had not accepted justification by faith in general, but there was specific light that Jones and Waggoner were bringing (the teaching on the covenants being one example) that was the issue.

The timing of the Ellen White statement about Christ's coming is inaccurate, and the date is wrong.  It was 1896, and the content was regarding if those who claimed to have a living experience with the things of God "had done their appointed work as the Lord ordained".  And the statement is not false.  And the reasons you gave are jumbled together in a way that's not easily comprehensible.  The sovereignty idea is understandable, but why throw in that Jesus did not know the day or hour; what does this have to do with Ellen White's statement?

If you don't mind my asking, what's your background?  Your comments about God's sovereignty are prompting my asking.

[Samie]

Where do you get this idea from?  There's nothing in Scripture which says that if salvation is by grace then man has no part to play in his salvation.

Your understanding of my position is not accurate.

You may have perhaps come across some of my threads in this forum, and lately, the thread "Understanding the Gospel Through the Book of Life", where I had explained the 3 dimensions of the Gospel or the 3 tenses of Salvation, past, present, future. In the past tense, God through Christ worked FOR man (sanctification and corporate justification, all sins forgiven - past, present, future; reconciled to God and names written in the Book of Life); in the present tense, God works IN man through the Holy Spirit and when one sins, he is automatically justified because Jesus was raised for our justification, the sin committed having been forgiven at the cross is not counted against him; in fact, God remembers that sin NO MORE); in the future tense, God rewards man according to his works, whether he has overcome evil with good.

It is in sanctification and justification where we have no part. We were sanctified, justified, reconciled, forgiven, written in the Book of Life - all because of God's grace given us through Christ before time began. Our part is in overcoming evil with good while alive so that at death our names will not be blotted out from the Book of Life.  And when Christ comes again, he will reward each one according to his works. To those whose names remained written in the Book of Life, eternal life; to all others, the wrath of God or the 7 last plagues, and finally, thrown into the lake of fire.

[pnattmbtc]

Your understanding of my position is not accurate.

You may have perhaps come across some of my threads in this forum, and lately, the thread "Understanding the Gospel Through the Book of Life", where I had explained the 3 dimensions of the Gospel or the 3 tenses of Salvation, past, present, future. In the past tense, God through Christ worked FOR man (sanctification and corporate justification, all sins forgiven - past, present, future; reconciled to God and names written in the Book of Life); in the present tense, God works IN man through the Holy Spirit and when one sins, he is automatically justified because Jesus was raised for our justification, the sin committed having been forgiven at the cross is not counted against him; in fact, God remembers that sin NO MORE); in the future tense, God rewards man according to his works, whether he has overcome evil with good.

It is in sanctification and justification where we have no part. We were sanctified, justified, reconciled, forgiven, written in the Book of Life - all because of God's grace given us through Christ before time began. Our part is in overcoming evil with good while alive so that at death our names will not be blotted out from the Book of Life.  And when Christ comes again, he will reward each one according to his works. To those whose names remained written in the Book of Life, eternal life; to all others, the wrath of God or the 7 last plagues, and finally, thrown into the lake of fire.

You wrote this:

Does sanctification & justification have something to do with our salvation? If yes, then is salvation by grace or by works? If by grace, then man has no part both in his being sanctified or justified.

That's what I was responding to when I said, "Where do you get this idea from?  There's nothing in Scripture which says that if salvation is by grace then man has no part to play in his salvation"., which question I still have.  I don't know where you got the idea that if salvation is by grace, then man has no part in being sanctified or justified.  

Regarding my understanding your position, I've studied this over 25 years, and have written on the topic while at the seminary, so I understand the ideas quite well, which originated from Waggoner, (although Jones and Prescott also spoke of it) tweaked by Wieland, then again by Sequeira, and Robert has a version of that.  I don't know where your ideas fit into all this, as they're somewhat similar to Robert, but you have your own twist, particularly in the overcoming evil with good part.  This is that part of your ideas I least understand.  How does one overcome evil with good? Is it by faith?  Or by works?  If one overcomes evil with good, this isn't justification by faith or sanctification by faith?  It's just "overcoming evil by faith"?

Also your idea that man has nothing to do with being justified or sanctified is new to me.  Wieland spoke of the concept of "corporate justification", which is similar to what you are presenting in relation to justification, but he never referred to this as "justification by faith" (and neither has anyone else, until you, that I know of).

Regarding our having no part in being justified or sanctified (by faith, not corporately):

1.Acts 26:18 says we are sanctified by faith in Christ.

2.In the parable of the Publican and the Pharisee, the Publican was justified when he asked for mercy, so he had a part to play in that (he asked for mercy).

3.John 3:16 says we must be born again, and our part in this process is spelled out by Jesus Christ.

[Samie]

Samie, what about John 3:16?  What does this mean?

John 3:16 has two parts: Part 1, God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son; Part 2, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

In Part 1, God's giving of His begotten Son resulted into our being sanctified, corporately justified, reconciled to God, forgiven from all sins, and names written in the Book of Life. In Part 2, all who believe, that is, all overcomers will have everlasting life.

What has overcoming to do with believing?

^KJV 1 John 5:4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.

 

^KJV John 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

 

^KJV Romans 8:37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.

[pnattmbtc]

John 3:16 has two parts: Part 1, God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son; Part 2, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

In Part 1, God's giving of His begotten Son resulted into our being sanctified, corporately justified, reconciled to God, forgiven from all sins, and names written in the Book of Life. In Part 2, all who believe, that is, all overcomers will have everlasting life.

What has overcoming to do with believing?

^KJV 1 John 5:4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.

 

^KJV John 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

 

^KJV Romans 8:37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.

This is how you think Nicodemus would have understand what Christ said?

[pnattmbtc]

Here sare some thoughts on John 3:16.  I'm going to quote from Ellen White, not as means of proof, but because of its eloquence, since I agree with the points, and coulnd't express them better myself.

How, then, are we to be saved? "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness," so the Son of man has been lifted up, and everyone who has been deceived and bitten by the serpent may look and live. "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." John 1:29. The light shining from the cross reveals the love of God. His love is drawing us to Himself. If we do not resist this drawing, we shall be led to the foot of the cross in repentance for the sins that have crucified the Saviour. Then the Spirit of God through faith produces a new life in the soul. The thoughts and desires are brought into obedience to the will of Christ. The heart, the mind, are created anew in the image of Him who works in us to subdue all things to Himself. Then the law of God is written in the mind and heart, and we can say with Christ, "I delight to do Thy will, O my God." Ps. 40:8. (DA 175-176)

Tying back to what you wrote, I think I agree with the general concepts of what you wrote, but would express it differently, and also there are points I would emphasize.  To put it first in a way that I think we might both agree, God took the initiative to do something for man by means of the life, death and resurrection of Christ, which benefits every person in the human race.  Human beings have the opportunity to respond to what God did, and if they respond they will overcome evil with good.  I think we can both agree to this.

Where's the disagreement then?  I believe the most important thing is God's character.  This is what the Great Controversy is about.  In the garden of Eden, the serpent deceived Eve into thinking that God did not have her best interests at heart, tell her that she would become as gods if she would partake of the forbidden fruit, the implication being that God didn't want her to do that, because that would be good for her, and God wanted to keep her down.  The serpent created doubt in Eve's mind about the character of God, and Eve responded, which led to her sin.

Everything happens in our mind.  The foundation of our ethics and morals are our concept of God's character.  Who we think God is impacts every decision we make, how we think about others and treat them; nothing is more important than getting right who God is (meaning what God is like).

In order to overcome the enemy, in order to enable us to overcome evil with good, God sent His Son to show us what God is really like.  There's a translation of John 1:18 which says something like "No one has seen God at any time.  His only Son, who knew Him best, has shown us what God is really like."  A very nice translation, which captures the them of the book of John, and, indeed, the theme of Scripture, God's revelation of Himself in Christ.

The above quote speaks of "light shining from the cross".  This light is the love of God revealed by the cross.  Jesus said if he were lifted up, He would draw all unto Himself.  It is by the revelation of the cross, which reveals the love and goodness of God, that Jesus is lifted up and we are drawn to God.  Peter speaks of how Christ died to "bring us to God," and it is by revelation that this happens; the goodness of God leads us to repentance (Romans 2:4).  Repentance is the key to reconcilation.  God does not need to be reconciled to us, but we need to be reconciled to God, and this happens when we believe the revelation of God in Jesus Christ; in other words, when we believe in Christ.

This reconciliation occurs if we do not resist the drawing power of Jesus Christ.  If we respond, we will be converted, and inherent in this conversion is reconciliation to God, and to His law, which is a transcript of His character.  Or, to use the language of Scripture, the law is written in our heart and mind.  This is justification by faith, and how we overcome evil with good.