...Francis Bacon (1561–1626), father of the scientific method, cured warts by rubbing them with bacon, then hanging the bacon in a window facing south.
...though faith (which we call the condition on our part) be the gift of God, and the power of believing be derived from God, yet the act of believing is properly our act, though the power by which we believe be of God? else it would follow, when we act any grace, as faith, repentance, or obedience, that God believes, repents, and obeys in us, and it is not we, but God that doth all these
If a person with these qualifications hesitates at the Table because he feels he has “a corrupt and rebellious heart,” Perkins said, “thou art well disposed to the Lord’s Table, when thou art lively touched with a sense of thy crooked disposition.” Medicine is for the diseased.76
The New Testament views itself—and there can certainly be no doubt about this—as the spiritual and therefore complete and authentic fulfillment of the Old Testament. The spiritualization of the Old Testament, rightly understood, is not an invention of Christian theology but has its beginning in the New Testament itself. The Old Testament in spiritualized form, that is, the Old Testament stripped of its temporal and sensuous form, is the New Testament. The peculiar nature of the old dispensation consisted precisely in the fact that the covenant of grace was presented in graphic images and clothed in national and sensuous forms. Sin was symbolized by levitical impurity. Atonement was effected by the sacrifice of a slain animal. Purification was adumbrated by physical washings. Communion with God was connected with the journey to Jerusalem. The desire for God’s favor and closeness was expressed in the longing for his courts. Eternal life was conceived as a long life on earth, and so forth. In keeping with Israel’s level of understanding, placed as Israel was under the tutelage of the law, all that is spiritual, heavenly, and eternal was veiled in earthly shadows. Even though the great majority of the people frequently fixated on the external forms—just as many Christians in participating in the sacraments continue to cling to the external signs—and while devout Israelites with their hearts indeed penetrated to the spiritual core that was hidden in the shell, they nevertheless saw that spiritual core in no other way than in shadows and images.
Often the partifipatory apsect of union with Christ is pitted against the forensic (as it is often in the wo of Alberyt Schweitzer and some of the New Perspective on Paul literature) so that the forensic (justifiaion) is crowded out by a particular understand of the partificiation that is ontological.
If union with Christ is the "central soteric blessing," as Professor Lane Tipon likes to put it, it is crucial that we understand it aright, and if partification plays a legitiate role in a rich understanding of union, it is essential that we get this right as well. In short, participation is not a blurring of ontological lines but is a revelational, indeed, a covenantal category. It draws upi such realities as the role of the rabernacle and the temple in the Old and New Testaments which find their fulfillment in the person of Jesus Christ and his body (John 4), the Shekinah glory of the dwelling precence of God with his people, the church as the temple and body of Christ by virtue of her union with Christ, and other themes that flow individually throughout Scripture and converge in a confluence in rev 21 and 22.
The word analysis is formed by the root word anal and the ancient Greek word ysis, meaning "To pull... from".
...owing to God’s free, NSD decision, he determined that he would relate himself to that which is other than himself—both the possible and the actual (this would include his eternal decree...). Then, he freely determined to bring about what he had determined would be actual, which itself was a subset of all that is/was possible. This is covenant condescension, and God takes on new properties in executing it; the Eimi, who himself is and always remains a se, takes on the eikon, in that he determines to relate himself to something(s) ad extra.
But this in no way sacrifices, undermines or negates who he is as the simple One-in-Three. He remains who he is, but he decides to be something else as well; he decides to be the God of the covenant. It was, to be sure, a monumental decision. It changed the mode of God’s existence for eternity; he began to exist according to relationships ad extra, which had not been the case before. But it in no way changed his essential character. Is this not the wonder of the gospel, from Genesis to Revelation?