Comments on: Sermon C: 3 S Easter: John 21:7 http://www.lawgospel.com/2007/04/19/sermon-c-3-s-easter-john-217/ Theological distinctions between Law & Gospel Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:52:47 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Larry - KY http://www.lawgospel.com/2007/04/19/sermon-c-3-s-easter-john-217/comment-page-1/#comment-535 Larry - KY Sun, 29 Apr 2007 02:29:00 +0000 http://www.lawgospel.com/2007/04/19/sermon-c-3-s-easter-john-217/#comment-535 I just finally got around to reading this one. This is again wonderful Gospel. I’ve found in my own personal life that this ‘living under the law’ vs. ‘living under the gospel’ reality has changed Scripture dramatically for me. I use to NEVER see comfort in the Word of God as a Christian but only further terror. It confounded me most aggrediously to hear someone like Luther or others say they found profound comfort in the Word, I could never find it because the Law always seemed to over throw the Gospel for me. But as I grow in the reverse of this Scripture that use to terrorize me have become the greatest comfort to me. I’ve begun over time to find increasing profound comfort from the Word. And it is not just a Law Gospel distinction but the concept of “living under” one or the other. Because you can have the form of Law/Gospel understanding but still be “living under the law” and THAT distinction may not help much. As one grows to be “living under the Gospel” that changes entirely. This sermon on this passage reminded me of that shift in me, or a person such as Peter here. I understand, NOW, what this sermon means!<br/><br/>Related but different: You know I’ve begun ready “The Two Natures of Christ” and one thing just “hit me” afresh in the face: Chemitz, and I cannot possibly produce the level of acumen, goes to great length to show that the essence of deity though among the Trinity is one, but that the essence of deity via the person of Christ is communicated to the human nature of Christ. Now, I’m always open for correction from error but it struck me that this is strongly held up by Luther and Lutherans more than any, even the Reformed as in Calvin. If I’m not completely fooling myself here; this seems to have implications for only seeing and knowing God, savingly, through Christ alone. If we seek to “see God” via the Father or the Spirit we run into trouble. For example “election”. It’s fact exists for sure, but if we “probe” the Divinity other than through Christ we run into trouble either despairing that we have been or proudly otherwise thinking we have been leading into two of Satan’s traps despair and pride. We may only safely grasp election in Christ. Why? Well, the deity in fullness has ONLY incarnate there whereby we may know God savingly and without danger to our souls one way or another. If we seek to “peek at God the Father in election”, who is elect or not, or seek in whom the Spirit operates by secondary effects, that can be imitated, we always run into the two dangers of utter despair of hope, unbelief, and prideful presumption otherwise than via Christ, unbelief. Either way its unbelief.<br/><br/>I think I’m becoming a closet Lutheran!<br/><br/>Blessings always,<br/><br/>Larry KY I just finally got around to reading this one. This is again wonderful Gospel. I’ve found in my own personal life that this ‘living under the law’ vs. ‘living under the gospel’ reality has changed Scripture dramatically for me. I use to NEVER see comfort in the Word of God as a Christian but only further terror. It confounded me most aggrediously to hear someone like Luther or others say they found profound comfort in the Word, I could never find it because the Law always seemed to over throw the Gospel for me. But as I grow in the reverse of this Scripture that use to terrorize me have become the greatest comfort to me. I’ve begun over time to find increasing profound comfort from the Word. And it is not just a Law Gospel distinction but the concept of “living under” one or the other. Because you can have the form of Law/Gospel understanding but still be “living under the law” and THAT distinction may not help much. As one grows to be “living under the Gospel” that changes entirely. This sermon on this passage reminded me of that shift in me, or a person such as Peter here. I understand, NOW, what this sermon means!

Related but different: You know I’ve begun ready “The Two Natures of Christ” and one thing just “hit me” afresh in the face: Chemitz, and I cannot possibly produce the level of acumen, goes to great length to show that the essence of deity though among the Trinity is one, but that the essence of deity via the person of Christ is communicated to the human nature of Christ. Now, I’m always open for correction from error but it struck me that this is strongly held up by Luther and Lutherans more than any, even the Reformed as in Calvin. If I’m not completely fooling myself here; this seems to have implications for only seeing and knowing God, savingly, through Christ alone. If we seek to “see God” via the Father or the Spirit we run into trouble. For example “election”. It’s fact exists for sure, but if we “probe” the Divinity other than through Christ we run into trouble either despairing that we have been or proudly otherwise thinking we have been leading into two of Satan’s traps despair and pride. We may only safely grasp election in Christ. Why? Well, the deity in fullness has ONLY incarnate there whereby we may know God savingly and without danger to our souls one way or another. If we seek to “peek at God the Father in election”, who is elect or not, or seek in whom the Spirit operates by secondary effects, that can be imitated, we always run into the two dangers of utter despair of hope, unbelief, and prideful presumption otherwise than via Christ, unbelief. Either way its unbelief.

I think I’m becoming a closet Lutheran!

Blessings always,

Larry KY

]]>