Comment Me No Comments restates the simple gospel in his post each paragraph links to a post explaining his reasoning for using different wordings to my own explanation of the gospel.

Point 1 he agrees with, point 2 he restates prefering to use different words but to my mind there is little difference between us there. On point 3, I am not quite clear how much we disagree- it seems that he is uncomfortable with some of my language about justice and punishment. Actually it is this point that seems to be a sticking point with many these days. On point 4, things perhaps come unstuck a bit more. My commentator rightly wants to expand the work of christ to more than just his death, but also his life and resurrection. He seems uncomfortable with the simple language of "he took our punishment", and so once again we circle around this crucial issue of what Christ accomplished on the cross.

On point 5 there is a reluctance to accept the language of a "transaction" which puzzles me, not least as the restated language seems to be almost the same in meaning. I find that it is hard to understand the comments of those who disagree on this to me vital aspect of the gospel.

In common with many, our commentator is not happy with my description of receiving the Holy Spirit- this is an aspect of the debate that I will have to get into in more detail at a later point

I am gratified to see total agreement with the points on the church and the future. It is good to hear a belief in the primacy of the church in Gods purposes affirmed by others.