So... what is the Gospel anyway?
..editing
posted by Dave K @ 9:54 pm
4 comments
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Previous Posts
- Garbled thoughts on the Sermon on the Mount
- God's desire for his glory, his intra-Trinitarian ...
- A waste of time and ink? 1 Chronicles 27
- Blog Redesign
- The Beatitutes are Good News!
- Jesus accused of anti-nomism?
- Random pickings
- Posts close to my heart
- Worship and meeting together
- Liam Fox, wanabee conservative party leader
Blogs I Read
(for good or for bad)
Thought-Provoking People(with lots on the internet)
More Personal Links
- Good tunes:
BBC 6 Music - A glorious folly:
York Minster Library - Wouldn't read blogs without it:
Bloglines - Proverbs 10:5 & 25:2:
The OU - Second-hand treasures:
The Barbican Bookshop
All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Copyright ©2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
4 Comments:
Well, by definition, if you ask for a summary, the answer is reductionistic. Mark's intro to his Gospel doesn't render the rest of it superfluous right?
Hello Mark,
You said: 'by definition, if you ask for a summary, the answer is reductionistic.'
And you are quite right. I don't know you, but I've read enough of what you write to know better than call your post reductionistic. I'm sorry.
Reading back over what I wrote a good while later, it had a more critical tone than it should have done. I mean the only reason I read anything that I do is because I think the writer produces good stuff, worth the time.
I did throw in a few comments which were meant to have suggested that all those I mentioned knew better than what I was suggesting (e.g. 'All these formulations...only truly sum up the Gospel if you read so much more into the statement, which is just what they do') however they were drowned out by the tone, and the angle I was coming from.
In the light of all that I think I will take this post down, and edit it so that it comes out in a more loving, truthful, and respectful way.
As a explanation: the thing that I think got me thinking I might post on your post was your comment 'Jesus declared that his announcement was, objectively, good news'. I didn't really get what you meant by objectively there. Probably you meant it was good news from God's perspective (As it meant his vindication, and the beginning of his total rule). But I'm not really sure, and I felt you were minimizing the subjective. But I think that the Apostles thought it was 'good' because it was good for people as well - because it involved salvation. You agree with that I am sure, as you say 'God is king when the powers that rebel against him have been subdued and God's people have been rescued from them'. I just didn't read you post properly or sympathetically enough.
Once again I’m sorry.
Ugh. Don't apologize! You didn't do anything wrong. Blogging is more like an open conversation than anything else. While there is an extent to which we must all be careful about our words, I would hate it if we all adopted a level of self-criticism that ended conversation.
You expressed an feeling/opinion and I articulated a point I thought might help. That is all. No need to take anything down.
Perhaps I should bitterly complain that you have now publicly alleged that I have thin skin? ;)
haha!
Sadly although I am good at the self critical thing, I tend to only do it after the event. That causes me some angst.
Hopefully though your second comment has proved to the misled world that you have a thick skin, so don't worry.
Post a Comment
<< Home