Blind Unity

[Matt McCarnan]

Martin Downes highlights a portion of David Powlison's discussion of "marketeer's evangelicalism," in which Powlison quotes H. Richard Neibuhr's definition:

A God without wrath
bringing people without sin
into a kingdom without judgment
through a Christ without a cross.

If this is the message that unites the world, what are they uniting around? What eternal value can be found in such a message?

It eliminates God.
It deifies man.
It ignores the work of Christ.

Is this message sacrificing too much to the pleasure of humanity?

[tonytony]

Seem like we may have a heart for each other in the building of God's
kingdom the bible way.

Our problem isn't having nice people and feel good disco parties.
It's not even getting bus loads of people and lots of money enough.
It's calling unity what the bible say completely from Genesis to Revelation.
Too long grace gets the credit for repentance while a sermon on repentance and a real like of fire and brimstone is a cussing word for people today.
Our assignment isn't getting everybody in a building for the Lord.
It's really getting all God's people in a building together.
I believe the gospel by Paul when he said to be equally yoke with believers.
God's sheep not waiting on a big shot to understand the bible enough.
They only know the voice of a shepherd says John.
Any voice not speaking the word correctly from Genesis to Revelation is probably an unbeliever and goat to watch out for and avoid.
This sheep of God hears the word on both the topics of grace and repentance alike.
This sheep of God hears the word on both the topics of heaven and hell alike.
It's time for the real body of Christ to be unified on the topics of repentance and hell as well as be unified on the topics of heaven and grace.
I preached earlier here in another post how water baptism is a cuss word to folks if you point out that the bible says water baptism is part of God's plan for salvation.
The intellectuals hide behind a grace only save doctrine by saying that the thief on the cross was able to get off the hook with water baptizing done.
They go as far to say that Paul despised water baptism for salvation.
Your so right we got blind unity cause being partial phony with the bible is an accepted tradition too long.
Intellectuals want you to believe that being partial phony is okay cause their of the persuasion that some of the bible is philosophically created by man only.
They hate a real man of God saying that he believes Paul when he said all scripture is given by the inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, rebuke, etc. 2 Timothy 3:16.
Only blind unity until real sheep come in agreement with 2 Timothy 3:16.
You mess with 2 Timothy 3:16 you got to deal with hell, repentance, jewelry, costly array, women preachers, the Sabbath teaching and all these divorced people marrying different people again.
Intellectuals only want you to mess with 2 Timothy 3:16 if you talk about grace and heaven as well as tithes, healing, miracles and propersity for the most part and that's it.
That hate 2 Timothy 3:16 if Romans 7:2-3 is all preached at the same time.
That hate 2 Timothy 3:16 if 1 Peter 3:3 and 1 Timothy 2:9-14 are all preached at the same time also.
Paul never preached that "all" is "some" cause it's the accepted tradition today.
I'm curious what pastor is courageous enough to tell a "want to be" married couple they have to take their jewelry off and go without expensive tuxedos and wedding gowns if he's going to marry them.

Originally Posted by Matt McCarnan

Martin Downes highlights a portion of David Powlison's discussion of "marketeer's evangelicalism," in which Powlison quotes H. Richard Neibuhr's definition:


If this is the message that unites the world, what are they uniting around? What eternal value can be found in such a message?

It eliminates God.
It deifies man.
It ignores the work of Christ.

Is this message sacrificing too much to the pleasure of humanity?