Why the Social Gospel is Wrong - By Bryan Denlinger

[Biblebeliever]

Why the Social Gospel is Wrong

By Bryan Denlinger



http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=102309101101​

What is wrong with modern 'Christian' comedians, entertainment, community service, and being a friend of the world to win sinners to Christ.

In this sermon we look at scriptures that show that this modern 'social gospel' is NOT what God intended. True preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ is offensive to the lost.

 

[Castor Muscular]

What is wrong with ... being a friend of the world to win sinners to Christ.

It's completely wrong.  I would never be caught dead eating with or being a friend to tax collectors and sinners, for example.  Jesus would never do that. 

 

[rsc2a]

What is wrong with ... being a friend of the world to win sinners to Christ.

It's completely wrong.  I would never be caught dead eating with or being a friend to tax collectors and sinners, for example.  Jesus would never do that.

This was exactly my thought.

 

[Ransom]

What is wrong with modern 'Christian' comedians, entertainment, community service, and being a friend of the world to win sinners to Christ.

Well . . . that's not the social gospel, for a start.

 

[PappaBear]

What is wrong with ... being a friend of the world to win sinners to Christ.

It's completely wrong.  I would never be caught dead eating with or being a friend to tax collectors and sinners, for example.  Jesus would never do that.

Who do you suppose accused the LORD Jesus Christ of eating with or being a friend with "sinners"?  Could it possibly be the same crowd that said about the LORD, "we know that this man is a sinner" in John 9?  Were those relationships resulting in continued sin, or did they produce a moral and spiritual change?  Any tax collectors you know of that perhaps repented and gave half their goods to the poor and restored what was taken by false accusation at 4 times the amount?

We Biblical Baptists are often referred to as "Pharisaical" but in this instance it appears to be the others who are playing the part of Simon the Pharisee and assuming the "sinner" washing the LORD's feet with her hair and tears is just the same old demon-possessed person he knew her to be.  That is why the Bible stated in Romans 1:16 that the "gospel" is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth.  Not merely saved from sin's penalty, but from sin.  There has never been a problem with Christians showing mercy and the love of Christ to give to the poor, serve the community, or minister to the sick.  There is a problem, however, when  such actions are excised of the gospel power and instead used to enable sinners to continue in sin.  But there is the rub, I guess.  So much "sin" has been redefined today as acceptable in order to justify the thievery of "tax collectors" and indecency, fornication, covetousness, and mocking of "sinners" in modern times.

Oh, and btw ... ever read the description of Christ in Hebrews 7:26?  Or do we want to consult the scriptures for a valid view of Christ instead of an enemy accusation?

 

[Castor Muscular]

What is wrong with ... being a friend of the world to win sinners to Christ.

It's completely wrong.  I would never be caught dead eating with or being a friend to tax collectors and sinners, for example.  Jesus would never do that.

Who do you suppose accused the LORD Jesus Christ of eating with or being a friend with "sinners"?  Could it possibly be the same crowd that said about the LORD, "we know that this man is a sinner" in John 9?  Were those relationships resulting in continued sin, or did they produce a moral and spiritual change?  Any tax collectors you know of that perhaps repented and gave half their goods to the poor and restored what was taken by false accusation at 4 times the amount?

We Biblical Baptists are often referred to as "Pharisaical" but in this instance it appears to be the others who are playing the part of Simon the Pharisee and assuming the "sinner" washing the LORD's feet with her hair and tears is just the same old demon-possessed person he knew her to be.  That is why the Bible stated in Romans 1:16 that the "gospel" is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth.  Not merely saved from sin's penalty, but from sin.  There has never been a problem with Christians showing mercy and the love of Christ to give to the poor, serve the community, or minister to the sick.  There is a problem, however, when  such actions are excised of the gospel power and instead used to enable sinners to continue in sin.  But there is the rub, I guess.  So much "sin" has been redefined today as acceptable in order to justify the thievery of "tax collectors" and indecency, fornication, covetousness, and mocking of "sinners" in modern times.

Oh, and btw ... ever read the description of Christ in Hebrews 7:26?  Or do we want to consult the scriptures for a valid view of Christ instead of an enemy accusation?

Pardon me?  Did or did not Jesus eat and drink with (and befriend) a tax collector and sinners? 

 

[PappaBear]

Pardon me?  Did or did not Jesus eat and drink with (and befriend) a tax collector and sinners?

Excuse me?  But did or did not the LORD Jesus save and CHANGE several tax collectors and sinners?  Is there a single one you know of scripturally that was left as they were found, merely helped with a meal or a few coins or some kind words of encouragement to continue in their sin? 

You might want to review your Bible for the source and context of the statement that Jesus ate and drank with Publicans and sinners.  Then consider how many of today's proponents of a "social gospel" will leave the drunks to go on drinking, the possessed with their devils, and the thieves with their stash instead of calling sinners to repentance.

 

[rsc2a]

Pardon me?  Did or did not Jesus eat and drink with (and befriend) a tax collector and sinners?

Excuse me?  But did or did not the LORD Jesus save and CHANGE several tax collectors and sinners?  Is there a single one you know of scripturally that was left as they were found, merely helped with a meal or a few coins or some kind words of encouragement to continue in their sin? 

Actually there were entire crowds of people that Jesus fed and ministered to who decided that following Him costs too much. He still fed them though.

[quote author=PappaBear]You might want to review your Bible for the source and context of the statement that Jesus ate and drank with Publicans and sinners.  Then consider how many of today's proponents of a "social gospel" will leave the drunks to go on drinking, the possessed with their devils, and the thieves with their stash instead of calling sinners to repentance.[/quote]

Better to focus on the sins of those outside the church than the sins of those inside the church, right? I mean, we start doing the other, we might feel convicted ourselves. A lot better to feel self-righteous than stirred towards transformation by the Spirit. "Thank God that I am not like this sinner."

 

[PappaBear]

Actually there were entire crowds of people that Jesus fed and ministered to who decided that following Him costs too much. He still fed them though.

John 6:
26  Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.
27  Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

That He fed them is not the issue.  He also used the opportunity to "call sinners to repentance."  Or, as cited above, not to continue in a fleshly life, but rather a spiritual one.

Better to focus on the sins of those outside the church than the sins of those inside the church, right? I mean, we start doing the other, we might feel convicted ourselves. A lot better to feel self-righteous than stirred towards transformation by the Spirit. "Thank God that I am not like this sinner."

Rather, it is better to focus on a saved church membership that is holy rather than bringing a mixt multitude into our congregations and enabling fornicators, covetous, idolators, railers, drunkards, or extortioners to act just like the world in our midst.  See 1Corinthians 5 for an explanation.

Malachi 2:17  Ye have wearied the LORD with your words. Yet ye say, Wherein have we wearied him? When ye say, Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and he delighteth in them; or, Where is the God of judgment?

 

[rsc2a]

Actually there were entire crowds of people that Jesus fed and ministered to who decided that following Him costs too much. He still fed them though.

John 6:
26  Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.
27  Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

That He fed them is not the issue.  He also used the opportunity to "call sinners to repentance."  Or, as cited above, not to continue in a fleshly life, but rather a spiritual one.

Actually, it's exactly the issue. In fact you stated "Is there a single one you know of scripturally that was left as they were found, merely helped with a meal..."

And, the answer is simply "yes".

[quote author=PappaBear][quote author=rsc2a]
Better to focus on the sins of those outside the church than the sins of those inside the church, right? I mean, we start doing the other, we might feel convicted ourselves. A lot better to feel self-righteous than stirred towards transformation by the Spirit. "Thank God that I am not like this sinner."
[/quote]

Rather, it is better to focus on a saved church membership that is holy rather than bringing a mixt multitude into our congregations and enabling fornicators, covetous, idolators, railers, drunkards, or extortioners to act just like the world in our midst.  See 1Corinthians 5 for an explanation.

Malachi 2:17  Ye have wearied the LORD with your words. Yet ye say, Wherein have we wearied him? When ye say, Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and he delighteth in them; or, Where is the God of judgment?

[/quote]

Got it...only perfect people are allowed in your church. Small crowd though, only Jesus can be a part of it.

 

[PappaBear]

Actually, it's exactly the issue. In fact you stated "Is there a single one you know of scripturally that was left as they were found, merely helped with a meal..."

And, the answer is simply "yes".

Not exactly.  You dodged this gem of a statement I made earlier.

There has never been a problem with Christians showing mercy and the love of Christ to give to the poor, serve the community, or minister to the sick.  There is a problem, however, when  such actions are excised of the gospel power and instead used to enable sinners to continue in sin. 

The issue is not feeding the body, but doing so without pressing them with the changing power of the gospel and demanding repentance.  Just as Jesus did in the cited reference. 

Got it...only perfect people are allowed in your church. Small crowd though, only Jesus can be a part of it.

Not perfect people, but a faithful people.  Again, you ride a pendulum to an extreme in order to make your position seem reasonable.  The point is that there should be a difference between the lost and the saved.  We are strangers and pilgrims, the blameless and harmless Sons of God in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation.  You cannot maintain that difference if you continually blend with and befriend the darkness of the world. And don't forget, James 4:4 is still in the Bible.

Those who promote such a "social gospel" tend to muddy the lines separating the godly and ungodly, actually calling the evil good and insinuating the LORD is more delighted in sinful behavior than holy living.  (Again, perhaps you missed the referenced verse)  Instead, our LORD calls the unrighteous to REPENTANCE, and we Christians to holy, godly, righteous living.  But you are right about one thing.  The narrow way does have a small crowd.  But then, is it really about the numbers?

 

[rsc2a]

Actually, it's exactly the issue. In fact you stated "Is there a single one you know of scripturally that was left as they were found, merely helped with a meal..."

And, the answer is simply "yes".

Not exactly.  You dodged this gem of a statement I made earlier.
[quote author=PappaBear]]There has never been a problem with Christians showing mercy and the love of Christ to give to the poor, serve the community, or minister to the sick.  There is a problem, however, when  such actions are excised of the gospel power and instead used to enable sinners to continue in sin. 

The issue is not feeding the body, but doing so without pressing them with the changing power of the gospel and demanding repentance.  Just as Jesus did in the cited reference.  [/quote]

And sometimes a person just needs a meal. I also don't try to be the Holy Spirit. I share Jesus. I'll let Him demand repentance.

(Notice I'm completely ignoring your assumption that every one of the many, many thousands of folks that Jesus fed, often en masse, and healed got a "salvation message".)

[quote author=PappaBear][quote author=rsc2a]Got it...only perfect people are allowed in your church. Small crowd though, only Jesus can be a part of it.[/quote]
Not perfect people, but a faithful people.  Again, you ride a pendulum to an extreme in order to make your position seem reasonable.[/quote]

No...I just pay attention to the words that you use. Every church is a "mixed multitude" (to use those words) because no one is in the same place on their road of sanctification. I walk beside them and try to help carry heavy loads when I can; the last thing I want to do is tie their shoelaces together so I can kick them when they inevitably fall.

[quote author=PappaBear]]The point is that there should be a difference between the lost and the saved. [/quote]

Strange how many people thought the Pharisees were the ones who had it all figured out. The Beatitudes pretty clearly tell us that the lost and the saved are measured by different standards than we want to apply.

[quote author=PappaBear]We are strangers and pilgrims, the blameless and harmless Sons of God in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation.  You cannot maintain that difference if you continually blend with and befriend the darkness of the world. And don't forget, James 4:4 is still in the Bible.[/quote]

I have a feeling that you and I define "world" a whole lot differently.

[quote author=PappaBear]Those who promote such a "social gospel" tend to muddy the lines separating the godly and ungodly, actually calling the evil good and insinuating the LORD is more delighted in sinful behavior than holy living.  (Again, perhaps you missed the referenced verse)  Instead, our LORD calls the unrighteous to REPENTANCE, and we Christians to holy, godly, righteous living.  But you are right about one thing.  The narrow way does have a small crowd.  But then, is it really about the numbers?[/quote]

The ones I know that would promote a social gospel just think it's a pretty Christian thing to feed hungry people and put clothes on their back. Seems our God made a very explicit statement about those who feed hurting strangers and those who ignore them...

 

[lnf]

Hmmm...

I've seen the word "demand" stated here...but didn't Jesus "offer"?

Yes, He couched His "offer" in no uncertain terms...but wasn't it still an offer?

Free will and all that...

 

[Castor Muscular]

Hmmm...

I've seen the word "demand" stated here...but didn't Jesus "offer"?

Yes, He couched His "offer" in no uncertain terms...but wasn't it still an offer?

Free will and all that...

He's the Godfather.  It's an offer you can't refuse.

 

[PappaBear]

Hmmm...

I've seen the word "demand" stated here...but didn't Jesus "offer"?

Yes, He couched His "offer" in no uncertain terms...but wasn't it still an offer?

Free will and all that...

See Acts 17:30.  Then review the LORD's statement in John 6:27.  It wasn't phrased as an offer, such as "he that will labour not for the meat that perisheth," or a conditional statement such as "if you will labour not for the meat that perisheth..."  It was a simple imperative statement.

Just as an FYI, I believe in the Lordship of Jesus Christ.  That is a belief in the authority of Jesus Christ, Who will judge all the earth.  According to Romans 14:9, He is Lord both of the living and dead (saved and lost the way I interpret it).  This authority is not the absolute determinism of the Calvinist, but it sure is not the unrestrained liberty view of a humanistic free willer, either.  Rather, it is that the LORD has granted us certain choices, but His Lordship assures that there are either benefits or consequences to those choices based on His judgment.  And as the authoritative "Lord of All," Jesus Christ has the right to make such commands or demands.

 

[PappaBear]

(Notice I'm completely ignoring your assumption that every one of the many, many thousands of folks that Jesus fed, often en masse, and healed got a "salvation message".)

  This is not unusual.  I have noticed that you tend to ignore a lot of scripture in favor of your perceived final authority of humanism.

Every church is a "mixed multitude" (to use those words) because no one is in the same place on their road of sanctification.

You do not seem to notice that the "mixt multitude" (again, a reference back to scripture you do not seem to be cognizant of or concerned with) has much less to do with sanctification as it does to salvation.  That is where the social gospel has its part in failing churches, today.  Bringing Jezebel into Christ's churches to teach and seduce His servants, the false prophets arising "even of your own selves" in Acts 20, or those in Jude 4 who have "crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ" are more indicative of diluted and apostate junk that passes for Christianity in most modern churches.  A mixt multitude is not referring to the sanctified and unsanctified, rather to the regenerate and unregenerate.  And the separation of those parties has been a consistent Biblical teaching ever since God set a mark on Cain and sent him to the land of Nod.  The unconverted do not belong on our membership roles for churches are not intended to be mere social organizations.

I have a feeling that you and I define "world" a whole lot differently.

There are a lot of things that we would no doubt define a lot differently.  Salvation, the gospel, all things whatsoever I (Christ) have commanded you -- those are probably among those redefinitions as well.  This is the second time you have made this same statement to me and I have a hunch that whatever definition you supply will merely be your attempted rationalization of whatever sins you approve of.  God did not choose DVD's or 3 act plays as His chosen method of revelation.  Rather, for reasons of His own, He chose the form of written revelation by inspiring words.  The great benefit of this is that words have definition and are not so subjective to your whimsical fancies.  Meanings do not "evolve" or adjust to social mores and customs through the ages, but remain.  So you disagree with the well defined meaning of the word "world" in the scripture?  <shrug>  I'll continue to stick with the Bible definition assigned to it in 1John 2:16 as I recognize the Bible as my sole authority in belief and practice.  Your mercurial definitions seem to be want to change.

The ones I know that would promote a social gospel just think it's a pretty Christian thing to feed hungry people and put clothes on their back. Seems our God made a very explicit statement about those who feed hurting strangers and those who ignore them...

  Yes, and again, there is no dispute in feeding and clothing the needy.  That is not an issue.  And FYI, there is more than one statement throughout the scriptures regarding feeding or ignoring those with needs.  But there are also considerations such as contained in Galatians 6:1.

Baptist Hospital is a good indication of Christian compassion.  What's that you ask?  Which Baptist Hospital?  Oh, that's right!  There is certainly more than one, just as there is more than one Methodist Medical or Presbyterian Hospital.  Charity is a hallmark of Christianity, and certainly a supportive means of carrying out the Great Commission.  But without the impetus of the gospel and the demands of faith, social services descend into enablement of continued sin.  Repentance, which is part of the gospel of salvation, does not leave people in the condition in which they were found.  A social gospel does exactly that with little concern that their various troubled conditions are often a result of the sinful lifestyles they have engaged in.  And it is often promoted by those who are trapped in the same sinful conditions, but still happen to be on the "pleasurable season" timing of that calendar of events.

 

[rsc2a]

(Notice I'm completely ignoring your assumption that every one of the many, many thousands of folks that Jesus fed, often en masse, and healed got a "salvation message".)

  This is not unusual.  I have noticed that you tend to ignore a lot of scripture in favor of your perceived final authority of humanism.

Great! Then you'll agree that baptism saves us!

[quote author=PappaBear][quote author=rsc2a]
Every church is a "mixed multitude" (to use those words) because no one is in the same place on their road of sanctification. [/quote]

You do not seem to notice that the "mixt multitude" (again, a reference back to scripture you do not seem to be cognizant of or concerned with) has much less to do with sanctification as it does to salvation.[/quote]

Yes...I don't separate those two nearly as sharply as you do. Again, definitions...

You'll also notice that Paul is specifically referring to those "who call themselves brothers and sisters". He is not referring to separating from those outside the church. In fact, he explicitly states in other places that we most definitely should not do such a thing. He also gives advice on how to handle yourself when you are around unbelievers, advice that assumes you are closely acquainted with them and will remain so.

[quote author=PappaBear]That is where the social gospel has its part in failing churches, today.  Bringing Jezebel into Christ's churches to teach and seduce His servants, the false prophets arising "even of your own selves" in Acts 20, or those in Jude 4 who have "crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ" are more indicative of diluted and apostate junk that passes for Christianity in most modern churches.  A mixt multitude is not referring to the sanctified and unsanctified, rather to the regenerate and unregenerate.  And the separation of those parties has been a consistent Biblical teaching ever since God set a mark on Cain and sent him to the land of Nod.  The unconverted do not belong on our membership roles for churches are not intended to be mere social organizations.[/quote]

The unsaved are not part of the Church universal by definition. As far as being part of the Church local, remember a story about wheat and tares? If there isn't evidence of gross sin requiring discipline, you should probably stop trying to fill in for the Holy Spirit.

[quote author=PappaBear][quote author=rsc2a]
I have a feeling that you and I define "world" a whole lot differently. [/quote]

There are a lot of things that we would no doubt define a lot differently.  Salvation, the gospel, all things whatsoever I (Christ) have commanded you -- those are probably among those redefinitions as well.  This is the second time you have made this same statement to me and I have a hunch that whatever definition you supply will merely be your attempted rationalization of whatever sins you approve of.  [/quote]

No. My definition would be the historical definition that would define "world" as an overall worldview/system that completely engulfs how and why people behave a certain way. It's not a group of people. I can guarantee that this definition makes it a lot harder to rationalize many of the pet sins that churchmen seem to want to hold onto.

[quote author=PappaBear]God did not choose DVD's or 3 act plays as His chosen method of revelation.  Rather, for reasons of His own, He chose the form of written revelation by inspiring words. [/quote]

That would be one of the ways God has revealed Himself. Or are you ignoring parts of Scripture again?

[quote author=PappaBear]The great benefit of this is that words have definition and are not so subjective to your whimsical fancies.  Meanings do not "evolve" or adjust to social mores and customs through the ages, but remain. [/quote]

Frankly, this statement is just ignorant.

[quote author=PappaBear]So you disagree with the well defined meaning of the word "world" in the scripture?  <shrug>  I'll continue to stick with the Bible definition assigned to it in 1John 2:16 as I recognize the Bible as my sole authority in belief and practice.  Your mercurial definitions seem to be want to change.[/quote]

That's not a definition. It's a categorization. And, using it for a definition requires interpretation of other words that would, at best, leave you with an incomplete definition. For example, you haven't touched many of the lists of "thou shalt nots" that Paul leaves.


[quote author=PappaBear][quote author=rsc2a]
The ones I know that would promote a social gospel just think it's a pretty Christian thing to feed hungry people and put clothes on their back. Seems our God made a very explicit statement about those who feed hurting strangers and those who ignore them...
[/quote]  Yes, and again, there is no dispute in feeding and clothing the needy.  That is not an issue.  And FYI, there is more than one statement throughout the scriptures regarding feeding or ignoring those with needs.  But there are also considerations such as contained in Galatians 6:1.

Baptist Hospital is a good indication of Christian compassion.  What's that you ask?  Which Baptist Hospital?  Oh, that's right!  There is certainly more than one, just as there is more than one Methodist Medical or Presbyterian Hospital.  Charity is a hallmark of Christianity, and certainly a supportive means of carrying out the Great Commission.[/quote]

I've been to Baptist Hospital many times. They didn't precondition my healthcare with listening to a sermon.

[quote author=PappaBear]But without the impetus of the gospel and the demands of faith, social services descend into enablement of continued sin.  Repentance, which is part of the gospel of salvation, does not leave people in the condition in which they were found.  A social gospel does exactly that with little concern that their various troubled conditions are often a result of the sinful lifestyles they have engaged in.  And it is often promoted by those who are trapped in the same sinful conditions, but still happen to be on the "pleasurable season" timing of that calendar of events.[/quote]

Sure, on the extremes. And, a gospel sell without concern for the physical well-being of others results in a head-based, right-doctrine but loveless form of "Christianity" that is violently opposed to what Scripture actually teaches. Make a list of passages on "selling" the gospel then make a list of passages on caring for the physical needs of others. The second list is going to be a lot longer.