Do you believe in God? Then you have a moral duty to fight climate change, writes Jim Antal

The way I explain it we are not saved BY good works but rather we are saved FOR good works.
MA 7
18A good tree cannot bring forth bad {evil} fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

The MAT 25 passage refers to the sheep and the goats, the language used in the New Testament to refer to the saved and the damned.

MAT 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Everlasting punishment obviously refers to Hell and life eternal obviously refers to Heaven. There's nothing here that refers to the tribulation. This is the Final judgement.

 

The social Gospel does not teach salvation by the Cross, but by loving others and do unto others Gospel though!

 

So you don't accept the words of Jesus about good and bad trees and you ignore MAT 25:31-46. Interesting. Thomas Jefferson created his own "bible" by cutting out any reference to miracles or the divine. maybe you should look into doing that.

 

Are we saved by grace alone faith alone, or not?

 

Though Wiki isn't necessarily the most reliable source, the above definition is how I've always understood the Social Gospel, and the Gospel of Christ is conspicuous by its absence. It's true that God intends for believers to do good works, as clearly stated in Eph. 2:10 as well as the verses cited by FTW. However, it's impossible to serve God according to Eph. 2:10 unless the prior two verses have been applied. From some of the "theology" I've read from Social Gospel proponents, they seem often to espouse universalism.

 

The classic Social Gospel would be that Jesus is an example to us to do good to others, to help especially the poor among us, to seek civil rights/equality for all people etc.
So one would be for say transgender/Gay/Lesbians "rights" in this example, even though scriptures are not for it!
Social Gospel does not see jesus as Divine Savor usually either, as sin id basically not doing good to/for others!

 

The main big issue was that it replaced the Cross as the way to get saved and right with God, and put doing good to others as the way to merit salvation! Jesus was the example of How to act and live, and teacher, but not Son of God savior.

 

I believe that the social gospel is the true gospel as I said before. Of course Jesus wanted people to follow Him spiritually but He also was concerned about mankind's physical needs. He told us to love our neighbor and in the MAT 25 description of the Final Judgement it's shown that faith must be accompanied by a demonstration of love for our fellow man to be genuine. Therefore, working to feed, house and support the medical requirements of the needy is a part of being a born-again Christian. As it says in James, faith without works is dead. This is also a part of the real ,concept of pro-life. Life for the born is just as precious as life for the unborn.

 

OK. I don't accept the Social Gospel as a past "movement" but rather as the only true gospel.

 

Money, money, money.

 

A social gospel is salvation by works.

Social gospel is also based in envy.


Jesus never told us our giving should be done with other people’s money.

 

I thought the real Gospel was that God came as a Man, Jesus, died on the Cross in the place of sinners, and rose again to justify those who place their trust and faith in Him alone to save them?

 

This is the word of God. Fear this warning.
[Mat 25:41-46 KJV] 41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did [it] not to one of the least of these, ye did [it] not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

 

So you assume I don’t give because I reject your social gospel. That is what a Pharisee would do.

 

I believe whatever bad that happens to earth is part of God's judgement. Look at all the havoc unleashed on earth in Revelation. Also ““Immediately after the suffering of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of heaven will be shaken.” (Matthew 24:29) (NET)

So I think our main concern is not to rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic, but to point the way to the lifeboats.

 

The difference is that you would help those that needed it yourself with your own money or through giving to your church and he doesn't believe he should have to spend a dime of his own money. He pays his taxes and the government is supposed to do it for him... and you.

The problem is that you already gave at the church and he didn't. It's a known fact that liberals give less than conservatives. Most of them give either nothing or almost nothing. So, since the government has his money, he wants them to take more of yours and expects it to take care of all those that have needs for him and you.

The message is: Don't give so much to your local church, you dope.

Give it to the government. If you don't they should just take it.