THE SOCIAL GOSPEL vs

THE SOCIAL GOSPEL vs. THE GOSPEL

By Bob Myhan

Many of the Lord's churches have gone the way of modernistic denominations, abandoning the gospel for "another gospel: which is not another" (Galatians 1:6-7). That is, it is another [of a different kind], not another [of the same kind], as if we could choose between two legitimate alternatives. But how do those who preach the “social gospel” differ from those who preach the gospel? There at least five areas of contrast.

First, there is a contrast in purpose. Those who preach the “social gospel” are concerned with things like disease, poverty, delinquency, race relations, secular education, and common meals, while those who preach the gospel are concerned with the spiritual welfare and eternal salvation of the souls of men (Luke 19:10; Mark 16:15-16).

Second, there is a contrast in method. Those who preach the “social gospel” treat symptoms trying to make "Christians" through social reform. Those who preach the gospel, on the other hand, treat the spiritual disease [sin--Romans 6:23; Acts 2:38] reforming society by making Christians (Titus 2:11-14).

Third, there is a contrast in motivation. Those who preach the “social gospel” are motivated by a desire for a better earthly life. But those who preach the gospel are motivated by a desire for an eternal home with God, a desire to avoid the horrors of hell, and a love and gratitude toward God for everything He has done that we might have eternal happiness (1 Peter 1:3-12; 1 Timothy 4:6-8).

Fourth, there is a contrast in standard. Those who preach the “social gospel” use human wisdom as their standard (1 Corinthians 1:20-21). Those who preach the gospel employ the wisdom of God (James 3:13-17; 1 Corinthians 1:25).

Fifth, there is a contrast in emphasis. Those who preach the “social gospel” emphasize man’s material well being, while those who preach the gospel emphasize man’s spiritual well being (Matthew 6:33; 1 Timothy 4:7-8).

Those who love the Lord with all their heart, soul, mind and strength, and love their neighbor, as themselves will never abandon the gospel for the “social gospel.” The latter is “another gospel: which is not another.” It is the result of the gospel being perverted because of a desire to serve the wrong purpose, adopt the wrong method, extend the wrong motivation, use the wrong standard, and emphasize the wrong side of man’s nature. It is to be hoped that Forest Hills will always stand for the gospel, rather than the “social gospel.” &

CONSEQUENTIAL VS INCONSEQUENTIAL ERROR

By Bob Myhan

Is all error consequential? This writer does not believe so. There are some things we can afford to be wrong about.

All actions can be put under one of three heads: (1) actions that God demands, (2) actions that God permits and (3) actions that God forbids. What God demands must be done; what He permits may be done or left undone; what He forbids must not be done. Thus, if we refuse to do what God demands or insist on doing what God forbids—and never repent—we will suffer the consequence of eternal fire.

We cannot afford to treat actions in the first category as if they were in the second or third category. Nor can we afford to treat actions in the third category as if they were in the first or second category. To treat things in the second category, however, as if they were in the first or third category is ultimately inconsequential, so long as one judges only oneself in those things. We do not have to do everything God permits. Therefore it is inconsequential if one is wrong in thinking God does not permit an action that He actually does permit.

The eating of meat, for example, is in the category of things God permits. But if one cannot eat meat with confidence, he should not eat it. His very own conscience puts it into the category of things forbidden (Romans 14:23). This does not, however, mean that he can judge those who can eat meat with confidence. To do so is to act uncharitably toward and sin against his brethren both of which God forbids. (Romans 14:1-13)

Examples of Consequential Error

In his epistle to the Romans, Paul gives a long list of actions that are “deserving of death” (1:18-32). That this is not an exhaustive list is evident from the fact that he gives two similar lists in his first epistle to the Corinthians (5:9-11; 6:9-10) and a third list in his epistle to the Galatians (5:16-21).

When one teaches that actions deserving of death are not deserving of death [or that “the works of the flesh” will not keep one from entering the kingdom of God] he is treating actions that God forbids as though they were actions which God permits, which is precisely what the serpent did in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:1-6). He encourages those he teaches to act in a way God has forbidden. Since the actions themselves are consequential, encouraging one to so act is also consequential (see Luke 17:1-2).

God insists that alien sinners believe that Jesus is the Son of God, repent of sins, confess faith and be baptized for the remission of sins. If anyone teaches that God does not demand one or more of these actions, he is hindering them from receiving the remission of their sins. Thus, it is consequential either to convince others of this error or to be convinced of this error by others.

Jesus said, “God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:24). It is therefore necessary to know how to worship “in spirit and truth.” Both those who are wrong in how to worship “in spirit” and those who are wrong in how to worship “in truth” are guilty of consequential error.

Since God forbids us to do anything “in word or deed” without authority from the Lord Jesus (Colossians 3:17), teaching or practicing anything without His authority is consequential. To extend congregational benevolence to non-saints without the Lord’s authority is consequential. To use instrumental music in worship without the Lord’s authority is consequential.

It is one thing to be wrong in what you believe to be the truth [such as believing that an action is demanded when it is not, or believing an action is forbidden when it is not]. It is another thing altogether to teach or to practice something that Jesus has not authorized. For example, a “babe in Christ” may not have grown to the point that he fully understands why instrumental music in worship is wrong. But unless this error in his understanding is compounded by the practical error of singing psalms, hymns and/or spiritual songs to the accompaniment of man-made musical instruments, it is inconsequential. In other words, one may be incorrect in his thinking and correct in his practice.

Since God forbids divorce [except where one’s spouse is guilty of fornication] and remarriage after divorce [except for one who divorced his/her spouse for fornication], to teach otherwise is to encourage adultery (Matthew 19:9). This also is consequential error. One may believe error with impunity, but he may not teach and/or practice error with impunity.

If God demands that every woman throughout the church age wear an artificial covering on her head during worship those women who do not do so are guilty of a sin of omission. If, on the other hand, God does not demand that every woman throughout the church age wear an artificial covering on her head during worship, those who teach that He does demand it are guilty of teaching error. But this error is consequential only for the teacher. Those women who are convinced that God demands such are not wrong in covering their heads, unless God forbids them to cover their heads. Rather, they would be wrong if they did not cover their heads.

Those who wish to restrict their teaching and practice to that which has been authorized by the Lord Jesus Christ will not teach or practice anything for which they have not found a “thus says the Lord.” No one who truly believes in hell wants to be wrong in his teaching or practice. But those who really want to go to heaven will always be ready to re-examine their teaching and practice in the light of God’s word.

When one who is honestly mistaken is shown the truth and understands it, he can no longer be honestly mistaken; he will either cease to be mistaken or he will cease to be honest. &