Thanks for this! I agree the NT puts severe moral weight on care for the poor. Matthew 25 should make any “faith” that never expresses itself in works of mercy look suspect.
Where I think your post is slightly theologically dangerous is in treating salvation a bit like a checklist of criteria humans can meet. The NT is equally clear that none of us meets God’s standard: “None is righteous… no one seeks for God” (Rom 3:10–12), and Jesus’ demand is perfection (Matt 5:48). On that basis, no one is saved.
That’s why the cross matters: “While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom 5:8). Salvation is by grace, received through faith, “not a result of works” (Eph 2:8–9). Jesus’ core call is “Repent and believe the gospel” (Mark 1:15); “unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3). Repentance is turning from self-rule toward God’s will, and when it’s real it produces fruit (like service to the poor).
So in Matthew 25 the point isn’t “earn salvation by helping the poor,” but that lack of mercy can reveal a life where one claims to be a follower of God but is actually untouched by repentance and grace. Works don’t save, but the absence of transformed living exposes false faith.
P.S. clarifications, since these terms carry baggage:
By “repentance,” I mean a genuine turning away from what is wrong and toward what is good. In Christian terms, it’s a real choice, though one Christians think is enabled by grace. If that turn is real, it shows up in changed direction over time. If you “turned” but never moved, it’s fair to question whether you turned at all.
By “God,” and “God’s will” I mean the God Christians claim is most clearly revealed in Jesus Christ, not a capricious or vengeful deity, but one who wills perfect love and justice. The Christian story ends with the defeat of death and suffering (Rev 21:4). That vision overlaps in important ways with many effective altruist concerns about reducing suffering and caring for the vulnerable, even if the underlying metaphysics differ.
Thanks for this! I agree the NT puts severe moral weight on care for the poor. Matthew 25 should make any “faith” that never expresses itself in works of mercy look suspect.
Where I think your post is slightly theologically dangerous is in treating salvation a bit like a checklist of criteria humans can meet. The NT is equally clear that none of us meets God’s standard: “None is righteous… no one seeks for God” (Rom 3:10–12), and Jesus’ demand is perfection (Matt 5:48). On that basis, no one is saved.
That’s why the cross matters: “While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom 5:8). Salvation is by grace, received through faith, “not a result of works” (Eph 2:8–9). Jesus’ core call is “Repent and believe the gospel” (Mark 1:15); “unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3). Repentance is turning from self-rule toward God’s will, and when it’s real it produces fruit (like service to the poor).
So in Matthew 25 the point isn’t “earn salvation by helping the poor,” but that lack of mercy can reveal a life where one claims to be a follower of God but is actually untouched by repentance and grace. Works don’t save, but the absence of transformed living exposes false faith.
P.S. clarifications, since these terms carry baggage:
By “repentance,” I mean a genuine turning away from what is wrong and toward what is good. In Christian terms, it’s a real choice, though one Christians think is enabled by grace. If that turn is real, it shows up in changed direction over time. If you “turned” but never moved, it’s fair to question whether you turned at all.
By “God,” and “God’s will” I mean the God Christians claim is most clearly revealed in Jesus Christ, not a capricious or vengeful deity, but one who wills perfect love and justice. The Christian story ends with the defeat of death and suffering (Rev 21:4). That vision overlaps in important ways with many effective altruist concerns about reducing suffering and caring for the vulnerable, even if the underlying metaphysics differ.