Christ continually tells people that their faith has made them well (Matt 9:22; Mark 5:34; 7:50; 10:52; Luke 8:48; 17:19; 18:42; etc.). Does this mean that if the person did not have faith, Christ would not have given them the healing that they need? Apparently, it does.
"And he did not do many miracles there because of their unbelief." (Matt 13:58)
I commonly get a counterargument that it is ridiculous to suggest that one should have to evidence faith in Christ to receive the things that belong exclusively to Christ. Such a thought is evil. However, if it is evil, then Jesus is evil. If it is more loving to give physically needed resources to those who do not have faith in Christ than it is to withhold it from them, then Christ is unloving by that definition, as He does this very thing.
Why wasn't Christ a good neighbor who was there for people in their physical needs even though they did not believe?
He's really a bad neighbor by destroying His enemies with fire and not loving them. Shouldn't He have turned the other cheek and invited the Pharisees over for dinner instead of destroying their city through the Romans?
Essentially, this view wants to argue that we are to be more loving than Jesus. That Jesus is loving by requiring faith before He gives a need to someone, but to do as He did would be unloving for us. Otherwise, it has to say that Jesus Himself is not loving for requiring faith before He gives to people what they desperately need.
It is amazing to what depths of error one must go in order to support the assumptions of the social gospel. If what one accuses an exclusive understanding of giving of wrongdoing also accuses Christ of wrongdoing, maybe it's time to rethink the position. Perhaps, the worst assumption concerns what true love looks like. If anyone is confused. It looks like Jesus.
"He was not able to do a miracle there, except to lay his hands on a few of the sick and heal them, because of their unbelief, so he went around among the villages and taught instead." (Mark 6:5-6)