The "plan of salvation"

[Elijah John]

It has always struck me as odd as to why the so-called "plan of salvation" seems so disjointed.

Bill Bright's "Four Spirtual Laws" for example, contains elements from the Gospel of John, the letters of Paul and the book of Revelation.

These "Laws" have been a model and used as well (as a variant) by the Billy Graham Evangelsitic Association.

The "Plan" includes (in order)

John 3.16
John 10.10
Romans 3.23
Romans 6.23
Romans 5.8
1 Corinthians 15;3-6
John 14.6
John 1.12
Ephesians 2.8,9
John 3.1-8
Revelation 3.20
1 John 5.11-13

Points of obeservation...remember, the books of the Bible were written independently of one another.

Notice there is NOTHING from the Synoptics in this typical "Plan of Salvation".

Questions for debate...

1) How can Evangelical Christianity be proven to be anything more than the theological opinions of John and Paul? (and Evangelicals like Bill Bright, for that matter)

2) If this "plan of salvation" if valid, Biblical and real, why isn't it all contained in one place, one Gospel? And repeated in each? Assuming of course, the "plan of salvation" is essential to one's eternal destiny.

3) If this "plan of salvation" is anything more than John and Paul's theological speculation, why are there NO verses from the Synoptics, 3/4 th's of the Gospels, why NOTHING from Matthew Mark and Luke in this "plan of salvation"?

[Aaron Ford]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

It shows it was made up. They were doubtlessly written in different places at different times, then woven together later on. It sounded good, so it was voted on and compiled.

It is nothing more than the evolution of religion as it attempted to get away from the perceived barbarity of the Old Testament God and bring a newer, gentler version with Jesus in charge.

The authors made sure they had to have a mechanism to ensure adherence, so the sergeant-at-arms included the fear of hell to keep control of the masses.

Honestly, if this procedure was vital to not fail and end up in hell, why was this not given to Adam and Eve on the first day? Just think of all those people who perished.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

It shows it was made up. They were doubtlessly written in different places at different times, then woven together later on. It sounded good, so it was voted on and compiled.

It is nothing more than the evolution of religion as it attempted to get away from the perceived barbarity of the Old Testament God and bring a newer, gentler version with Jesus in charge.

The authors made sure they had to have a mechanism to ensure adherence, so the sergeant-at-arms included the fear of hell to keep control of the masses.

Honestly, if this procedure was vital to not fail and end up in hell, why was this not given to Adam and Eve on the first day? Just think of all those people who perished.

"Made up" and "woven together" sounds about right.

And if this is supposedly Jesus' own plan of salvation, why didn't he spell it out, in Matthew, Mark and Luke? Did they "miss it"? Why don't they mention anything about the necessity of being "born again" as John's Jesus does?

Too many missing pieces and unanswered questions to maintain Fundamentalist exclusionary certainty, or to take John 14.6 literally or perhaps even seriously.

[PghPanther]

Why didn't this savior write it down............all in one place like his dad is claimed to have done with the 10 commandments?

Come to think of it if God could write the 10 commandments why didn't he just put the whole revelation to humanity down in writing himself...............was that too hard?

No they had to have people claim they were writing for God and then set up councils to argue about which manuscripts get to go into a proclaimed holy canon.

Then they put their stamp on that..........

That is some supernatural path to revelation there I'll tell ya.......

....good grief is Christianity in trouble when the masses of the pew dwellers start realizing all this from the information accessible to them that was only kept on high in the pulpit and seminaries in the past.......

[Elijah John]

Why didn't this savior write it down..

Excellent question. One theory, (as put forward by our own DI, I believe,) Is that Jesus wrote nothing down because he too, expected the Apocalypse to occur in the lifetime of his Apostles.

..........all in one place like his dad is claimed to have done with the 10 commandments?

Come to think of it if God could write the 10 commandments why didn't he just put the whole revelation to humanity down in writing himself...............was that too hard?

Good question again. Still, this is not a deal breaker for me, and the answer would involve speculation. My understanding is that God wants humans involved, as His "partners in Creation" and instruments of revelation. The Bible authors were His "hands" to inscribe his message.

No they had to have people claim they were writing for God and then set up councils to argue about which manuscripts get to go into a proclaimed holy canon.

Then they put their stamp on that..........

That is some supernatural path to revelation there I'll tell ya.......

Canon by commitee does arouse suspicion as to what is "authoritative" and what is not. For this Theist, however, it does not negate the concept of revelation in principle...we are left to discern the Truth of Scripture vs the error, and attribute the error to human failing and the Truth to Divine inspiration.

More speculation: maybe God wants us to use our Divine faculty of Reason to make these determinations for ourselves?

....good grief is Christianity in trouble when the masses of the pew dwellers start realizing all this from the information accessible to them that was only kept on high in the pulpit and seminaries in the past.......

It is said that many clergy already know, and believe the conclusions of the historical Jesus movement, but do not preach on it for several reasons.

-to preserve Tradition, -and they fear their congregants will either not understand the nuances of historical and cultural context, and maybe in some cases, not accept them.

Seems they think it better to 'keep the peace" and to get the "love God and love thy neighbor" essence out there among the people, than to get bogged down in detail.

If that is the cases I look forward to the day of vindication for us "heretics", and not being made to feel like an outcast in the congregation.

[Elijah John]

Also, that very same pamphlet by Bright, suggests the new convert begin his reading with the Gospel of John.

That is no accident. I have seen other Evangelicals use this tactic. I always wondered about this, and then one day it struck me. Evangelicals see things with Johannine eyes, and want their fellow converts to interpret the Bible with Johannine (and Pauline) eyes as well.

Otherwise, why not start at the beginning of the New Testament, the Gospel of Matthew, or with the EARLIEST Gospel, the Gospel of Mark?

Could it be because these Synoptics have lower Chistiologies than does the Gospel of John?

I just wish, (for the reasons presented in this thread) that Evangelicals would admit that theirs is an interpretation of the Bible, (a Johannine and Pauline weighted interpretation) but not the only valid interpretation of the Bible.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

1) How can Evangelical Christianity be proven to be anything more than the theological opinions of John and Paul? (and Evangelicals like Bill Bright, for that matter)

Just as we should ask how Christianity could be anything more'n the theological opinions of others.

We conclude they may sincerely believe their God thinks such, as the evidence is lacking or weak, to non-existent.

2) If this "plan of salvation" if valid, Biblical and real, why isn't it all contained in one place, one Gospel? And repeated in each? Assuming of course, the "plan of salvation" is essential to one's eternal destiny.

Their being wrong comes to mind.

3) If this "plan of salvation" is anything more than John and Paul's theological speculation, why are there NO verses from the Synoptics, 3/4 th's of the Gospels, why NOTHING from Matthew Mark and Luke in this "plan of salvation"?

We can ask the same about the theological speculation of Jesus.


Conclusions?
They're just a bunch of folks who think they've got it right, only it can't be shown any of 'em are.

[catnip]

It has always struck me as odd as to why the so-called "plan of salvation" seems so disjointed.

Bill Bright's "Four Spirtual Laws" for example, contains elements from the Gospel of John, the letters of Paul and the book of Revelation.

These "Laws" have been a model and used as well (as a variant) by the Billy Graham Evangelsitic Association.

The "Plan" includes (in order)

John 3.16
John 10.10
Romans 3.23
Romans 6.23
Romans 5.8
1 Corinthians 15;3-6
John 14.6
John 1.12
Ephesians 2.8,9
John 3.1-8
Revelation 3.20
1 John 5.11-13

Points of obeservation...remember, the books of the Bible were written independently of one another.

Notice there is NOTHING from the Synoptics in this typical "Plan of Salvation".

Questions for debate...

1) How can Evangelical Christianity be proven to be anything more than the theological opinions of John and Paul? (and Evangelicals like Bill Bright, for that matter)

2) If this "plan of salvation" if valid, Biblical and real, why isn't it all contained in one place, one Gospel? And repeated in each? Assuming of course, the "plan of salvation" is essential to one's eternal destiny.

3) If this "plan of salvation" is anything more than John and Paul's theological speculation, why are there NO verses from the Synoptics, 3/4 th's of the Gospels, why NOTHING from Matthew Mark and Luke in this "plan of salvation"?

Oh, wow! Did you ever hit the nail on the head! And this to destruction of the religion! And as I go around here reading posts by most vehement atheists, this is the religion they refer to. This Johnny-come-lately version created out of single verses out of context. It is divorced from the mystical faith that once predominated, an outright denial of it. I am so often tempted to claim that it is antichrist.

That said, Billy Graham himself wasn't so bad . . .

I'm wondering where you found this information? Just curious.

[Elijah John]

It has always struck me as odd as to why the so-called "plan of salvation" seems so disjointed.

Bill Bright's "Four Spirtual Laws" for example, contains elements from the Gospel of John, the letters of Paul and the book of Revelation.

These "Laws" have been a model and used as well (as a variant) by the Billy Graham Evangelsitic Association.

The "Plan" includes (in order)

John 3.16
John 10.10
Romans 3.23
Romans 6.23
Romans 5.8
1 Corinthians 15;3-6
John 14.6
John 1.12
Ephesians 2.8,9
John 3.1-8
Revelation 3.20
1 John 5.11-13

Points of obeservation...remember, the books of the Bible were written independently of one another.

Notice there is NOTHING from the Synoptics in this typical "Plan of Salvation".

Questions for debate...

1) How can Evangelical Christianity be proven to be anything more than the theological opinions of John and Paul? (and Evangelicals like Bill Bright, for that matter)

2) If this "plan of salvation" if valid, Biblical and real, why isn't it all contained in one place, one Gospel? And repeated in each? Assuming of course, the "plan of salvation" is essential to one's eternal destiny.

3) If this "plan of salvation" is anything more than John and Paul's theological speculation, why are there NO verses from the Synoptics, 3/4 th's of the Gospels, why NOTHING from Matthew Mark and Luke in this "plan of salvation"?

Oh, wow! Did you ever hit the nail on the head! And this to destruction of the religion! And as I go around here reading posts by most vehement atheists, this is the religion they refer to. This Johnny-come-lately version created out of single verses out of context. It is divorced from the mystical faith that once predominated, an outright denial of it. I am so often tempted to claim that it is antichrist.

That said, Billy Graham himself wasn't so bad . . .

I'm wondering where you found this information? Just curious.

The info is based on a pamphlet I found in the Seventies when I was in High School. Bill Bright, founder of Campus Crusade for Christ, came up with the Four Spiritual Laws pamphlet, and it set me on my Evangelical "phase".

The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association used a similar pamphet, with many of the same verses.

Here is a link to Bright's original pamphlet, a summary, without the diagrams of the original.

http://www.mesacc.edu/~thoqh49081/handouts/bright.html

[ttruscott]

Questions for debate...

1) How can Evangelical Christianity be proven to be anything more than the theological opinions of John and Paul? (and Evangelicals like Bill Bright, for that matter)

NO Christian theology, even the Evangelical pov, can be proven as the true word of GOD for we live by faith, not sight. All is a matter of the opinion of the believer. This is to the purpose that we seek the Holy Spirit to teach us HIS opinion and not run after the so called truth we like in our own minds like the pretty woman going down the street rather than our wife. It is not our minds that will save us from the curse of the false teachers [typified in 2 Peter 2] but by our being upheld by the Holy Spirit:

2) If this "plan of salvation" if valid, Biblical and real, why isn't it all contained in one place, one Gospel? And repeated in each? Assuming of course, the "plan of salvation" is essential to one's eternal destiny.

What is essential is to seek the Holy Spirit and connect with Him to find His way for you - the plan may seem to be in disarray without harm to anyone who is called by the Holy Spirit to come. If they are not spiritual then it doesn't matter, they can't accept it anyway.

3) If this "plan of salvation" is anything more than John and Paul's theological speculation, why are there NO verses from the Synoptics, 3/4 th's of the Gospels, why NOTHING from Matthew Mark and Luke in this "plan of salvation"?

Not everyone in the body of Christ is an ear or a foot. All people are different and each has its work to do, some to evangelize, others to witness and others to make apologies. Each does its part to fill up the whole...