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"?

[Zzyzx]

.

"My question is, was the choice made by Adam and his wife while in the garden of eden a good or bad decision?"

I do not accept that there was any Adam, Eve or Garden of Eden -- only a Jewish folk tale about such things. According to the tale the storied decision was "bad" in that it was disobeying "God" -- but could be viewed as "good" since eating a fruit magically provided knowledge of good and evil (thereby ending child-like naivete).

Perhaps the tale once served some moralistic and/or theistic purpose. In modern times, unfortunately, it often stands in the way of real world knowledge gained through study of the environment -- particularly in the fields of biology and anthropology.

[PghPanther]

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.

Good observation........one person who likes to point this out in debate is Bart Ehrman with his ideas of who really was Jesus as perceived by the gospel writers........he will often point out those very differences you mention in the synoptics verses John while evangelicals get uncomfortable about thinking of Christ that way and try to mash all the gospels along with the Paul's letters into one overall view of Christ.

It doesn't work but most pew dwellers accept that as what Christ was without challenging any the details like at what stage of Christ's existence did God "begotten his son".

[ttruscott]

So far no one has answered my original question.

"My question is, was the choice made by Adam and his wife while in the garden of eden a good or bad decision?"

I certainly did:

In case you did not understand the import of my contention: their decision was the only decision they could make and though it was morally bad, it led to the best moral good outcome that could be had and was therefore the best blessing they ever got in their long lives.

[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.

Good observation........one person who likes to point this out in debate is Bart Ehrman with his ideas of who really was Jesus as perceived by the gospel writers........he will often point out those very differences you mention in the synoptics verses John while evangelicals get uncomfortable about thinking of Christ that way and try to mash all the gospels along with the Paul's letters into one overall view of Christ.

It doesn't work but most pew dwellers accept that as what Christ was without challenging any the details like at what stage of Christ's existence did God "begotten his son".

Good points, I like Erhman's perspective, have several of his books and watch him on YouTube once in a while.

It's an oversimplification, but I think the Synoptics portray a very Jewish Yahshua, very much in harmony with the OT/Hebrew Bible while the Evangelist John and the apostle Paul present a very Hellenized Jesus with mythic accretions that make him palatable to Mediterranean Gentiles.

I think it is this "Greek" Jesus who is featured in the Evangelical "plan of salvation", much to the exclusion of the very Jewish Yahshua of the Synoptics.

Of couse they would deny the Synoptic Yahshua is excluded, and in theory (they could argue) he is not, but as a practical matter, (as evidenced by Bright's tract) he is.

In short, it doesn't seem to matter much to Evangelicals what the historical Jesus likely said about how to "get right with YHVH God", but rather, what John and Paul said that Jesus did, to "put us right" with YHVH God.

[dianaiad]

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"?

That is interesting, EJ.

.......and you might have a point, if you accept (for the sake of the conversation) that in Christianity only those words given directly by Jesus would have merit in any Plan of Salvation.

Of course, since I believe in continuing revelation FROM Jesus, I am accepting your idea only for the sake of the conversation.

According to Jesus, then, the Plan of Salvation is pretty simple and contained in "the Sermon on the Mount" (Matthew 5) which ends with "be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect.'

Then there is 'if ye love me, keep my commandments' which sorta harks back to said sermon.

Pretty good plan, altogether. A little difficult to manage, but....at least it's rather simply set out.

Of course, the various Christian churches (including mine) do a bunch of add ons and procedures and hemming and hawing and stuff...but I think that's basically the "Plan of Salvation" as set out by Jesus Himself, as presented by the gospel of Matthew.

What do you think?

[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"?

That is interesting, EJ.

.......and you might have a point, if you accept (for the sake of the conversation) that in Christianity only those words given directly by Jesus would have merit in any Plan of Salvation.

Of course, since I believe in continuing revelation FROM Jesus, I am accepting your idea only for the sake of the conversation.

According to Jesus, then, the Plan of Salvation is pretty simple and contained in "the Sermon on the Mount" (Matthew 5) which ends with "be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect.'

Then there is 'if ye love me, keep my commandments' which sorta harks back to said sermon.

Pretty good plan, altogether. A little difficult to manage, but....at least it's rather simply set out.

Of course, the various Christian churches (including mine) do a bunch of add ons and procedures and hemming and hawing and stuff...but I think that's basically the "Plan of Salvation" as set out by Jesus Himself, as presented by the gospel of Matthew.

What do you think?

"If you would inherit eternal life, keep the commandments". The Ten, summarized in the two Great Commandments, love of God and love of neighbor. Jesus characterized this as the "Law and the Prophets".

Perfectly? Matthew in the SotM uses the word "perfect", Luke in a similar passage uses the word "compassionate"

Take away? If one cannot be perfect, one had better darn well be compassionate.

This is reinforced in the Lord's prayer.."forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us".

The whole perfection thing I think has been misinterpreted. I don't believe Jesus was suggesting that we need to be as perfect as God Himself in a Pauline, Romans 3.23 sense.

Interpreting Jesus call to perfection literally (as many do) misses the hyperbole that he so often employed. Jesus was a poet, not a "just-the-facts-ma'am" journalist.

The way I read it is that Jesus was admonishing us to embrace God's higher standard, in contrast to the world's standard.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" as opposed to "do unto others as they do unto you."

Also, if Jesus is the Son of God, (and I believe he is, metaphorically) why would he need the apostle Paul to "interpret him"? If Jesus is the "alpha and the omega" why the need for the theologian Paul, and to a lesser degree the mystic John?

Ongoing revelation? Perhaps, Jesus, Paul, Joseph Smith, Mohammed? If progressive revelation is a reality, wouldn't all it's Prophets be equal? Or at least the more recent, the more authoritative? That would have Paul being more authoritative than Jesus.

Thanks for the post, Diana, and for directly and thoughtfully engaging the OP.

[Revelations won]

Dear Elijah John,

Thank you for your reply.

It is obvious that you are concerned about the Evangelist interpretation of the plan of salvation, and perhaps rightly so.

"In my February 20, 2016 post I presented some thought which you did not respond to"

I am not concerned about anyones opinion. My real concern is in understanding the plan itself with a clear perspective.

Considering that the "Plan of Salvation" has eternal implication for each and every one of us, then we should find it of utmost importance to have a clear and correct understanding of the same.

The plan should clearly answer the following questions:

Where did we come from?

Why are we here?

What is our eternal destiny?

What is your response and understanding in relation to these questions?

[Elijah John]

Dear Elijah John,

Thank you for your reply.

It is obvious that you are concerned about the Evangelist interpretation of the plan of salvation, and perhaps rightly so.

"In my February 20, 2016 post I presented some thought which you did not respond to"

Let me do so now, thanks for the opportunity.

I am not concerned about anyones opinion. My real concern is in understanding the plan itself with a clear perspective.

Clarity is what I'm striving for too. The Pauline, Johannine perspective is not all that clear or cohesive. In fact, it seems to contradict both the Hebrew Bible and the Synoptic Gospels. The "Evangelical" plans seems to draw exclusively from John and Paul.

Considering that the "Plan of Salvation" has eternal implication for each and every one of us, then we should find it of utmost importance to have a clear and correct understanding of the same.

Agreed.

The plan should clearly answer the following questions:

Where did we come from?

From the source of life the Living God.

Why are we here?

To love God and love each other.

What is our eternal destiny?

Heaven, for the "saved" those who (re) connect with the Living God in this life, (the righteous) and death, hell, and/or perhaps annhilation for the wicked, or unrighteous. But this is speculation. Seems intuitive, if not reasonable, that there is some kind ] of system of rewards and punishment in the afterlife.

What is your response and understanding in relation to these questions?

There ya have it, my answers. But, how do you answer the OP,, what is your understanding of the "plan of salvation"? The Evangelical Pauline, Johannine one? Or is it something else derived from the OT and the Synoptics. In other words, what is your understanding of "how is one saved?"

[Revelations won]

Response to Elijah John:

Thank you for your responses.

I will attempt to respond to your observation of the “plan� in the order given. Hopefully this will be an edifying answer as I observe it.

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)

John 3:16

I think that belief in and of itself, alone, has little value. Can lip service belief alone please god? Can man love darkness rather than light and expect to receive the blessing of eternal life?

Observe carefully John 3 16-20. This answer from John holds pre-eminence over the opinions of Bill Bright or others.

John 10:10

Again, the verse you pointed out in John 10:10 is more fully answered in John 10:10-16.

Can you identify who Christ declared as, “the hireling� as stated in verse 12?




Can you identify with clarity in verse 16 who “the other sheep I have, which are not of this fold:them also I must bring and they shall HEAR MY VOICE� ? Remember that Christ also said that he was not sent, but unto the lost sheep of Israel.

Do you understand who, when and where these “other sheep� are who shall hear is voice? Where are the sacred records of the voice of God spoken to them, found today?

Romans 3:23

I observe that there are many who take this verse and some of the following verses out of context to justify salvation by faith alone. However when one observes carefully Romans 3:23-31 it is clearly manifest that that faith alone does not void the law. As Paul said in verse 31 “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea we establish the law.�

I observe that Romans chapter 4, when carefully understood is a clear indication that both faith and works of righteousness are required.

Romans 6:23

Verse 23 should not be taken out of context. I observe that there are many who do so to justify the committing of sin and expect Christ to freely forgive them without true repentance. Such opinions do not amount to much when both the preceding and following chapters are clearly understood.

For example, I find great clarity given in Romans 8:5-9.

“5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the spirit the things of the spirit.
6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

We should remember that the Spirit of God does not dwell in unholy temples.

The scriptures we given by revelation to the Apostles John and Paul are not theological opinions. The real “theological opinions� are the product of mans incorrect private interpretation rendered by those who deny revelation and form their own private interpretation.

The above are some of my observations. I will respond to the other items you have quoted in their respective order when I get the time.

Best Regards,

[Revelations won]

Here are a few more of my responses as follows:

5. Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

I think this verse is very appropriate, not withstanding it does not give full clarity and detail.

I guess the question here should be asked: Did Christ ‘s atonement apply to save man “in their sins� or “from their sins�?

Can we receive of His atonement and then willfully continue in major transgression? Is it not reasonable that after accepting of His atonement, that we have a sacred obligation to be truly born again and show our love for him by keeping His commandments?

When one carefully searches Romans Chapters 5 and 6 the answers are clearly given. Pay careful attention to Romans 6: 12-16.




1 Corinthians 15:3-6

In these verses and the following verses Paul speaks of the appearance of the resurrected Christ to the twelve apostles and also on one occasion to over 500 of “the brethren� at once. We should also remember His first appearance to Mary.

What was the level of their faith and obedience which permitted them to witness the living resurrected Christ?

Is God a respecter of persons? Is He not yet unchanging?

I do not know of any scripture that prohibits anyone thereafter from obtaining that same personal witness and visitation of our risen Lord!


John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father , but by me.

Christ herein taught that by no other name can man be saved. clearly, He, Christ is the keeper of the gate. He employs no servant there, for one must meet His divine approval before entering the presence of the Father.

I think it a beautiful thing to know that Christ was created in the express image of His Father. They are one in unity and purpose. The scriptures also declare that Christ could do nothing of himself, but that He only did those things which He saw His Father do. The magnitude of His declaration is only understood by mortals who will meditate and ponder deeply, that they may receive by personal witness all that He implied in His confession.


kind regards,