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"?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 29 by Revelations won]

Kind regards an blessings to you too, RW. With respect, you have really only reiterated the Evangelical, Johannnine Pauline plan of salvation with your post here, and have not addressed the points of the OP, which are as follows:

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"?

[PghPanther]

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.

The pulpit is between a rock and hard place................if what they know of Biblical history makes its way to the congregation then church as they know it is over......

.....on the other hand they have to be sweating bullets with the movement of historical truth about the Bible exposed through the Internet and the social media, youtube debates etc....and of Christians finding this out on their own.....

Right now as it is............anyone under the age of 30 in developed countries of the world are jettison religion faster than in anytime in post enlightenment history.....

[Revelations won]

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)

Reply: I believe your question does not state exactly what theological opinions you allege John and Paul have made regarding Evangelical Christianity. Could you please clarify? To my knowledge, neither one has offered any “opinions� relating specifically to “Evangelical Christianity�.


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.

Reply: I think that the “plan of salvation� referred to by you Probably was more fully developed and explained by the other biblical writers. I think that perhaps your mis-understanding is justified to some extent and is perhaps in all probability could be easily clarified, if, in fact, we had their complete views and understanding. Is it possible that we at times overlook the fact that some text of the gospel writers is missing due to inadvertent omissions, loss of the record, or even willful omissions?

For example, we should take into consideration that Christ had performed an intense ministry for three years. Yet we have but very very little of all his words and sermons recorded. Also we cannot with certainty declare that he did not write anything down. Who is responsible for the loss of those records and documents?

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"?

Reply: Again you are assuming that there is nothing from Matthew, Mark or John. Since they and others of the twelve fulfilled their divine commission from the Master in some cases for many years after Christ’s death, is it also not reasonable that they had recorded much more of their sacred writings on doctrine? Were these writing lost, destroyed or with held from the extant sacred writings?

As I observe, those who deny Christ and His Father from giving additional revelation, essentially assume a position of placing a “gag order “ upon their very creator.

[Fundex]

[Replying to post 33 by Revelations won]

Strange that an omnipotent, omniscient Creator would need a "plan" for anything, including for the Salvation of humankind, assuming such a thing is necessary. Such a Creator would know what's going to happen in the future anyway so there shouldn't be anything to "plan." In addition, I'm not convinced there is any Scriptural basis for the notion of a "plan of Salvation." The means of Salvation is pretty straightforward according to the Gospel of John and simply a matter of belief, best summarized I think by John 20:31:

"...but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."

[Claire Evans]

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"?

It's got to do with the audience to who the different gospels were written for.

Matthew was written for the Hebrew audience and put emphasis of the fulfillment of OT prophecies that Jesus is the Messiah.

Luke wrote about the orderly life of Jesus based on eyewitness accounts as he, himself, was an historian.


Mark wrote for a gentile audience and brought out issues not important to Jewish readers. Mark emphasizes Christ as the suffering Servant, the One who came not to be served, but to serve and give His life a ransom for many.

John put emphasis on Christ's divinity as the Son of God.


http://www.gotquestions.org/four-Gospels.html

[Revelations won]

Dear Claire Evans,

Thank you for your response and well thought out observations.

I agree that ones response is many times adapted to the level of understanding and preparedness of the audience addressed.

We should observe that even Christ himself taught many things to the general public listeners, and yet there were times when he taught certain things to only the twelve apostles. Also on other occasions he indicated that even the twelve were not yet prepared to receive certain answers.

Perhaps one of the most important challenges for all of us is to overcome our unwillingness to ask of God, with full faith, nothing doubting and then be willing to receive His answer. I think one of our greatest handicaps is that we receive not because we ask not.

Kindest regards,
RW

[Claire Evans]

Dear Claire Evans,

Thank you for your response and well thought out observations.

I agree that ones response is many times adapted to the level of understanding and preparedness of the audience addressed.

We should observe that even Christ himself taught many things to the general public listeners, and yet there were times when he taught certain things to only the twelve apostles. Also on other occasions he indicated that even the twelve were not yet prepared to receive certain answers.

Perhaps one of the most important challenges for all of us is to overcome our unwillingness to ask of God, with full faith, nothing doubting and then be willing to receive His answer. I think one of our greatest handicaps is that we receive not because we ask not.

Kindest regards,
RW

I couldn't agree with you more, thank you. Without faith, there is no understanding. That's goes for humility as well. Without humility, there is no knowing God.

[Revelations won]

Dear Claire Evans,

Thank you for your observations. Humility is certainly one of the most needed attributes for all of us. I think that there are many who overlook this and insist that they can come unto Christ on their terms and wonder why that does not work.

Only when we develop the humility needed can we come unto Christ on HIS terms are we prepared to be edified.

Kindest regards,
RT

[alwayson]

The name of Jesus is an English abomination, and does not save.

Use the Greek pronunciation.

"for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved."
----------Acts 4:12

[Zzyzx]

.

Without faith, there is no understanding. That's goes for humility as well.

Those statement convey that anyone 'without faith' cannot have understanding and humility.

Is that their intent?

Without humility, there is no knowing God.

Does that apply to all of the thousands of proposed 'gods' -- or just chosen ones?

Why must one be humble to 'know gods'? Humble is defined as: 1. Marked by meekness or modesty in behavior, attitude, or spirit; not arrogant or prideful, 2. Showing deferential or submissive respect: 3. Low in rank, quality, or station; unpretentious or lowly http://www.thefreedictionary.com