Bill Johnson, Randy Clark

[Willie T]

Your source is more questionable than any "heretic" they could possible identify. They link to the honesty challenged CARM website, and the blasphemer johnmcartur's graceless community church. I presume that their facts are just the same recycled lies and gossip that those sites are known for, (they all quote each other to provide external citations for things that they fabricate), and I consider their lying accusations the highest possible endorsement of a Christian, so these ministers labelled as heretical are probably doing God's work and drawing Satanic attacks from these sites.

A big AMEN to this post, Jiminpa!

 

[Messy]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...14577648.71916.148396958530669&type=1&theater

Knights of Malta Rick Joyner | MorningStar Ministries

Andrew Strom warns against Bill Johnson and Todd Bentley | News that matters

 

[Faulty]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...14577648.71916.148396958530669&type=1&theater

If I recall correctly, Benny Hinn also claimed to receive an anointing from the same grave. That one and Kuhlman.

 

[Frogster]

well, they do believe in the Spirt inspired the text, as I speak about some cessationist scholars as an example, who indeed can be totally right on other doctrinal points, even though they are wrong on the gifts, and I really doubt all of Carm are evil. Yes, the cessationist thing I don't like either, I have defended our position on this forum, but a guy like J Vernon McGee is not evil, he loved God, he loves the text, he was saved.

Ok, so if the issue in the Op is not about cessationism, and lets say a cessationist Baptist came along, he could be correct on a doctrinal error, on the 2 men in the title, that is just true.

This thread is about the teachings and beliefs of the 2 men, and that is more extensive, than just the use of gifts, in fact, we all know they are not cessationists, good, fine, amen!

But there are issues to explore, and somone may have a correct biblical analysis, and they may be of a different denomination. We all may agree with others on some points about some doctrines.

 

[Frogster]

If I recall correctly, Benny Hinn also claimed to receive an anointing from the same grave. That one and Kuhlman.

Oh yeah...yes, i think i remember hearing that also.

 

[Faulty]

well, they do believe in the Spirt inspired the text, as I speak about some cessationist scholars as an example, who indeed can be totally right on other doctrinal points, even though they are wrong on the gifts, and I really doubt all of Carm are evil. Yes, the cessationist thing I don't like either, I have defended our position on this forum, but a guy like J Vernon McGee is not evil, he loved God, he loves the text, he was saved.

Ok, so if the issue in the Op is not about cessationism, and lets say a cessationist Baptist came along, he could be correct on a doctrinal error, on the 2 men in the title, that is just true.

This thread is about the teachings and beliefs of the 2 men, and that is more extensive, than just the use of gifts, in fact, we all know they are not cessationists, good, fine, amen!

But there are issues to explore, and somone may have a correct biblical analysis, and they may be of a different denomination. We all may agree with others on some points about some doctrines.

Just for the record, not directly to you froggy, CARM (Matt Slick) believes in the continuation of all the charismatic gifts.

 

[jiminpa]

Just for the record, not directly to you froggy, CARM (Matt Slick) believes in the continuation of all the charismatic gifts.

...and that makes his lies more credible? When a liar claims to be a continuationist is he telling the truth or lying?
It honestly doesn't matter to me if the founder of CARM is or is not a cessationist; he is untruthful.

 

[Faulty]

...and that makes his lies more credible? When a liar claims to be a continuationist is he telling the truth or lying?
It honestly doesn't matter to me if the founder of CARM is or is not a cessationist; he is untruthful.

Just setting the record straight. What you do with the info is your business.

 

[Andrea411]

Regardless of whether he is a cessationist I'd consider what he has to say and figure what, if anything, has merit.




I trimmed the blue text for brevity because the part I wanted to focus on is bolded. Even though Bob DeWaay appears to have fallen into sin himself, the writer states that his teachings have "never been in dispute" and he has been "the foremost expert on false teachings". WHY NOT??

So it looks like even though he himself struggled with alcohol, his teachings are still considered sound by Christine Pack (I am not familiar with her so can't comment one way or the other whether I'd put any weight in her opinion).

In a situation like this I would still look at the underlying theology, the underlying teachings, and look to see whether they had merit. If somebody points out doctrinal errors and subsequently falls into sin himself it doesn't rewrite history and make those doctrinal errors disappear. We need to consider teachings on their merits.

I posted a link to the article because it summed up a number of the concerns I had about Bill Johnson and that particular book, added more information on them, and meant I didn't have to write my own extended commentary.

The article was written by a man who was living a lie everyday… I'm sorry about that I feel for him as a human being. It puts his writings in context. He puts himself out there to judge others yet his followers have no problems with his writings?? Do you understand what I am saying?
Everyone has some 'wrong heretical theology' - that is why there are 50000 denominations and why can't let that define people.
I quoted from this source so it wouldn't be biased in the other direction but you totally ignore the problem with the writer bc it presents a view you want to hold. Not a clear unbiased view of Clark or Johnson, again, I'm not a follower of either but I am tired of people dragging others through the mud bc they don't follow the same doctrines…. I am sure Johnson and Clark, and DeWaay hold to the Nicene Creed. I think that is enough.
All the other stuff is just useless arguments for causing division in the body of Christ. Nothing worth saying 'anathema' to that is for certain.

Some folks here are just not happy unless they think they have it all together… they pick and devour one another…. and call that Christian love…God help us all!!! Rather to be wrong in some small point of doctrine than to tear the body of Christ apart, pulling up the tares you'll be sure to pull up the wheat… allow them to grow together and let Christ be their judge.

There are two ways to have the nicest house in town, one way tear down ALL the other houses that are nicer than yours and the other is to simply build the best house… better yet be happy your neighbor is fortunate to have that nice house and enjoy the one you have……...just sayin'.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Pastor Clark graduated with a doctorate from UTS and now can write explanations for himself the better.

 

[Andrea411]

Pastor Clark graduated with a doctorate from UTS and now can write explanations for himself the better.

why didn't I think of that?

 

[contango]

Wow, veddy veddy intadesting..hmmmmm..

Well informed post. Do you know if they, the 2 men in the OP teach the unscriptural tithing doctrine?

I am trying to learn more about these gentlemen.

I'm not familiar with Randy Clark.

I don't know what, if anything, Bill Johnson teaches regarding giving/tithing. My concerns with him relate more to Christology and his outlook on the supernatural, specifically healing.

 

[Messy]

I read that the angel's wings started in '99 after Rick Joyner came in Bethel, who's a freemason, just read a freemason article (not a heresy hunter site) that they have a lot of christian leaders who are a christian freemason.

 

[contango]

The article was written by a man who was living a lie everyday… I'm sorry about that I feel for him as a human being. It puts his writings in context. He puts himself out there to judge others yet his followers have no problems with his writings?? Do you understand what I am saying?
Everyone has some 'wrong heretical theology' - that is why there are 50000 denominations and why can't let that define people.
I quoted from this source so it wouldn't be biased in the other direction but you totally ignore the problem with the writer bc it presents a view you want to hold. Not a clear unbiased view of Clark or Johnson, again, I'm not a follower of either but I am tired of people dragging others through the mud bc they don't follow the same doctrines…. I am sure Johnson and Clark, and DeWaay hold to the Nicene Creed. I think that is enough.
All the other stuff is just useless arguments for causing division in the body of Christ. Nothing worth saying 'anathema' to that is for certain.

Some folks here are just not happy unless they think they have it all together… they pick and devour one another…. and call that Christian love…God help us all!!! Rather to be wrong in some small point of doctrine than to tear the body of Christ apart, pulling up the tares you'll be sure to pull up the wheat… allow them to grow together and let Christ be their judge.

There are two ways to have the nicest house in town, one way tear down ALL the other houses that are nicer than yours and the other is to simply build the best house… better yet be happy your neighbor is fortunate to have that nice house and enjoy the one you have……...just sayin'.

It's nothing to do with "a view I want to hold". It's also worth mentioning that I've made it clear I'm not familiar with Randy Clark and have avoided making any comments for or against him for that reason.

If somebody was teaching that Lucifer was the one true God then someone else could highlight that the teaching was in error even if they were an violent adulterous alcoholic. Their own life might be totally inconsistent with Christianity but they could still see that a particular teaching was badly wrong.

It's hard to see your response as much more than a "shoot the messenger" reply. If I agree with a politician's stance on a particular issue, if the politician subsequently stands down having been caught in the midst of a drug-fuelled orgy makes no difference to his stance on the issue. The soundness of a teaching is not a function of the lifestyle of the person speaking it. When the slave girl in Acts 16 shouted out that Paul was a servant shouting that he was a servant of the Most High God, were her words any less truthful because they came from a demon?

It's nothing to do with "a view that I want to hold". It's a view I formed from reading Bill Johnson's own book, and the article I linked focussed on a number of the concerns I had.

(ETA) Why not address the points the writer is making instead of (to use your own words) dragging him through the mud? It's one thing to compare teachings to Scripture and to consider the logical implications of the teachings, it's another thing entirely to merely seek to attack the author and from there assume the teachings are equally discredited. It seems to me that you are the one seeking to discredit people because of views you want to hold - I don't see any attempt to address the concerns the author raises in your post, just a comment that he struggled with alcoholism. As I mentioned, when I first read When Heaven Invades Earth I thought it was very good - it was only later I started to have concerns about Bill Johnson and Bethel so re-read it, only to find myself growing more and more concerned. It's certainly not a simple matter of "a view I want to hold" - my outlook regarding Bill Johnson has put me in direct opposition with many of my Christian friends so it would be a far easier life for me to accept his teachings and not deal with the opposition.

I wouldn't say everyone has "wrong heretical theology". I'd say there's a big difference between a theology I don't happen to disagree with and a theology I'd regard as dangerous. I don't agree with Anglicans performing infant baptism but I wouldn't urge people to stay away from the Anglican church just because of that. I don't "drag Anglicans through the mud" over it. We can disagree on many things without calling them heresy.

It's also not correct to refer to "some small point of doctrine" as if every disagreement can be ignored as trivial. I disagree with Anglican stances on infant baptism, Methodist stances on alcohol, to name just two. I disagree with them but don't consider those issues to be battles worth fighting - these are "small points of doctrine". The way Johnson speaks of Christ (WHIE, chapter 2) makes it clear that Jesus worked miracles as a "man in a right relationship to God... not as God" (p29). He also states that "I am responsible to pursue His lifestyle" (also p29). If I am to pursue the lifestyle of Jesus, and this is possible for any man in a "right relationship to God", then presumably I can also forgive sins and die to secure the salvation of others? The teaching looks fine at first reading but on scratching the surface it makes less and less sense. (Addition in the light of Messy's post - this issue over where Jesus Christ the man was merely a human in a right relationship with God, or God, is critical. After reading Messy's post I realised I hadn't explicitly stated this.)

If you want to pursue the "unity at all costs" approach (and I struggle to see much else in your approach of allowing wheat and tares to grow together), just how far from sound teaching does someone have to stray before you believe they should be called out on it? Would you allow a Hindu to present their religious teachings in church, arguing that we can let their tares grow with our wheat and Christ will sort it all out sooner or later? At what point do we let wheat and tares coexist, and at what point do we figure that "a little leaven leavens the whole lump"? When do we look at 2Tim 3:16 and see that Scripture is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"? (emphasis mine).

You're saying "I'm sure Johnson believes...". I'm looking at the words he wrote in his own book. Anyone can assume what someone else believes and figure everything is fine, but reading the words he himself wrote in his own book indicates what he teaches. And if we're asking whether someone is a good teacher it makes more sense to look at what they teach than to assume they believe in something, no?

I'm not sure what the "nice house in town" analogy has to do with the issue here. My concern is whether teaching is sound or not, and where Bill Johnson is concerned my opinion is that his teaching is not sound.

 

[Messy]

The way Johnson speaks of Christ (WHIE, chapter 2) makes it clear that Jesus worked miracles as a "man in a right relationship to God... not as God" (p29).

That is not a minor issue.
That is what Freemasonry teaches, He was just a man:
What Does the Masonic Lodge Teach Its Members About Jesus? - JASWiki

http://www.johnthebaptisttv.com/bbpress/topic/1806
ive done quite a bit of research & I know that Bethel

* associates with the ministry of john crowder/ new mystics - the wives of Bill johnson & john crowder have ministered together so this is not just a one off acquaintance

* held a Jesus culture event in a freemasonry building - either they got the rent free or reduced because of "connections" or they paid up front - thus funding & supporting the furtherance of freemasonry - take your pick as to which is worse.

* visit mind body spirit/psychic fairs to promote healing & prophecy - thus reducing the gospel message & Gods goodness to the same level as all that spiritual trash

* concur with Bill johnson's teaching that Jesus operated as a man & not as God when he ministered on the earth & therefore - the full deity of Jesus as a man is questioned... Bill Johnson teaches that Jesus laid his Divinty aside


crowder

 

[Messy]

He wrote a good book: true or false revival.
http://www.truthforfree.com/files/PDF/AndrewStrom-TrueFalseRevival.pdf

 

[contango]

That is not a minor issue.
That is what Freemasonry teaches, He was just a man:
What Does the Masonic Lodge Teach Its Members About Jesus? - JASWiki

Right, I just re-read my post and realised I put it after a couple of examples of minor issues and didn't explicitly state I too regard it as a critical issue.

 

[Frogster]

Just for the record, not directly to you froggy, CARM (Matt Slick) believes in the continuation of all the charismatic gifts.

Thanks bro.

 

[Frogster]

I have another question. I have heard that these two fellows are what we might call works centered? Again, just seeking to learn more, and this thread seems to be a good place to ask, since it's about them.

Also, are they into what might be called extreme charismatic stuff, hanging out with angels, glitter dust, frequent trips into heaven, and all that sort of thing?

Repentance identification or something like that, where people repent for others sins, from centuries gone by, and for people not known to the present day repenter, who repents for them? Wow, I hope they don't teach that!

Any info would be appreciated, thanks, frog.

 

[MikeBigg]

Also, are they into what might be called extreme charismatic stuff, hanging out with angels, glitter dust, frequent trips into heaven, and all that sort of thing?

I've not heard them talking about "hanging out with angels", but I would think they have an understanding of the angelic and would have, like me and many others, experienced some thing of the angelic during their ministry.

Bill Johnson's church, Bethel in Redding, CA had an experience of a "glory cloud". I don't know about gold dust. I have heard Randy talk about columns of "glory" that you can put your hand in.

I've not heard them talk about frequent trips to heaven.

Repentance identification or something like that, where people repent for others sins, from centuries gone by, and for people not known to the present day repenter, who repents for them? Wow, I hope they don't teach that!

I've never heard them talk about anything like that.

Regards,

Mike