• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Bill Johnson

sunlover1

Beloved, Let us love one another
Nov 10, 2006
26,146
5,348
Under the Shadow of the Almighty
✟109,811.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
sunlover @ 3:07pm,

That's all well and good for the OT. But, this doesn't apply to the NT, which is all in Greek. I've attempted to show you the distinction between christos and chrisma. If you don't wish to at least look at the info, then there's not much more I can do.
God is not the same in the OT and the NT?
Now Messiah has a different meaning?
I don't wish to look at it?
What does it look like I'm doing? LOL

You mean I don't wish to take your word for it
over the lexicons that disagree with you?
 
Upvote 0

sunlover1

Beloved, Let us love one another
Nov 10, 2006
26,146
5,348
Under the Shadow of the Almighty
✟109,811.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
sunlover1,

You are confusing physical anointings (OT) with a symbolic anointing (NT), which is the Holy Spirit indwelling a Christian receives upon belief in Jesus Christ as the Way the Truth and Life, and the only way to salvation.
Confusing something? Now THAT may well be true.
Please feel free to school us/me.

Is that what the lexicographers are doing as well?
 
Upvote 0

Simon Peter

14th Generation PROTESTant
Mar 4, 2004
2,486
258
America
✟4,491.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I didn't see him calling them anti Christs.

Bill Johnson says:

This horrendous error provides us with an understanding of why antichrist was the name given to this spirit of opposition. The spirits of hell are at war against the anointing, for without the anointing mankind is no threat to their dominion.


And does the anointing include doing supernatural things?

The key was in the second half of my sentence, in parenthesis:

Johnson claims the anointing includes 'doing supernatural things' ('signs and wonders' found at Bethel Church for example).

Therefore, a true anointing may well include doing supernatural things, but a false anointing may include supernatural things that are not of God.


Where did he say that Jesus was "just a man without the anointing'?

What I actually said was:

Johnson seems to be teaching the 'manifest sons of God' heresy in the way he describes Jesus as just a man without the anointing


Bill Johnson:

The anointing Jesus received was the equipment necessary, given by the Father to make it possible for Him to live beyond human limitations.
...
The anointing is what linked Jesus, the man, to the divine,




peace,
Simon
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gnarwhal
Upvote 0

Craig de CrossWise

Regular Member
Apr 15, 2014
172
11
✟30,332.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Confusing something? Now THAT may well be true.
Please feel free to school us/me.

Is that what the lexicographers are doing as well?

Let me just take a lengthy quote from one of my articles:

From the Strongest Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, here’s the definition of Christos:


“Christ, Anointed One, Messiah, the Greek translation of the Hebrew 4899 (cf. Greek 3323). The Messiah is the Son of David, an anointed leader expected to bring in an age of peace and liberty from all oppression. In the NT, the Messiah is Jesus, who came first to bring liberty from sin and peace with God and who will come again to bring all things under His control [6]

In the New Testament, chrio is used five times, two of which refer to Jesus’ Baptism [Luke 4:18, Acts 10:38], another most likely to His Baptism [Acts 4:27][7], and once at or after His Resurrection or Ascension [Heb 1:9; cf. Ps 45:6-7, Isa 61:3, Php 2:9][8]. In the remaining instance, chrio is used to refer to Holy Spirit-endued Christians [II Cor 1:21]. The noun form of chrio is chrisma, “anointing,”[9] which is used only three times, and each time in John’s first epistle to denote the Holy Spirit anointing of believers [once in I John 2:20, twice in 2:27].

Both chrio and chrisma are always used in a sacred and symbolic sense; whereas, the Greek words aleipho [Matt. 6:17; Mark 6:13, 16:1; Luke 7:38,46; John 11:2, 12:3; James 5:14], epichrio [John 9:6,11], enchrio [Rev 3:18], and murizo [Mark 14:8], which are also translated anoint/ed/ing, are always used in a physical sense [10] in the NT.

The word “Messiah” is only used twice in the New Testament although it is derived from the Aramaic rather than the Hebrew [11]. This term is used solely in the Gospel of John [1:41, 4:25] and each time it is used in conjunction with Christos presumably for emphasis of Jesus Christ’s deity. It is therefore noteworthy that when the word “Christ,” (Christos) is used in the NT, it is exclusively for the person of Jesus Christ and nothing or no one else (except when Jesus Himself is referring to false Christs as in Matthew 24). As both Louis Berkhof and Wayne Grudem illustrate in each of their respective Systematic Theology’s, “Christ” is a term denoting His divinity.[12][13]

Unfortunately, many online lexicons define Christos as Christ = “anointed” which is misleading and confusing. In the NT, Christos, though derived from chrio which means “to anoint” as noted above, is defining the unique Christ, Messiah, Son of God and He is thus the “Anointed One” as per the two sources for definitions above. While Christians are anointed by the Holy Spirit at baptism, we are obviously not referred to as “Christ” (Christos) upon baptism; and, furthermore, Jesus was described as “Jesus Christ” at the virgin birth which means the term was applied to Him prior to Baptism...rather than later at His Baptism by John as these online definitions would suggest...

The confusion likely stems from the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament from which early Catholic Bibles have been translated. (Interestingly, many NT quotes from the OT are taken from the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew Masoretic Text.) The term christos is rendered as “anointed” in Lev 4: 4, Lev 6:22, 1 Samuel 2:10 (appropriate by the contexts) as well as a few other passages[14] and designated with a lower case rather than a capital “c.” In Psalm 2:2, the “C” in this term is capitalized (Christos) since this is considered a Messianic passage (prophecy about the coming Messiah). This distinction in uncapitalization/capitalization is illustrated in Brenton’s The Septuagint with the Apocrypha: Greek and English[15]. In the NT, I’m reasonably sure the convention of capitalizing Christos in each and every instance is followed in both the NA27 Novum Testamentum Graece and the UBS4 The Greek New Testament.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

sunlover1

Beloved, Let us love one another
Nov 10, 2006
26,146
5,348
Under the Shadow of the Almighty
✟109,811.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Bill Johnson says:

This horrendous error provides us with an understanding of why antichrist was the name given to this spirit of opposition. The spirits of hell are at war against the anointing, for without the anointing mankind is no threat to their dominion.
So no, he didn't call them antiChrists.

Originally Posted by sunlover1
And does the anointing include doing supernatural things?

The key was in the second half of my sentence, in parenthesis:

Johnson claims the anointing includes 'doing supernatural things' ('signs and wonders' found at Bethel Church for example).

Therefore, a true anointing may well include doing supernatural things, but a false anointing may include supernatural things that are not of God.
I'm sure (if there is such a thing) that it "may"
But what's wrong with his statement then?
It's a true statement.



What I actually said was:

Johnson seems to be teaching the 'manifest sons of God' heresy in the way he describes Jesus as just a man without the anointing
SEEMS to be.. I see.
Well that's not real helpful for me.
I'm trying to look at what IS not what SEEMS to be.
I'm sure you can appreciate that.


Bill Johnson:
The anointing Jesus received was the equipment necessary, given by the Father to make it possible for Him to live beyond human limitations.
...
The anointing is what linked Jesus, the man, to the divine,



peace,
Simon
Interesting.
Something to discuss,
a genuine quote!
That's MUCH more helpful.

:)
 
Upvote 0

Craig de CrossWise

Regular Member
Apr 15, 2014
172
11
✟30,332.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
So no, he didn't call them antiChrists.




I'm sure (if there is such a thing) that it "may"
But what's wrong with his statement then?
It's a true statement.




SEEMS to be.. I see.
Well that's not real helpful for me.
I'm trying to look at what IS not what SEEMS to be.
I'm sure you can appreciate that.



Interesting.
Something to discuss,
a genuine quote!
That's MUCH more helpful.

:)

Then, let's do discuss!

The anointing is what linked Jesus, the man, to the divine, enabling Him...

This implies that Jesus was merely a man, who was subsequently 'linked' to the divine. Doesn't the latter portion mean Jesus was not divine in and of Himself as He was 'linked' to the divine, which then 'enabled Him'?
 
Upvote 0

Craig de CrossWise

Regular Member
Apr 15, 2014
172
11
✟30,332.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I'm still waiting for someone to adequately address Johnson's quote below. Please explain how this can be theologically orthodox (and logical!):

…While Jesus is eternally God, He emptied Himself of His divinity and became a man (see Philippians 2:7). It is vital to note that He did all His miracles as a man, not as God. If He did them as God, I would still be impressed. But because He did them as a man yielded to God, I am now unsatisfied with my life, being compelled to follow the example He has given us. Jesus is the only model for us to follow

I don't know how this can be more clear, as far as denying Jesus' earthly divinity. If He "emptied Himself of divinity and became man" how can He be divine, i.e., God in the flesh?
 
Upvote 0

sunlover1

Beloved, Let us love one another
Nov 10, 2006
26,146
5,348
Under the Shadow of the Almighty
✟109,811.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Then, let's do discuss!
:thumbsup:

The anointing is what linked Jesus, the man, to the divine, enabling Him...

This implies that Jesus was merely a man,
No it doesnt.
It was a poor choice of wording IMO, but BJ says over and over
(And now I've just watched part of one of his videos and I think
I see what you have against him.. but later) over and over that
Jesus is God. So no, he's NOT implying that Jesus was merely
"a man"

who was subsequently 'linked' to the divine. Doesn't the latter portion mean Jesus was not divine in and of Himself as He was 'linked' to the divine, which then 'enabled Him'?
Totally depends on how you read it, and if you're reading it with your
preconceived notions, I'd think that is just what you'll read into it.
I just watched a video (partial) and I do not agree with all that he says
in it,.. is it antiScriptural? Mmm, so far, not that I can tell, but it's just
unprovable, experience based.
Might be unbiblical, not sure.. I must say though, he did raise a good
point in the first few minutes that actually would help us in GT (that's
General theology)
By the way, welcome to Christian Forums!
:wave:
And thank you for your gentle spirit. I know
that I can be so curt and forget to be warm
and fuzzy when I am discussing things.. forgive
me, I'm not mean, just rude :blush: I'll try harder.

I watched only about ten maybe fifteen min of this one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJ84vKR7lWo
 
Upvote 0

sunlover1

Beloved, Let us love one another
Nov 10, 2006
26,146
5,348
Under the Shadow of the Almighty
✟109,811.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I'm still waiting for someone to adequately address Johnson's quote below. Please explain how this can be theologically orthodox (and logical!):

…While Jesus is eternally God, He emptied Himself of His divinity and became a man (see Philippians 2:7). It is vital to note that He did all His miracles as a man, not as God. If He did them as God, I would still be impressed. But because He did them as a man yielded to God, I am now unsatisfied with my life, being compelled to follow the example He has given us. Jesus is the only model for us to follow

I don't know how this can be more clear, as far as denying Jesus' earthly divinity. If He "emptied Himself of divinity and became man" how can He be divine, i.e., God in the flesh?
How can you even suggest he's denying divinity when it says right
in his quote that Jesus IS God ... ETERNALLY even.
:confused:
 
Upvote 0

sunlover1

Beloved, Let us love one another
Nov 10, 2006
26,146
5,348
Under the Shadow of the Almighty
✟109,811.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
How can you even suggest he's denying divinity when it says right
in his quote that Jesus IS God ... ETERNALLY even.
:confused:

...who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.…
 
Upvote 0

Craig de CrossWise

Regular Member
Apr 15, 2014
172
11
✟30,332.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
sunlover1,

You wrote, It was a poor choice of wording IMO, but BJ says over and over
(And now I've just watched part of one of his videos and I think
I see what you have against him.. but later) over and over that
Jesus is God. So no, he's NOT implying that Jesus was merely
"a man"


Bill Johnson cannot claim that Jesus is God, usually "eternally God", yet also claim that He "emptied Himself of divinity and became man"! So, is He "eternally God" yet temporally a man? Yes, that's the best way to reconcile Johnson's various statements.

Johnson has shown over and over that he's redefined key Christian terms (and yet sometimes using those correctly). I've demonstrated this in many different articles on CrossWise. It doesn't matter that sometimes he seems to be orthodox or quasi-orthodox. An orthodox teacher is one who is consistent.
 
Upvote 0

Craig de CrossWise

Regular Member
Apr 15, 2014
172
11
✟30,332.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
sunlover1,

You wrote:

...who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.…

Does it state He emptied Himself of divinity? No, it doesn't.

Quite a few modern versions render this word in its immediate context as either “emptied Himself” or “made Himself nothing” which is the literal meaning of the Greek construction although, unfortunately, this may add to the problem in understanding this verse. Referring specifically to the American Revised Version, Dr. B. B. Warfield called it a “mistranslation.”2 Bauer (BAGD), regarding its use in Philippians 2:7, states, “Of Christ, who gave up the appearance of his divinity and took on the form of a slave”3 which is similar, if not the same, as the orthodox definition of kenosis in which Jesus’ divine attributes were “veiled” under flesh.

The other times kenoo is used in the NT it is understood and used figuratively.4 The KJV and NKJV seem to follow this convention rendering Phil 2:7 “of no reputation.” This makes sense in view of the larger context of the Apostle Paul’s words as he is admonishing us to put others ahead of ourselves by using Jesus Christ’s humiliation as an example (the period of the Incarnation from the miraculous conception to His death on the Cross and subsequent burial):

3Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself. 4Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others.

5Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God 7but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. [Phil 2:3-7, NKJV]



...Louis Berkhof, in his Systematic Theology agrees by stating what he believes the proper understanding of the word should be in this context: “…it simply means that Christ made Himself ‘of no account,’ ‘of no reputation’…”5 Jesus Christ became a servant of both man and God in God’s plan of redemption.6 However, Christ maintained His complete, unaltered divinity during the Incarnation...
 
Upvote 0

sunlover1

Beloved, Let us love one another
Nov 10, 2006
26,146
5,348
Under the Shadow of the Almighty
✟109,811.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
sunlover1,

You wrote:

...who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.…

Does it state He emptied Himself of divinity? No, it doesn't.

Quite a few modern versions render this word in its immediate context as either “emptied Himself” or “made Himself nothing” which is the literal meaning of the Greek construction although, unfortunately, this may add to the problem in understanding this verse. Referring specifically to the American Revised Version, Dr. B. B. Warfield called it a “mistranslation.”2 Bauer (BAGD), regarding its use in Philippians 2:7, states, “Of Christ, who gave up the appearance of his divinity and took on the form of a slave”3 which is similar, if not the same, as the orthodox definition of kenosis in which Jesus’ divine attributes were “veiled” under flesh.

The other times kenoo is used in the NT it is understood and used figuratively.4 The KJV and NKJV seem to follow this convention rendering Phil 2:7 “of no reputation.” This makes sense in view of the larger context of the Apostle Paul’s words as he is admonishing us to put others ahead of ourselves by using Jesus Christ’s humiliation as an example (the period of the Incarnation from the miraculous conception to His death on the Cross and subsequent burial):

3Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself. 4Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others.

5Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God 7but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. [Phil 2:3-7, NKJV]



...Louis Berkhof, in his Systematic Theology agrees by stating what he believes the proper understanding of the word should be in this context: “…it simply means that Christ made Himself ‘of no account,’ ‘of no reputation’…”5 Jesus Christ became a servant of both man and God in God’s plan of redemption.6 However, Christ maintained His complete, unaltered divinity during the Incarnation...
Since this is a HUGELY debated issue, why act like this ONE guy, BJ,
is the devil himself when really MANY men disagree on what exactly
God meant in this emptying of Himself.
Seriously, I haven't seen anything "evil" come out of him yet.
And yes, Simon was right, He's not my pastor, nor do I even know
much about him, but I do know a lot about men going after other
men and about having your words torn apart and put under a
magnifying glass.
If this guy BJ has THAT much stuff out there ... books, cd's (?)
podcasts, Youtube videos, transcripts etc.. you are going to
be bound to find some thing that he said off the top of his
head that sound goofy or odd etc.
Good grief, let's listen to your own pastors every word, I'm SURE
he's said some things that can't be backed by Scripture.

I just think that because of the "glory cloud" he's getting extra
(negative) attention, while other men who say similar things
are walking around without blame assigned.

Regardless. I'd like to see some actual proof that this guy
thinks that Jesus became a man ONLY (not God/Man).

But I do agree that He did all that He did by the power of
the Holy Spirit.


(were you able to check out the
link to that other thread I suggested? They speak of this stuff over there)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rick Otto
Upvote 0