Bill Johnson

[Craig de CrossWise]

sunlover1,

Is it your contention that Jesus, though He was 100% God, chose not to exercise His divine attributes? Or do you believe that He actually didn't have some of His divine attributes during the Incarnation?

I'm just trying to get a base-line for your belief system, as I wish to see how it compares to Johnson.

 

[Craig de CrossWise]

From a recent sermon/podcast of BJ titled "Thinking from the Throne":

[36:30]…until we all come to unity of faith and the KNOWLEDGE of the SON of God. Too many people think they know that don’t know. To the knowledge of the Son of God, to A perfect man. Look at the description. Millions and millions of body members come to A – singular – perfect man…a full-on revelation of the Person of Jesus, what He is like, how He is. To A perfect man, to the measure and stature – equal measure to the fullness of Christ…[37:34]

Will one Christian, let alone many Christians, become so perfect as to obtain "equal measure to the fullness of Christ"?

 

[NorrinRadd]

I have a lot of catching up to do, and some other things to do first, but I'm not going to let that dissuade me from tossing a little gasoline onto the fire right now, just to keep things fun.

Here is the first paragraph of chapter 3 of Bible Doctrines, a Pentecostal Perspective, from the Assembly of God Web site:

"Jesus Christ came to live a sinless life, to be an example of perfect righteousness, a
model by which His disciples could gauge their own behavior. He was not only born
sinless, but He lived without sinning (see Heb 4:15). An important term in this
connection is 'kenosis,' Jesus’ 'self-emptying.' During His earthly sojourn, Jesus
'emptied' (Gk. ekenosen), or divested, himself of the glory and privileges He enjoyed
with the Father is past eternity (Phil. 2:7). Although there were fleeting occasions
when His heavenly glory shone through, such as the spectacular Transfiguration on
the mountain in Galilee (Matt. 17:1-13), much of His earthly ministry was
accomplished in and by the power of the Holy Spirit (see Acts 10:38). He prayed that
the glory would be restored (see John 17:5), and it was indeed restored after His
ascension (see Acts 26:13). The great doctrine of the kenosis is given its fullest
expression in Philippians 2:1-11."

 

[Craig de CrossWise]

NorrinRadd,

I've no problem with that statement at all. I may disagree on finer points, but on the whole it's fine. Note this part, "much of His earthly ministry was
accomplished in and by the power of the Holy Spirit (see Acts 10:38).

MUCH of His earthly ministry, not ALL.

 

[sunlover1]

sunlover1,

Is it your contention that Jesus, though He was 100% God, chose not to exercise His divine attributes? Or do you believe that He actually didn't have some of His divine attributes during the Incarnation?

I'm just trying to get a base-line for your belief system, as I wish to see how it compares to Johnson.

How can I know if He didn't or did?
My opinion is that He CHOSE not to.
But my opinion is worthless,
Truth is truth and we are only
see in part.

 

[sunlover1]

From a recent sermon/podcast of BJ titled "Thinking from the Throne":

[36:30]…until we all come to unity of faith and the KNOWLEDGE of the SON of God. Too many people think they know that don’t know. To the knowledge of the Son of God, to A perfect man. Look at the description. Millions and millions of body members come to A – singular – perfect man…a full-on revelation of the Person of Jesus, what He is like, how He is. To A perfect man, to the measure and stature – equal measure to the fullness of Christ…[37:34]

Will one Christian, let alone many Christians, become so perfect as to obtain "equal measure to the fullness of Christ"?

Isn't that what God says the goal is?
In Eph 4?

 

[Craig de CrossWise]

How can I know if He didn't or did?
My opinion is that He CHOSE not to.
But my opinion is worthless,
Truth is truth and we are only
see in part.

Scripture reveals who Christ is, doesn't it? Isn't this the basis upon which doctrine is made? Isn't it our plumbline?

If your opinion is that He chose not to exercise all His divine attributes, though He retained them all, then, while I would disagree a bit, there are other legitimate scholars who would agree that this is a Biblical position. These include Walter Martin, Gordon Fee (though I'm not 100% sure), and Gerald Hawthorne.

The main question, then, for the purposes of this thread, is this what Johnson actually teaches.? For Johnson to explicitly affirm this he'd have to affirm that Jesus retained all His divine attributes yet chose not to exercise them. Such language as the following will not work:

"He emptied Himself of divinity and became a man"

"Jesus had no ability to heal the sick. He couldn’t cast out devils, and He had no ability to raise the dead...Jesus so emptied Himself that He was incapable of doing what was required of Him by the Father – without the Father’s help" - this is shortened version of the quote supplied very recently.

For a position similar to Martin and Hawthorne, etc. Johnson must affirm that the Word retained all divine attributes while Incarnate yet chose not to use them (either this choice was made pre-incarnate or was a conscious choice during the incarnation). Johnson has explicitly eliminated this choice in the 2nd quote above. This is heretical, for if Jesus were less than fully divine, He'd be less than God.

 

[sunlover1]

Scripture reveals who Christ is, doesn't it? Isn't this the basis upon which doctrine is made? Isn't it our plumbline?

If your opinion is that He chose not to exercise all His divine attributes, though He retained them all, then, while I would disagree a bit, there are other legitimate scholars who would agree that this is a Biblical position. These include Walter Martin, Gordon Fee (though I'm not 100% sure), and Gerald Hawthorne.

The main question, then, for the purposes of this thread, is this what Johnson actually teaches.? For Johnson to explicitly affirm this he'd have to affirm that Jesus retained all His divine attributes yet chose not to exercise them. Such language as the following will not work:

"He emptied Himself of divinity and became a man"

"Jesus had no ability to heal the sick. He couldn’t cast out devils, and He had no ability to raise the dead...Jesus so emptied Himself that He was incapable of doing what was required of Him by the Father – without the Father’s help" - this is shortened version of the quote supplied very recently.

For a position similar to Martin and Hawthorne, etc. Johnson must affirm that the Word retained all divine attributes while Incarnate yet chose not to use them (either this choice was made pre-incarnate or was a conscious choice during the incarnation). Johnson has explicitly eliminated this choice in the 2nd quote above. This is heretical, for if Jesus were less than fully divine, He'd be less than God.

So you're saying that He DID have the ability to heal the sick apart from
the power of the Spirit?

 

[Craig de CrossWise]

[

So you're saying that He DID have the ability to heal the sick apart from
the power of the Spirit?

Yes, I am.

 

[Craig de CrossWise]

Isn't that what God says the goal is?
In Eph 4?

If you believe that Jesus was God incarnate, and it seems you do, don't you see the problem with Johnson's claim that we become "a full-on revelation of the Person of Jesus". Paul is not stating that we will, in our earthly lives, actually reach the point in which we attain godhood. The word "perfect" is better translated "mature", as it is in the NIV.

 

[sunlover1]

Originally Posted by sunlover1

So you're saying that He DID have the ability to heal the sick apart from
the power of the Spirit?​

​

[

Yes, I am.

"Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself;
he can do only what he sees his Father doing,
because whatever the Father does the Son also does.

By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear,
and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please
myself but him who sent me.

 

[Craig de CrossWise]

[/INDENT]


"Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself;
he can do only what he sees his Father doing,
because whatever the Father does the Son also does.

By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear,
and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please
myself but him who sent me.

And, how about continuing:

21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life,(A) even so the Son gives life(B) to whom he is pleased to give it. 22 Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son,(C) 23 that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.(D)

24 “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me(E) has eternal life(F) and will not be judged(G) but has crossed over from death to life.(H) 25 Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come(I) when the dead will hear(J) the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live.

All Jesus is telling the unbelieving Pharisees is that Jesus is in partnership with the Father. He's not saying He has no ability to do anything at all; He's saying He has no ability to 'go rouge' and do as He wishes apart from the Father.

Now, we don't have the power to give life to whom we are pleased to give it, do we? Of course not. So, if we were to accept for a second the claim that Jesus was merely acting as a Holy Spirit-moved man, then it should follow that we'd be able to give like to who WE want, as Holy Spirit indwelt Christians. Obviously, that is not true. Hence, Jesus acted of His divine nature in obedience to the Father rather than 'of Himself', for, as He said, "by Myself I can do nothing".

 

[sunlover1]

And, how about continuing:

Why? Doesn't this mean what it says?
Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself...

All Jesus is telling the unbelieving Pharisees is that Jesus is in partnership with the Father. He's not saying He has no ability to do anything at all; He's saying He has no ability to 'go rouge' and do as He wishes apart from the Father.

He CLEARLY said:
The Son can do nothing by himself...

We should use the same rules to read this
as we did to read what BJ stated, right?
Stand alone statements count. Never mind
context.

 

[Thekla]

To note: to say "sit at the right hand of" denotes equality. The Father and the Son do not act "independently", nor does the Holy Spirit. The incarnate Son indeed demonstrates for us the method for return to and walking with God (self-emptying ie taking the form of a servant, not acting "independently", praying - though as God, Christ has no need to pray per se, humility, etc.). This does not mean the Son is less than the Father, nor the Holy Spirit is less than the Son nor the Father. A review of the Scriptural descriptions of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (OT and NT) was made for the purpose of iirc the 2nd or 3rd Council - and it was demonstrated that their "power" etc. was the same. Thus they are known as persons with the characteristic that the Father begets, the Son is begotten of the Father (before all ages), and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.

 

[sunlover1]

Originally Posted by Craig de CrossWise

From a recent sermon/podcast of BJ titled "Thinking from the Throne":

[36:30]…until we all come to unity of faith and the KNOWLEDGE of the SON of God. Too many people think they know that don’t know. To the knowledge of the Son of God, to A perfect man. Look at the description. Millions and millions of body members come to A – singular – perfect man…a full-on revelation of the Person of Jesus, what He is like, how He is. To A perfect man, to the measure and stature – equal measure to the fullness of Christ…[37:34]

Will one Christian, let alone many Christians, become so perfect as to obtain "equal measure to the fullness of Christ"?
​

Isn't that what God says the goal is?
In Eph 4?

If you believe that Jesus was God incarnate, and it seems you do, don't you see the problem with Johnson's claim that we become "a full-on revelation of the Person of Jesus". Paul is not stating that we will, in our earthly lives, actually reach the point in which we attain godhood. The word "perfect" is better translated "mature", as it is in the NIV.

When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. 12For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.

...for the equipping of the saints for the work of service,
to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain
to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God,
to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs
to the fullness of Christ. As a result, we are no longer to be
children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every
wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming..

[36:30]…until we all come to unity of faith and the KNOWLEDGE of the SON of God. Too many people think they know that don’t know. To the knowledge of the Son of God, to A perfect man. Look at the description. Millions and millions of body members come to A – singular – perfect man…a full-on revelation of the Person of Jesus, what He is like, how He is. To A perfect man, to the measure and stature – equal measure to the fullness of Christ…[37:34]

And I think you may have missed his point anyhow.
it's quite beautiful if you look at it.
And yeah, it makes sense to me.
What's wrong with it?

 

[Craig de CrossWise]

When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. 12For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.

And, when is this "then" in which we will "fully know..."? This is speaking of Christ's Second Coming.

 

[Craig de CrossWise]

Why? Doesn't this mean what it says?
Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself...


He CLEARLY said:
The Son can do nothing by himself...

We should use the same rules to read this
as we did to read what BJ stated, right?
Stand alone statements count. Never mind
context.

Now you're just being contentious. I've always supplied Johnson's context. When I pull out such things as "emptied Himself of divinity and became a man" it's to illustrate that it contradicts his "eternally God" statement. Had Johnson stated something like, "While Jesus is eternally God, He chose not to exercise such divine attributes as omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence in order to rely on the Holy Spirit...." or something to that effect, then we'd be closer to what it is that Hawthorne, etc. were stating. But, BJ's statement as it stands is self-contradictory.

Scripture on the other hand is not self-contradictory, and Jesus certainly can and did perform divine acts as John 5:19-25 makes clear. Johnson proof-texted Scripture (John 5:19) and you are defending him. That's a pity.

 

[sunlover1]

Now you're just being contentious.

Not at all.
Why would we look at BJ's and disregard the context
yet not the same with the other statement?

I've always supplied Johnson's context. When I pull out such things as "emptied Himself of divinity and became a man" it's to illustrate that it contradicts his "eternally God" statement.

OBviously he meant it in the same way everyone uses it.

Does Macs statement:
MacArthur proclaims the blood of Christ “could not save” and “it was not the FLUID that saved us,
it was the DEATH of Christ.”

"contradict" his other statement:
When Romans 3:25 speaks of ‘faith in His blood’ everyone understands that to be a reference to His death — not the blood running through His body.

Had Johnson stated something like, "While Jesus is eternally God, He chose not to exercise such divine attributes as omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence in order to rely on the Holy Spirit...." or something to that effect, then we'd be closer to what it is that Hawthorne, etc. were stating. But, BJ's statement as it stands is self-contradictory.

You may think so.
I don't.

Scripture on the other hand is not self-contradictory, and Jesus certainly can and did perform divine acts as John 5:19-25 makes clear. Johnson proof-texted Scripture (John 5:19) and you are defending him. That's a pity

I'm defending truth.
So no need for pity.

 

[NorrinRadd]

You're wrong...
He may have set aside the prerogatives of His deity and the voluntary use of His attributes, but He did not stop being omniscient or omnipresent or omnipotent.

FTR, while I agree with the quote you cited (actually all the ones I provided in my post), the words are those of Walter Martin.

He was omnipotent in that He walked on water (Matthew 14:22-33)
as well as commanded the wind.

By that reasoning, Moses, Joshua, Elijah, and Elisha were also omnipotent, since they also commanded the forces of nature.

He remained omniscient;He knew what was in man (John 2:25).

By that reasoning, Nathan, Peter, and others were omniscient also.

He was omnipresent, yet not physically present afterall we know He saw Nathaniel under a tree (John 1:45-49).

That does not require omnipresence. It is clairvoyance. It could be regarded by some as evidence of omniscience, but then various other prophets would also have to be regarded as omniscient.

 

[NorrinRadd]

What about Him and Nathanael under the fig?

That is evidence of clairvoyance, which was not unique to Jesus. Various prophets demonstrated the ability.