Bill Johnson

[ToBeBlessed]

----

When Heaven Invades Earth
by Bill Johnson
page 84

QUALIFYING ANOINTING
To fulfill His mission, Jesus needed the Holy Spirit; and that mission, with all its objectives, was to finish the Father's work.4 If the Son of God was that reliant upon the anointing, His behavior should clarify our need for the Holy Spirit's presence upon us to do what the Father has assigned. We'll discuss more about this matter in a later chapter. For now, it's vital to understand that we must be clothed with the Holy Spirit for supernatural ministry. In the Old Testament, it was the anointing that qualified a priest for ministry.5 According to Jesus' example, New Testament ministry is the same —anointing brings supernatural results.

This anointing is what enabled Jesus to do only what He saw His Father do, and to say only what He heard His Father say. It was the Holy Spirit that revealed the Father to Jesus.

It would seem that with all the significance attached to the name "Jesus," anyone desiring to undermine His work of redemption might be referred to as "Anti Jesus," not "Anti-Christ." Even religious cults recognize and value of Jesus the man. At the very least, cults consider Him to be a teacher or a prophet and possibly "a" son of God. 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.

Jesus' concern for mankind was applauded. His humility was revered, but it was the anointing that released the supernatural. And it was the supernatural invasion of God Himself that was rejected by the religious leaders. This anointing is actually the person of the Holy Spirit upon someone to equip them for supernatural endeavors. So revered is the Holy Spirit in the Godhead, that Jesus said, "Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.”

------

 

[HisSparkPlug]

----

When Heaven Invades Earth
by Bill Johnson
page 84

QUALIFYING ANOINTING
To fulfill His mission, Jesus needed the Holy Spirit; and that mission, with all its objectives, was to finish the Father's work.4 If the Son of God was that reliant upon the anointing, His behavior should clarify our need for the Holy Spirit's presence upon us to do what the Father has assigned. We'll discuss more about this matter in a later chapter. For now, it's vital to understand that we must be clothed with the Holy Spirit for supernatural ministry. In the Old Testament, it was the anointing that qualified a priest for ministry.5 According to Jesus' example, New Testament ministry is the same —anointing brings supernatural results.

This anointing is what enabled Jesus to do only what He saw His Father do, and to say only what He heard His Father say. It was the Holy Spirit that revealed the Father to Jesus.

It would seem that with all the significance attached to the name "Jesus," anyone desiring to undermine His work of redemption might be referred to as "Anti Jesus," not "Anti-Christ." Even religious cults recognize and value of Jesus the man. At the very least, cults consider Him to be a teacher or a prophet and possibly "a" son of God. 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.

Jesus' concern for mankind was applauded. His humility was revered, but it was the anointing that released the supernatural. And it was the supernatural invasion of God Himself that was rejected by the religious leaders. This anointing is actually the person of the Holy Spirit upon someone to equip them for supernatural endeavors. So revered is the Holy Spirit in the Godhead, that Jesus said, "Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.”
------

There's nothing wrong with this material. Did you have comment on it or are you just posting for us all to read?

 

[ToBeBlessed]

There's nothing wrong with this material. Did you have comment on it or are you just posting for us all to read?

I believe that it is heresy.

 

[HisSparkPlug]

I didn't ask YOUR opinion. You would follow Thomas the Tank Engine. Your opinion means zero, I said that earlier.

I am posting it for other opinions. I believe that it is heresy.

Last I checked this was an open forum and you have no reason to be so rude.
... I like Thomas the Tank Engine
toot toot!

 

[ToBeBlessed]

Last I checked this was an open forum and you have no reason to be so rude.
... I like Thomas the Tank Engine
toot toot!

/

 

[NorrinRadd]

I said you would 'follow' Thomas the Tank Engine. Reading correctly is a part of understanding. Learn to read, then you will understand. It's not hard.

Why so crabby?

 

[sunlover1]

You can't do that sunshine, if He was less than a divine sacrifice His atonement would not have had the eternal affect it did.

Here's something that may help to explain what I meant, Simon.

Bill Johnson, The Power to Heal
Letting the Father Lead"Jesus only did what the Father was doing and only said what the Father was saying (see John 5:17-18; 8:26). This sets a pretty high standard for how to live.
While Jesus is eternally God, He emptied Himself of His divinity and became a man (see Phil. 2:7). It’s 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."


And here's the passage.

...who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality \with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself,
taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

 

[Radagast]

It was the Holy Spirit that revealed the Father to Jesus.

It certainly sounds dubious to me. Basically, Johnson seems to be denying the full deity of Christ.

 

[ToBeBlessed]

Why so crabby?

.

 

[sunlover1]

It certainly sounds dubious to me. Basically, Johnson seems to be denying the full deity of Christ.

This is an excerpt from Bill Johnson as well, and
it says in the red (I highlighted that) that Jesus is God.

Here's something that may help to explain what I meant, Simon.

Bill Johnson, The Power to Heal
Letting the Father Lead"Jesus only did what the Father was doing and only said what the Father was saying (see John 5:17-18; 8:26). This sets a pretty high standard for how to live.
While Jesus is eternally God, He emptied Himself of His divinity and became a man (see Phil. 2:7). It’s 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."


And here's the passage.

...who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality \with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself,
taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

 

[Radagast]

This is an excerpt from Bill Johnson as well, and
it says in the red (I highlighted that) that Jesus is God.

It quite explicitly denies that Jesus was fully God.

 

[ToBeBlessed]

It quite explicitly denies that Jesus was fully God.

I think it does too.

 

[Radagast]

I think it does too.

There's a very thorough discussion at CrossWise, by the way (part 1 and part 2).

 

[NorrinRadd]

Would anyone care to be so kind as to comment on the quotes I provided here?

 

[Radagast]

Would anyone care to be so kind as to comment on the quotes I provided here?

If you were trying to make a point, just make it already!

 

[Nanopants]

It quite explicitly denies that Jesus was fully God.

I think it does too.

It can, but if you want to him to be a heretic, best you can do is say he's contradicting himself in this case, since he keeps repeating that Jesus is God.

It sounds like a confusion over terminology to me, as if he's interpreting "divinity" to be an exalted status. That would make sense considering he referred to Phil 2:7 as his source, since that emphasizes Christ's humility.

 

[NorrinRadd]

If you were trying to make a point, just make it already!

My point, at this point, is to provoke thought. We already have three threads here in GT relating to a single topic. There is this thread, the "Neo-Gnostics at Redding" thread, and the "Sins Forgiven/Retained" thread. All of them relate to the topic of "Kenotic Christology," and whether certain statements are necessarily heretical.

I would like the people who are certain Bill Johnson's statements are heretical regard the quotes I provided as also heretical. I could have placed them in one of the other threads, but I chose this one. I'd prefer not to create yet another thread for the same topic.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The problem I have with some modern popular interpretations of the kenosis ("emptying") mentioned by St. Paul in Philippians is that by saying Christ emptied Himself of His divinity is to say Jesus was not fully, wholly, and really divine. That somehow the Incarnation means a lessening of His Godhead, the exclusion of His Divinity in favor of His humanity.

And that's problematic.

Christ did not empty out His divinity, rather in condescending, assuming our weak, mortal humanity the Fully Divine Logos becomes wholly man. God becomes one of the weak ones, the Eternal Divine shares in human fragility. That's the kenosis St. Paul speaks of, not an emptying of the Divinity out from His Person, but this Divine One taking upon Himself our own human weakness, our own human frailty, our--to put it bluntly--own worthlessness. God becomes one of the despised, one of the rejected, one of the weak ones, the hated ones, the loathsome ones. He who is Above all honor takes upon Himself all dishonor.

But it isn't from emptying Himself of His Divinity, but that He is full of His Divinity, taking mankind upon Himself, into Himself. The Divine and the human are joined together, He is never less than Divine, never less than the Most Glorious--and yet in taking humanity upon Himself, becoming what we are, takes our disgracefulness, our weakness, our ignobility. That's the kenosis.

He is Divine, so He can command the very seas to calm.
He is Man, so He bleeds and suffers in anguish.

He is Divine, so He makes the dead to rise.
He is Man, so He dies.

The same Voice that commanded earth and heaven to exist is the Voice that cries out in pain on Calvary's cross.

Fully Divine.
Fully human.
One Jesus.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Radagast]

The problem I have with some modern popular interpretations of the kenosis ("emptying") mentioned by St. Paul in Philippians is that by saying Christ emptied Himself of His divinity is to say Jesus was not fully, wholly, and really divine. That somehow the Incarnation means a lessening of His Godhead, the exclusion of His Divinity in favor of His humanity.

And that's problematic.

Christ did not empty out His divinity, rather in condescending, assuming our weak, mortal humanity the Fully Divine Logos becomes wholly man. God becomes one of the weak ones, the Eternal Divine shares in human fragility. That's the kenosis St. Paul speaks of, not an emptying of the Divinity out from His Person, but this Divine One taking upon Himself our own human weakness, our own human frailty, our--to put it bluntly--own worthlessness. God becomes one of the despised, one of the rejected, one of the weak ones, the hated ones, the loathsome ones. He who is Above all honor takes upon Himself all dishonor.

But it isn't from emptying Himself of His Divinity, but that He is full of His Divinity, taking mankind upon Himself, into Himself. The Divine and the human are joined together, He is never less than Divine, never less than the Most Glorious--and yet in taking humanity upon Himself, becoming what we are, takes our disgracefulness, our weakness, our ignobility. That's the kenosis.

He is Divine, so He can command the very seas to calm.
He is Man, so He bleeds and suffers in anguish.

He is Divine, so He makes the dead to rise.
He is Man, so He dies.

The same Voice that commanded earth and heaven to exist is the Voice that cries out in pain on Calvary's cross.

Fully Divine.
Fully human.
One Jesus.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[contango]

P31-32 of When Heaven Invades Earth talks of dominion, presenting the idea that Adam and Eve had dominion over the earth, then gave it to Satan when they ate the forbidden fruit. Then Jesus came and took it back, and part of how Satan tempted Jesus was to offer him a shortcut. Johnson uses the line "for this has been delivered to me" to show how Satan had dominion.

But the Bible says something completely different. When Jesus walked the earth as a man, demons acknowledged him and obeyed him. If Johnson's teaching on dominion are true, at the time Jesus walked the earth he was encountering demons who were the devil's servants, doing the devil's bidding, on the earth owned by the devil. So what gave Jesus the right to command the demons to do anything?

If Jesus was not God (which Johnson seems unclear on in sections already linked) then he would have had no authority over the devil's servants at all. If Satan had dominion over the earth and God couldn't take it back that raises questions as to God's sovereignty. And if Satan had that dominion and God didn't have authority as a result it raises all sorts of questions over why the demons didn't tell Jesus to go pound sand when he told them to leave and be quiet.

On p32 of WHIE Johnson writes how "The Father wanted satan defeated by man...one made in His image". The Bible tells us that God made mankind in his image, so presumably any one of us would qualify as "a man made in God's image". So here Johnson appears confused at best. Certainly I would expect someone as well known as he is to be clear about what he is teaching, simply because confusion is the sort of thing that could be used to either hide bad teaching or open himself to accusations that he is trying to hide bad teaching.

Furthermore on p32 he talks of Jesus giving us the keys to the kingdom. He doesn't explicitly state as much but to me it reads as if he gave the dominion he seized from Satan back to man. This also seems hard to believe, simply because man gave dominion to Satan by sinning once already, and I don't have to look very far to see sin all over mankind. So if Jesus gave us the keys, why does our sin in this day and age not give those keys right back to Satan the same way Adam's sin did back in Eden?

On p46 of WHIE Johnson writes some fine-sounding words about tumours, and how faith isn't about denying the tumour exists but about acknowledging the "reality that is superior to that tumor" (US spelling used as it's a direct quote, I use UK spelling as that's where I live). Because "there are no tumors in heaven, and faith brings that reality into this one" it appears that if we have faith we can bring the heavenly reality down to earth. Unfortunately it rather fails because in heaven there is no sickness, no pain, no tears, no death. Following Johnson's reasoning if I stand in front of a moving train, presumably by faith I can bring the superior reality from heaven down to earth and not face death?

A major concern I have relates to the Bethel School of Supernatural Ministry. How does one teach supernature? If I want to learn to play the guitar, or service a car, or speak Spanish, I can go to someone who knows how to do it and they can teach me. So over time I end up able to play the guitar, or service my car, or order something in a Spanish restaurant without fearing I'm going to be presented with a deep fried boot sole or some such.

Yet how do we teach someone else to heal, to prophesy, to work miracles? These are gifts of the Spirit, that the Spirit gives as he purposes. The Bible is very clear on this too. If the Holy Spirit has not chosen to give me the gift of healing there is nothing I can do to force the issue. I can ask for the gift but God gets the final say in whether or not I receive it. If we try to teach someone to heal supernaturally (as opposed to sending them to medical school which is something entirely different) how can we hope to succeed unless God chooses to give that gift? If we give someone "10 steps to hearing God", what value does it offer unless God is choosing to speak prophetically to that person? At best we end up chasing shadows and at worst we end up practising something only vaguely removed from sorcery where we claim what we want to happen, we seek to manipulate the spiritual realms to suit our desires, and our overwhelming message to God is "not your will but Mine be done".

I don't know Mr Johnson as a person. I have never met him and probably never will. I can't see the fruit of his life, I can't see how passionate he is or isn't about what he teaches. But none of this is relevant to the quality of his teaching. I have Muslim neighbours who are kind, loving, gentle, patient etc and yet I wouldn't take my theology from them. I know a Hindu who is very passionate about what he believes in, but Vishnu is not "the way, the truth and the life" however passionately the Hindu believes in it.

Paul writes of running in a way to receive the prize (1Co 9:24). To win the prize we not only have to run well, we have to run consistently and we have to run in the right direction. If Usain Bolt responded to the firing of the starting pistol by running at 30 degrees to the direction of the track he wouldn't win the gold medal however fast he ran. At best he'd run off the track, at worst he'd be disqualified for running in someone else's lane. His speed, his training, his performance, would all be for nothing.


To summarise it appears to me that Bill Johnson is looking to push a lifestyle of making the supernatural natural, using all sorts of attempts to discourage people from critically assessing what he is writing, and twisting Scripture to support the case he wants to make.