Bill Johnson

[sunlover1]

After receiving a pingback from this forum to one of my articles, I checked out the content here, and my interest was piqued. I hope you don’t mind if I join in.

I apologize in advance, as I won’t have time to engage until this evening (in 5 to 6 hours); I’m currently at lunch. Here’s a comment I’ve typed up while waiting for my account to be set up. It will probably be best the read the whole thing before attempting to answer any portion (or emotionally rejecting any of it).

Regarding Bill Johnson, among the most difficult quotes to reconcile is the following:

<i> …<b>While Jesus is eternally God, He emptied Himself of His divinity and became a man</b>. (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> (source cited in footnotes to this article)

I formerly thought Bill Johnson was playing semantics, or actually speaking untruths, for, logically Jesus can’t be “eternally God” and yet have “emptied Himself of His divinity” in becoming man. On the surface, the statement is flat out self-contradictory, for how can He remain “eternally God” while temporally non-divine (but that’s the key to understanding Johnson, see below and CrossWise article at above link). Some have tried to construe a Gottfried Thomasius (or Gerald Hawthorne) styled functional(ist) kenosis, such that “emptied Himself of His divinity” means the voluntary non-usage of so-called relative, or contingent divine attributes. But I see this as a forced interpretation. To empty divinity means to no longer have divinity.

Consequently, I’ve been attempting various ways to interpret and reconcile Johnson’s statement (and others like the one above). This culminated in the above referenced article. Interestingly, most of my speculations in the article at the link above were proven true in a ‘sermon’ (Thinking from the Throne) by Johnson given the very day the article above was published on the CrossWise site, which I found subsequent to its posting.

To get right to the point (the article above and its follow up are quite lengthy), Johnson’s quote perfectly aligns with the heretical Manifest(ed) Sons of God teaching. According to this doctrine, Jesus was a man who became God. Essentially, He lived a dual existence – God in the eternal realm (and eternity has no past, present or future, right?), and a man (who subsequently became God) in the temporal realm, with the understanding that the two realms are separate yet intersecting.

Basically, it’s an old Gnostic doctrine (revived for New Age / New Spirituality teachings prevalent today), with Jesus merely a man who came as redeemer, Himself needing to be redeemed, and then providing the example for others to accomplish self-redemption. The whole quasi-kenotic “emptied Himself of divinity and became a man” I see as a smokescreen, as I see Johnson teaching a neo-gnosticism in which Jesus was not preexistent – at least not as the Second ‘Person’. That is, the implicit claim that Jesus was God from ‘eternity past’, prior to the Incarnation, is a concession to seem ‘Christian’. That’s a strong claim, I know, but that’s how I see it after having investigated Johnson’s material at length, while simultaneously studying occult and New Age material. I’m not sure that I articulated it well enough in the articles (the one specifically cited above and its follow-up), but I’m convinced in my own mind. The way Johnson sometimes properly defines terms (or quasi-properly defines terms), then subtly changes the definitions through linguistic gymnastics is very similar to the way I’ve seen it done in occult doctrine – doctrine that is purposely distorting Christianity (Theosophy, Alice Bailey’s works, Christian Science, New Thought, Unity, etc.).

Probably the best example of Johnson’s redefining of key terms, in a short article, is this one in which he redefines <i>Christ</i> to “the anointing” and <i>antichrist</i> to ‘anti-anointing’. And that doctrine is the whole basis for the WoF/Latter Rain teachings. It can be found in the first two pages of Johnson’s chapter “The Anointing and the Antichrist Spirit” in <i>When Heaven Invades Earth</i> (chapter 7). One has to read it very slowly to catch his redefinitions, without reading Christian orthodoxy <b>into</b> it, as Christians may be inclined to do.

Ugh, I forgot to include the links, which are, respectively:

...OK, now I see that I cannot post any links until I have 50 posts/comments on here.

Oh well, how am I to point you to the references in the meantime?

Interesting!
But i think you may find this other thread to be a better
fit for your material

click here for an interesting trinity thread

Thank you

 

[simonthezealot]

If you want to see a short article illustrating Johnson redefining both "Christ" and "antichrist" do a search for:

Crosswise Christ anointing and antichrist spirit

This will save me from copying and pasting, though I'll be glad to copy and paste a portion this evening.

In the meantime, I'd like to see someone try reconcile into one coherent statement the Johnson quote that Jesus "emptied Himself of divinity and became man" while He is yet "eternally God."

Is this it?

 

[sunlover1]

Welcome aboard Craig...
Thanks for chiming in, your in-depth insight is well needed as this is a critical topic that IMO attacks the very divinity of The Christ.
Thanks
Simon

Except not on my Bill Johnson thread.
I don't agree that's what BJ is saying
Nor do most of the posters.
So I directed him to a great
thread that I think you too may
really like, especially post 16
by AMR. I found it quite helpful.

 

[Craig de CrossWise]

Sorry for the some of the errors I've posted in my haste:

This:

BTW, I have Gerald Hawthorne&#8217;s book on this subject (on the CrossWise blog), and I plan on writing a very lengthy article refuting it (and showing he took some material out of context).

This should read:

BTW, I have Gerald Hawthorne&#8217;s book on this subject, and I plan on writing (on the CrossWise blog) a very lengthy article refuting it (and showing he took some material out of context).

 

[simonthezealot]

wrought wih non-biblical errors, and this bj in a self gloryfying manner suggests we could inherit this once we were redeemed.

The Anointing and the Antichrist Spirit
Christ is not Jesus' last name. The word Christ means
&#8220;Anointed One" or "Messiah." It is a title that points to an
experience. It was not suf icient that Jesus be sent from
heaven to earth with a title. He had to receive the anointing
in an experience to accomplish what the Father desired.
the word anointing means "to smear." The Holy Spirit is the oil of God
that was smeared all over Jesus at His water baptism.

1
The name Jesus Christ implies that Jesus is the One smeared with the Holy Spirit. But there is another spirit that works to ambush the church in every age. This power was identified by the apostle John when he said, "Even now
many antichrists have come."2
The nature of the antichrist spirit is found in
its name: anti, "against"; Christ, "Anointed One."
Jesus lived His earthly life with human limitations. He laid his divinity
aside
3
as He sought to fulfill the assignment given to Him by the Father: to
live life as a man without sin, and then die in the place of mankind for sin.
This would be essential in His plan to redeem mankind. The sacrifice that
could atone for sin had to be a lamb, (powerless), and had to be spotless,
(without sin).
The anointing Jesus received was the equipment necessary, given by the Father to make it possible for Him to live beyond human limitations. For He was not only to redeem man, He was to reveal the Father. In doing so, He was to unveil the Father's realm called heaven. That would include doing supernatural things. The anointing is what linked Jesus, the man, to the divine, enabling Him to destroy the works of the devil. These miraculous ways helped to set something in motion that mankind could inherit once we were redeemed.

The above is from Bill Johnson's book page 75
Here

 

[Craig de CrossWise]

Yes!

 

[simonthezealot]

Except not on my Bill Johnson thread.
I don't agree that's what BJ is saying
Nor do most of the posters.
So I directed him to a great
thread that I think you too may
really like, especially post 16
by AMR. I found it quite helpful.

Craigs writing is all on Bill Johnson, why not here?

 

[Craig de CrossWise]

sunlover1,

Then please explain this quote of Bill Johnson:

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.

 

[sunlover1]

Is this it?

Here's something I found on that link:
(I'll post BJ's quotes in Blue large font)
Bill Johnson Redefines the Antichrist Spirit

Bill Johnson initially defines antichrist spirit correctly (though not completely as anti can also mean “instead of”11):

The nature of the antichrist spirit is found in its name: anti, “against”; Christ, “Anointed One.”12
​

Yet, on the very next page he deceptively redefines the term:

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 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.13
​

 

[sunlover1]

Craigs writing is all on Bill Johnson, why not here?

I misunderstood. I thought that he wanted to debate the
hypostatic (sp) union again. And it's being covered quite well
on that link I posted earlier.
Just trying to stay focused and not go into new debates.

 

[simonthezealot]

I'm not sure sunlover is defending BJ only seeking the truth about his teachings, it's the other 2 or 3 that find zero error in Johnson's teachings.

 

[sunlover1]

Here's something I found on that link:
(I'll post BJ's quotes in Blue large font)
Bill Johnson Redefines the Antichrist Spirit

Bill Johnson initially defines antichrist spirit correctly (though not completely as anti can also mean “instead of”11):

The nature of the antichrist spirit is found in its name: anti, “against”; Christ, “Anointed One.”12
​

Yet, on the very next page he deceptively redefines the term:

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 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.13
​

I'm missing what's wrong with this craig.
Which part do you disagree with?

 

[simonthezealot]

Craig check this thread out as well.

 

[simonthezealot]

I'm missing what's wrong with this craig.
Which part do you disagree with?

I believe it is Bill re-defining anti-Christ to anti-annointing.

 

[sunlover1]

I believe it is Bill re-defining anti-Christ to anti-annointing.

Interesting thought.
Isn't that what "Christ" means?
it's not like that's His Name, right?

 

[simonthezealot]

I'll let Craig respond before I rabbit trail this question.

 

[sunlover1]

Interesting thought.
Isn't that what "Christ" means?
it's not like that's His Name, right?

Okay, I see that's the next BJ quote from the same page:

"Christ is not Jesus’ last name. The word Christ means “Anointed One” or “Messiah.” It is a title that points to an experience. It was not sufficient that Jesus be sent from heaven to earth with a title. He had to receive the anointing in an experience to accomplish what the Father desired.
The word anointing means “to smear.” The Holy Spirit is the oil of God that was smeared all over Jesus at His water baptism. The name Jesus Christ implies that Jesus is the One smeared with the Holy Spirit.14"

 

[sunlover1]

I'll let Craig respond before I rabbit trail this question.

Truth is truth no matter who answers,
I gotta run soon. clocks ticking. lol
Interesting subject. I have that BJ
book "Face to Face With God" and have
never read it. Now I am going to hunt
it down.. well, maybe this summer.

 

[AbbaLove]

When Smith Wigglesworth was living he was maligned,
but much later after he died [most] everyone thought he was AOK

2 Timothy 3:12
"In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted"​

true followers of Christ make unbelieving believers uncomfortable​

 

[Craig de CrossWise]

In the NT "Christ" (christos) always refers to the Person of Jesus Christ. It's only in the OT in which the Septuagint (LXX, the Greek translation of the Hebrew) that uses the root of the word for "anointing". We don't think of Jesus of Nazareth as "Jesus the anointed" (though He is); "Christ" is the Hebrew equivalent of "Messiah", and there is only one - Jesus. I've explained that in a Crosswise article titled "'Christ' in the New Age", showing the other Greek words used for "anointing" (chrisma) in the NT. The Apostle John is the only one to use it in this particular form (anointing = chrisma), and this is found in 1 John 2:20 and 2:27 (twice).