Bill Johnson

[ViaCrucis]

I've tried to talk about kenosis in terms of the Second Person laying aside the 'contingent' divine attributes, that is, those attributes of God that define his relationship to creation that are not necessarily the only possible relationship God could have elected to have vis-a-vis creation. Thus, omnipresence, omniscience, eternal simultaneity/atemporality (or some other account of God's relationship with time). Instead, the relationship of the Second Person's eternal hypstasis to creation would be principally defined by the attributes of his assumed human nature (in accordance with Chemnitz's definition of the genus maiestaticum).

However, the Second Person, having a divine nature, would retain those divine attributes that are necessary of the divine in all possible worlds (or none), such as omnibenevolence, impeccability, simplicity, immutability, etc. Some of these still cause issues in the incarnation (how do human passivity and divine impassibility cooexist in the same person?), but those are problems whether or not you have a kenotic account of the incarnation.

Anyhow, what do you think of that language/understanding?

I think it's fair to say that Christ seems to have in some sense "laid aside" certain things. When He says that the Father alone knows the day and hour, that He Himself doesn't know, that is quite interesting. Though at the same time we see that He reads the hearts of men.

I think here we must simply submit to the Mystery and Paradox that is the Incarnation and Hypostatic Union. At times the Gospels speak of Him as having a rather full knowledge, and at the same time speaks of Him "growing in wisdom" and not knowing certain things. He is able to dread His coming passion and perfectly submit to the Father's will. There is a real, true union of the human and Divine in His Person, and that is an incomprehensible mystery that we confess solely by faith.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[simonthezealot]

he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father" - Jn 14:12

The purpose and end goal of these works is to lead people to faith in Christ, that is the ultimate supernatural...
Keep in mind that the purposes of God, not the will of man or some "faith force" determines when and if such works happen.
Not the heirarchy of anoinnted so-called apostles, pushing their mysticism and drawing glory to themselves and their ministry...
So tell me then, have you failed to consider the fact that the promise was given to all believers? and that not even the Biblical apostles did greater miracles than He performed?
Why is that? because you fail to understand this properly.

The greater works are the conversion of the people to the gospel, the Jews and then the gentiles... This work goes on still today.
‘This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent’”

 

[simonthezealot]

Well I'd like to focus on BJ and what he teaches.
I'm interested to find out the 'truth' about him.
So far, we've seen one thing that he says that
bothers people and we're finding out that it is
probably actually biblical.

Where did I give his quote about the anointing oil, you didn't see that garbage?
I thought it was on this thread as well.

Or his degradation of scripture in leiu of experience?

 

[HisSparkPlug]

Keep in mind that the purposes of God, not the will of man or some "faith force" determines when and if such works happen.

I disagree - Even Jesus who is God could not do miracles in certain places because of the lack of faith of those around Him... but now we are really beginning to digress from the topic (although it is all tied in to your judgements re Johnson in the long distance)

Not the heirarchy of anoinnted so-called apostles, pushing their mysticism and drawing glory to themselves and their ministry...

Ok this is a little more on point regarding the OP - So let's go with this. Please prove to the readers, using actual material by Bill Johnson (not some other person's opinion of him), and using that material in context (which means you need to read and familiarize yourself with Bill Johnson's teachings), how it is that you've come to the conclusion Bill is trying to draw glory to himself and not God. Everything I've read or watched on video of Bill Johnson's points to glorifying the Lord.

have you failed to consider the fact that the promise was given to all believers?

I've written in this thread reminding you that the promise was given to all believers, not just to the apostles as you tried to state earlier.

and that not even the Biblical apostles did greater miracles than He performed?
Why is that?

How do you know the apostles didn't do greater works? (greater just means "more" by the way) a slave is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him - Jn 13:16

‘This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent’”

No one's debating that fact.

 

[contango]

I don't see anywhere on this thread where people are claiming Jesus wasn't still God while on earth. Bill Johnson also states time & again that Jesus was still God while on earth.. so your argument that Bill Johnson is a heretic neo-gnostic continues to fall to the ground.

Since most people here are in the US, let's use Barack Obama as an example here. Whatever you think of him and his party, the fact is that as of right now he is the President of the United States.

Let's say that Mr Obama decided to put on some clothes that were stained and dirty and falling apart. Then let's say he drank a few cans of strong beer, put a baseball cap on backwards, and slept under an overpass for a few nights. At this point he'd look like a down-and-out. Now imagine he sends his Secret Service guards away and hangs out with the homeless and the downtrodden. He looks like one of them, he might be acting like one of them, and a casual observer might think he was one of them.

But at a moment's notice he can have the place swarming with Secret Service guards to protect him from harm. None of the other homeless guys can do that. He can't summon the Secret Service in his assumed capacity as down-and-out, but in his capacity as President they are at his disposal.

So even though he would have left the White House, left the guards behind, left the trappings of power, and gone to live with the homeless guys, the fact he was still President would give him authority that would never be available to anyone else.

So when people marvelled of Jesus, "who is this man that the wind and the waves obey him" they were seeing something remarkable. To claim that Jesus was nothing more than a "man in a right relationship with God" and that therefore the wind and the waves will obey me is to elevate myself to the status of God.

The earth is God's creation, not my plaything.

 

[sunlover1]

The purpose and end goal of these works is to lead people to faith in Christ, that is the ultimate supernatural...

Of course that is the end goal.
Not the ONLY goal, but the end goal.

Keep in mind that the purposes of God, not the will of man or some "faith force" determines when and if such works happen.

Both. But we should discuss "will" somewhere else.
SERIOUSLY want to discuss BJ here.

 

[sunlover1]

So when people marvelled of Jesus, "who is this man that the wind and the waves obey him" they were seeing something remarkable. To claim that Jesus was nothing more than a "man in a right relationship with God"

Wow, who said that Jesus was "nothing more than a man in a..."
NObody at all.
So that was kind of a waste of our time, no offense.

and that therefore the wind and the waves will obey me is to elevate myself to the status of God.

Jesus did ALL that He did by the power of the Holy Spirit.

The earth is God's creation, not my plaything.

God owns everything. But we're IN Him.
The heavens are the heavens of the LORD,
But the earth He has given to the sons of men.


So what is it that BJ has said that you disagree with?

 

[sunlover1]

...Or his degradation of scripture in leiu of experience?

I'm interested to hear about this.
THIS seems to be the key area mentioned on most of
the "fruit inspectors" websites.

Here's one quote that i found so far at one of those
websites:

When "angel feathers" first started to fall at Bethel Church, Bill Johnson thought birds had nested in the air conditioning ducts, he said.
"Then it happened in a restaurant and all different places - on an airplane," he said. "I don't know, I don't teach it, it just happens."
Johnson said he bases his belief that the feathers are a sign from God on a Bible verse that says, "there is healing in his wings," and he doesn't try to explain it.
"I don't want to be able to explain everything," he said. "Then I'll have a God that looks like me. That's not very impressive."

 

[simonthezealot]

I disagree - Even Jesus who is God could not do miracles in certain places because of the lack of faith of those around Him... but now we are really beginning to digress from the topic (although it is all tied in to your judgements re Johnson in the long distance)

Ok this is a little more on point regarding the OP - So let's go with this. Please prove to the readers, using actual material by Bill Johnson (not some other person's opinion of him), and using that material in context (which means you need to read and familiarize yourself with Bill Johnson's teachings), how it is that you've come to the conclusion Bill is trying to draw glory to himself and not God. Everything I've read or watched on video of Bill Johnson's points to glorifying the Lord.

I've written in this thread reminding you that the promise was given to all believers, not just to the apostles as you tried to state earlier.

How do you know the apostles didn't do greater works? (greater just means "more" by the way) a slave is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him - Jn 13:16

No one's debating that fact.

Here is evidence of greater by number and the work of conversion...
(Note to sunlover, this is not adding to scripture)
in John 6 after Jesus did the miracles, all but the 12 left Him. Compare that to the Day of Pentecost when Peter preached and 3,000 were saved on that day alone.

 

[sunlover1]

Here is evidence of greater by number and the work of conversion...
(Note to sunlover, this is not adding to scripture)
in John 6 after Jesus did the miracles, all but the 12 left Him. Compare that to the Day of Pentecost when Peter preached and 3,000 were saved on that day alone.

I made a thread about that passage:
the works I do

 

[HisSparkPlug]

So when people marvelled of Jesus, "who is this man that the wind and the waves obey him" they were seeing something remarkable. To claim that Jesus was nothing more than a "man in a right relationship with God" and that therefore the wind and the waves will obey me is to elevate myself to the status of God.
The earth is God's creation, not my plaything.

I fail to understand why you folks continue to attempt to make it look like Bill Johnson is taking away from the fact that Jesus is and was God while on earth. He clearly stated He is/was.
However you fail (or refuse) to see the point that He had to separate Himself.. which God clearly does in scripture by telling us Jesus doesn't know the day or the hour.. which takes away from His "all knowingness" to some degree does it not?

The allegation you continue to present is redundant, false, and clearly going nowhere by being repeated over & over... So then, moving forward, let's see what evidence SimontheZealot (and whoever else) can present to disprove Bill Johnson as a man of God. I believe the OP wants us to directly address that topic so I'll reiterate what I wrote 2 posts ago:

Please prove to the readers, using actual material by Bill Johnson (not some other person's opinion of him), and using that material in context (which means you need to read and familiarize yourself with Bill Johnson's teachings), how it is that you've come to the conclusion Bill is trying to draw glory to himself and not God. Everything I've read or watched on video of Bill Johnson's points to glorifying the Lord.

 

[contango]

Wow, who said that Jesus was "nothing more than a man in a..."
NObody at all.
So that was kind of a waste of our time, no offense.

Jesus did ALL that He did by the power of the Holy Spirit.

God owns everything. But we're IN Him.
The heavens are the heavens of the LORD,
But the earth He has given to the sons of men.

So what is it that BJ has said that you disagree with?

Johnson says that if Jesus performed miracles as God then it is impossible for me to follow him. But if he performed miracles as a man in right relationship with God then I am responsible to pursue his lifestyle (those may not be his exact words, I don't have the book to hand right now).

This seems to be assuming that Jesus performed miracles as a man in order to then claim that anyone can perform miracles as a man. But unless we want to start chopping and changing whether Jesus was acting as man or as God at any given time this falls apart. Jesus forgave sins - was that as a man or as God? If it was as God, how do we determine whether he was acting as God or Man at any given time? If it was as Man, can you or I forgive the sins of others? If so does anybody need to receive Jesus as their Saviour - if they go through life rejecting Christ but just before they die a well-meaning Christian declares them to be forgiven to they still go to heaven? If not, we can't forgive sins and the fabric falls apart. If so, it seems like an awful lot of hassle to "go into the world and make disciples" when I could just sit in my armchair and declare people forgiven.

Johnson also claims that a life without miracles requires no faith. This is little more than an insult to people who do live with ongoing illnesses, who for whatever reason don't see healing, but who retain their faith in a God who loves them even if they don't understand why they aren't healed.

Throughout his book "When Heaven Invades Earth" he refers to people who don't believe as he does as if they are carnal. He refers to people who figure that anything that doesn't make sense to their rational mind must be in conflict with Scripture, which is a curious claim to make given a moment's thought reveals that dead men rising from a grave and being freed from a tomb guarded by Roman soldiers makes no sense at all to anyone's rational mind and yet every Christian, from the most charismatic to the most conservative, believes that it happened. In terms of what the rational mind believes, virgins don't have babies, dead people don't come back to life, fire doesn't come down from heaven, city walls don't collapse when trumpets are blown and so on. But I don't see Christians lining up to pronounce the Bible untrustworthy because it doesn't make rational sense.

He talks of how things that aren't free to exist in heaven needing to be bound here. But that isn't God's way. Sin isn't free to exist in heaven and yet God gives us the free will to obey him or disobey him. It was God who put the Tree of Knowledge in Eden, giving Adam and Eve the freedom to choose to eat it. The only way we can argue that sin must not be allowed to exist here is to overrule the free will that God gave all of us, and if that ever happened love would be meaningless because it would be given in the absence of the freedom to not love.

He talks of how there is no sickness in heaven and so there should be no sickness on earth. But there is no death in heaven, yet to expect people on earth to be immortal is silly. We won't be immortal until we are in heaven. There is no pain in heaven yet if I hit my thumb with a club hammer it's going to hurt. Should I expect that pain to disappear because it doesn't exist in heaven? The simple reality is that I am not in heaven right now.

The church has been likened to the bride of Christ, but the metaphorical marriage hasn't happened yet. To seek all the benefits of our eternal life during this life seems like little more than spiritual fornication.

 

[sunlover1]

Johnson says that if Jesus performed miracles as God then it is impossible for me to follow him. But if he performed miracles as a man in right relationship with God then I am responsible to pursue his lifestyle (those may not be his exact words, I don't have the book to hand right now).

This seems to be assuming that Jesus performed miracles as a man in order to then claim that anyone can perform miracles as a man. But unless we want to start chopping and changing whether Jesus was acting as man or as God at any given time this falls apart. Jesus forgave sins - was that as a man or as God? If it was as God, how do we determine whether he was acting as God or Man at any given time? If it was as Man, can you or I forgive the sins of others? If so does anybody need to receive Jesus as their Saviour - if they go through life rejecting Christ but just before they die a well-meaning Christian declares them to be forgiven to they still go to heaven? If not, we can't forgive sins and the fabric falls apart. If so, it seems like an awful lot of hassle to "go into the world and make disciples" when I could just sit in my armchair and declare people forgiven.

Johnson also claims that a life without miracles requires no faith. This is little more than an insult to people who do live with ongoing illnesses, who for whatever reason don't see healing, but who retain their faith in a God who loves them even if they don't understand why they aren't healed.

Throughout his book "When Heaven Invades Earth" he refers to people who don't believe as he does as if they are carnal. He refers to people who figure that anything that doesn't make sense to their rational mind must be in conflict with Scripture, which is a curious claim to make given a moment's thought reveals that dead men rising from a grave and being freed from a tomb guarded by Roman soldiers makes no sense at all to anyone's rational mind and yet every Christian, from the most charismatic to the most conservative, believes that it happened. In terms of what the rational mind believes, virgins don't have babies, dead people don't come back to life, fire doesn't come down from heaven, city walls don't collapse when trumpets are blown and so on. But I don't see Christians lining up to pronounce the Bible untrustworthy because it doesn't make rational sense.

He talks of how things that aren't free to exist in heaven needing to be bound here. But that isn't God's way. Sin isn't free to exist in heaven and yet God gives us the free will to obey him or disobey him. It was God who put the Tree of Knowledge in Eden, giving Adam and Eve the freedom to choose to eat it. The only way we can argue that sin must not be allowed to exist here is to overrule the free will that God gave all of us, and if that ever happened love would be meaningless because it would be given in the absence of the freedom to not love.

He talks of how there is no sickness in heaven and so there should be no sickness on earth. But there is no death in heaven, yet to expect people on earth to be immortal is silly. We won't be immortal until we are in heaven. There is no pain in heaven yet if I hit my thumb with a club hammer it's going to hurt. Should I expect that pain to disappear because it doesn't exist in heaven? The simple reality is that I am not in heaven right now.

The church has been likened to the bride of Christ, but the metaphorical marriage hasn't happened yet. To seek all the benefits of our eternal life during this life seems like little more than spiritual fornication.

I'm looking for actual quotes.
Not to be a pain, but that would
be much more helpful.
Thanks!

 

[sunlover1]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]These quotes are taken from here, so I'm not sure if they're valid
but we can look at them anyhow assuming they are.
I will put his quotes in bold font


BJ said that, “Jesus slept through the storm because the world He was sleeping in had no storm; He was living in a realm of kingdom reality and actually living in a realm called peace.”[/FONT]

This pseudo-spiritual nonsense sounds lovely, but is not based in the reality of Scripture. Jesus lived in and through the very same world and experiences (and temptations) that His disciples did (Hebrews 4:15), but still overcame them (Hebrews 2:18). If that were not so it would render His sacrifice as utterly pointless and without power.
BJ then goes on to explain that, “The disciples woke Jesus up and He released peace onto the storm to still it.”

This is utter rubbish and a total misquoting of Scripture. Matthew 8, Mark 4 and Luke 8 all say that Jesus “rebuked the winds and the sea”; He did not quell the storm by releasing peace onto it. He rebuked it. Mark 4 certainly tells us that Jesus said, “Peace, be still!”, but after He had rebuked it to be still; He commanded the storm to be still. He did not release peace onto, or into, the storm.

 

[Craig de CrossWise]

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> &#8230;<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&#8217;t be &#8220;eternally God&#8221; and yet have &#8220;emptied Himself of His divinity&#8221; in becoming man. On the surface, the statement is flat out self-contradictory, for how can He remain &#8220;eternally God&#8221; while temporally non-divine (but that&#8217;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 &#8220;emptied Himself of His divinity&#8221; 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&#8217;ve been attempting various ways to interpret and reconcile Johnson&#8217;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 &#8216;sermon&#8217; (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&#8217;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 &#8211; 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&#8217;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 &#8220;emptied Himself of divinity and became a man&#8221; I see as a smokescreen, as I see Johnson teaching a neo-gnosticism in which Jesus was not preexistent &#8211; at least not as the Second &#8216;Person&#8217;. That is, the implicit claim that Jesus was God from &#8216;eternity past&#8217;, prior to the Incarnation, is a concession to seem &#8216;Christian&#8217;. That&#8217;s a strong claim, I know, but that&#8217;s how I see it after having investigated Johnson&#8217;s material at length, while simultaneously studying occult and New Age material. I&#8217;m not sure that I articulated it well enough in the articles (the one specifically cited above and its follow-up), but I&#8217;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&#8217;ve seen it done in occult doctrine &#8211; doctrine that is purposely distorting Christianity (Theosophy, Alice Bailey&#8217;s works, Christian Science, New Thought, Unity, etc.).

Probably the best example of Johnson&#8217;s redefining of key terms, in a short article, is this one in which he redefines <i>Christ</i> to &#8220;the anointing&#8221; and <i>antichrist</i> to &#8216;anti-anointing&#8217;. And that doctrine is the whole basis for the WoF/Latter Rain teachings. It can be found in the first two pages of Johnson&#8217;s chapter &#8220;The Anointing and the Antichrist Spirit&#8221; 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.

 

[Craig de CrossWise]

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?

 

[Craig de CrossWise]

As to NorrinRadd&#8217;s claims that Jesus could not have been fully man if He retained His omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence, this is not what has been believed historically. The Council of Chalcedon is explicit in that Jesus retained all His divine attributes in becoming man. We may have difficulty in conceiving a Being that is 100% God and 100% man, but that does not mean it isn&#8217;t so. And a Being without all the omni- attributes, even the contingent use of all the omni- attributes (per impossible, see below) &#8211; would amount to one that is less than God.

Taking the texts of Colossians 1:17 and Hebrews 1:3, we find the Word continuously sustaining the cosmos. This would necessarily include the period of the Incarnation, meaning that the Second &#8216;Person&#8217; was still upholding creation as Jesus Christ was walking the earth as the Word made flesh. As I perceive this, all the omni- attributes would have to be utilized, for He must be everywhere at once (omnipresent), know where everything is (omniscient), and have the ability to sustain the cosmos (omnipotent), though I concede that some may argue that omnipresence is not required.

As far as illustrating Jesus Christ retaining the use of His omnipotence while in His earthly body and from His earthly existence, we could start with the Resurrection. Jesus made the claim that he&#8217;d raise Himself &#8211; not that the Spirit or the Father would raise Him &#8211; in John 2:19-22 and 10:17-18. However, it was the entire Trinity who raised Jesus&#8217; body from the dead (Holy Spirit &#8211; Romans 1:4/8:11; Father &#8211; Acts 5:29-31/Galatians 1:1/Ephesians 1:17-20; God - Acts 2:24/Romans 4:24). But I believe John 5 is the key to comprehending Jesus acting as God in the flesh, rather than a Holy Spirit-moved man. And this is the very place Johnson likes to proof-text Jesus&#8217; having &#8220;no ability&#8221; (verse 19: &#8220;the Son can do nothing&#8230;&#8221, yet this very verse actually states that the Son can do everything the Father does.

Not only doe Jesus see the Father (and no one ever sees God &#8211; John 1:18), He actually does the things He sees His Father do! No Spirit-moved man can do that, as otherwise all Christians would have this ability. Moreover, the Father has entrusted judgment to the Son (v 22), and no Spirit-moved man has the authority to judge anyone else. On top of that, Jesus actually gave eternal life while He was Incarnate (vv 24-25; also the thief on the cross).

How could a being be latently, or voluntarily restricting the property of omniscience? Wouldn&#8217;t it require omniscience to hold back the trait of omniscience? That is, wouldn&#8217;t a being know that it was all-knowing in order to hold back this all-knowing-ness, and hence be acting omnisciently? This same line of thought holds for the other two traits. Can there be degrees of omnipotence? Either a being is omnipotent, or a being is not omnipotent.

Taking just one attribute, how could a Being be only contingently omnipresent? How could one have the latent ability to be omnipresent yet exist as mono-present? The key to reconciling a Being limited in physical location (Jesus Christ, the Second &#8216;Person&#8217; in His earthly body) and One who is omnipresent is understanding that spirit is not confined to one location (and God is spirit &#8211; John 4:24), and hence not confined merely to Jesus&#8217; body &#8211; just like the Holy Spirit is not confined to individual Christians. The Spirit of the Second &#8216;Person&#8217; continued just as He had before &#8211; as a spirit Being.

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).

 

[simonthezealot]

I'm interested to hear about this.
THIS seems to be the key area mentioned on most of
the "fruit inspectors" websites.

Here's one quote that i found so far at one of those
websites:

When "angel feathers" first started to fall at Bethel Church, Bill Johnson thought birds had nested in the air conditioning ducts, he said.
"Then it happened in a restaurant and all different places - on an airplane," he said. "I don't know, I don't teach it, it just happens."
Johnson said he bases his belief that the feathers are a sign from God on a Bible verse that says, "there is healing in his wings," and he doesn't try to explain it.
"I don't want to be able to explain everything," he said. "Then I'll have a God that looks like me. That's not very impressive."

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.

 

[Craig de CrossWise]

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."

 

[simonthezealot]

As to NorrinRadd’s claims that Jesus could not have been fully man if He retained His omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence, this is not what has been believed historically. The Council of Chalcedon is explicit in that Jesus retained all His divine attributes in becoming man. We may have difficulty in conceiving a Being that is 100% God and 100% man, but that does not mean it isn’t so. And a Being without all the omni- attributes, even the contingent use of all the omni- attributes (per impossible, see below) – would amount to one that is less than God.

Taking the texts of Colossians 1:17 and Hebrews 1:3, we find the Word continuously sustaining the cosmos. This would necessarily include the period of the Incarnation, meaning that the Second ‘Person’ was still upholding creation as Jesus Christ was walking the earth as the Word made flesh. As I perceive this, all the omni- attributes would have to be utilized, for He must be everywhere at once (omnipresent), know where everything is (omniscient), and have the ability to sustain the cosmos (omnipotent), though I concede that some may argue that omnipresence is not required.

As far as illustrating Jesus Christ retaining the use of His omnipotence while in His earthly body and from His earthly existence, we could start with the Resurrection. Jesus made the claim that he’d raise Himself – not that the Spirit or the Father would raise Him – in John 2:19-22 and 10:17-18. However, it was the entire Trinity who raised Jesus’ body from the dead (Holy Spirit – Romans 1:4/8:11; Father – Acts 5:29-31/Galatians 1:1/Ephesians 1:17-20; God - Acts 2:24/Romans 4:24). But I believe John 5 is the key to comprehending Jesus acting as God in the flesh, rather than a Holy Spirit-moved man. And this is the very place Johnson likes to proof-text Jesus’ having “no ability” (verse 19: “the Son can do nothing…”), yet this very verse actually states that the Son can do everything the Father does.

Not only doe Jesus see the Father (and no one ever sees God – John 1:18), He actually does the things He sees His Father do! No Spirit-moved man can do that, as otherwise all Christians would have this ability. Moreover, the Father has entrusted judgment to the Son (v 22), and no Spirit-moved man has the authority to judge anyone else. On top of that, Jesus actually gave eternal life while He was Incarnate (vv 24-25; also the thief on the cross).

How could a being be latently, or voluntarily restricting the property of omniscience? Wouldn’t it require omniscience to hold back the trait of omniscience? That is, wouldn’t a being know that it was all-knowing in order to hold back this all-knowing-ness, and hence be acting omnisciently? This same line of thought holds for the other two traits. Can there be degrees of omnipotence? Either a being is omnipotent, or a being is not omnipotent.

Taking just one attribute, how could a Being be only contingently omnipresent? How could one have the latent ability to be omnipresent yet exist as mono-present? The key to reconciling a Being limited in physical location (Jesus Christ, the Second ‘Person’ in His earthly body) and One who is omnipresent is understanding that spirit is not confined to one location (and God is spirit – John 4:24), and hence not confined merely to Jesus’ body – just like the Holy Spirit is not confined to individual Christians. The Spirit of the Second ‘Person’ continued just as He had before – as a spirit Being.

BTW, I have Gerald Hawthorne’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).

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