Bill Johnson

[sunlover1]

I didn't get the feeling that this was the go to guy for theology,

his ministerial thrust is inspirational.
Am I just not paying enough attention?

I don't know, he's new to me too.
I've heard OF him plenty and heard some scathing
things 'about' him... I haven't heard much of his
words myself. Working on that. My pastor seems
to think he's above board .. afaik..

=80

What's this?
Tilting my head to the left this is a Kramer icon?

IF I were to watch such thing as Seinfeld, Kramer
would be my fav.
IF I were to watch such thing as friends, it's gotta
be Phoebe.

 

[simonthezealot]

Here he is disparaging the study of scripture:

There are actually a handful of these I just need to run for now...


Following the leading of the Holy Spirit can present us with the same
dilemma. While he never contradicts His Word, He is very comfortable
contradicting our understanding of it. Those who feel safe because of their
intellectual grasp of Scriptures enjoy a false sense of security. None of us
has a full grasp of Scripture, but we all have the Holy Spirit. He is our
common denominator who will always lead us into truth. But to follow Him,
we must be willing to follow off the map—to go beyond what we know. To
do so successfully we must recognize His presence above all

 

[Craig de CrossWise]

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).


"the devil himself" - I've not said that, have I?

OK, so "emptied Himself of divinity and became man" is not any sort of proof. How much more plain can it be?

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


Scripture does not back that up, as I've already stated twice re: John 5. John 5:19 (which Johnson proof-texts a mere portion) states that Jesus "sees" the Father, and no one can see the Father (John 1:18). Jesus even does what He sees the Father do. Can anyone else do that? Jesus has even been given the authority for judgment (and salvation - v 22), and He even does so in His earthly ministry (vv 25-26) to include the thief on the cross. No man can provide another's salvation.

 

[sunlover1]

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.

Because he's talking about how Jesus DID all that He DID..
not about who He is.
You're taking it out of context and making it LOOK as though
this guy thinks that when he makes it clear that he doesn't
believe that Jesus is not God.
Jesus DID do all His miracles as a man by the power of the
Holy Spirit... (right?)

…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

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.

[/QUOTE]
I don't see where he's "redefined" anointing.
Even lexicons use it that way, as does the septuagint.

 

[Rick Otto]

Simon,... I would not consider that a disparagement of studying scripture per se.
That's oversimplifying. He disparages an intellectualy based sense of security paired with a lack of sensitivity to the Holy Spirit.
That's what I take away from that quote anyway.
I still haven't heard whether or not he eats babies & is related to Hitler.

 

[Craig de CrossWise]

sunlover1,

You are convinced that Johnson is teaching the same sort of thing as Gerald Hawthorne, et. al., yet I cannot see it that way. Johnson does not state his views very clearly, but his statement that Jesus "emptied Himself of divinity and became a man" is really clear. This means, without reading anything into it, that Jesus divested Himself of His divinity/deity in becoming incarnate. It doesn't matter how many times Johnson wants to state "eternally God". The question we must answer is what Johnson means by "eternally" and, perhaps, how the eternal realm relates to the temporal, for clearly there's a distinction between the eternal Jesus ("eternally God") and the temporal Jesus (who "emptied Himself of divinity and became a man").

 

[sunlover1]

OK, so "emptied Himself of divinity and became man" is not any sort of proof. How much more plain can it be?

Much.
In context.

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

Scripture does not back that up, as I've already stated twice

I'm sorry, I must have overlooked that.
Forgive me.

re: John 5. John 5:19 (which Johnson proof-texts a mere portion) states that Jesus "sees" the Father, and no one can see the Father (John 1:18).

How does that prove anything?
I don't follow.

Jesus even does what He sees the Father do. Can anyone else do that?

We're all supposed to do what He did.
But what's that to do with what HE did by the power of the Spirit?

Jesus has even been given the authority for judgment (and salvation - v 22), and He even does so in His earthly ministry (vv 25-26) to include the thief on the cross. No man can provide another's salvation.

Did someone say that a man can provide anothers salvation?

 

[sunlover1]

Here he is disparaging the study of scripture:

There are actually a handful of these I just need to run for now...


Following the leading of the Holy Spirit can present us with the same
dilemma. While he never contradicts His Word, He is very comfortable
contradicting our understanding of it. Those who feel safe because of their
intellectual grasp of Scriptures enjoy a false sense of security. None of us
has a full grasp of Scripture, but we all have the Holy Spirit. He is our
common denominator who will always lead us into truth. But to follow Him,
we must be willing to follow off the map—to go beyond what we know. To
do so successfully we must recognize His presence above all

I watched one of his videos for about 10/15 min. He told some really
good joke then he said, open your Bibles.
Which part of the above quote(?right?) do you disagree with?

Simon,... I would not consider that a disparagement of studying scripture per se.
That's oversimplifying. He disparages an intellectualy based sense of security paired with a lack of sensitivity to the Holy Spirit.
That's what I take away from that quote anyway.
I still haven't heard whether or not he eats babies & is related to Hitler.

I thought it was a sound logical statement.
I missed the baby eating but I'm not surprised,
the guy sound pretty out there from what everyone
says.

 

[sunlover1]

sunlover1,
You are convinced that Johnson is teaching the same sort of thing as Gerald Hawthorne, et. al., yet I cannot see it that way.

Hmm
??
I'm going to assume you refer to this statement:
…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

And I'm going to assume you've mistaken me for Norrin Radd?
Because I'm not familiar with Hawthorne or any other great
Bible scholar. I enjoy commentary but more than that I think
that our God is very much able to teach us and keep us.

Johnson does not state his views very clearly, but his statement that Jesus "emptied Himself of divinity and became a man" is really clear. This means, without reading anything into it, that Jesus divested Himself of His divinity/deity in becoming incarnate. It doesn't matter how many times Johnson wants to state "eternally God". The question we must answer is what Johnson means by "eternally" and, perhaps, how the eternal realm relates to the temporal, for clearly there's a distinction between the eternal Jesus ("eternally God") and the temporal Jesus (who "emptied Himself of divinity and became a man").

Can you show me another time he uses this sort of language that
would prove that he is speaking of what you insist that he is speaking?
Because in context, I don't see it a bit.
He makes it clear that it's all about Jesus and that Jesus IS God.

And I don't see why you make the distinction between eternally and temporal. Where does BJ give a reason for such an idea?
I don't know the man, perhaps this is his style.
I OFTEN say "GOD" when I refer to Jesus Christ.
it's my style, and i do it for a reason, to remind all
that Jesus is perfect theology.
Perhaps BJ has a similar habit...?

 

[Craig de CrossWise]

sunlover1,

If Jesus can see the Father (and no man can see the Father - John 1:18), then Jesus must be using one or more of His Omni- attributes. That is, if He were using the Holy Spirit instead of His own divine attributes, then it follows that any Holy Spirit indwelt individual should be able to do the same, right?

And, If Jesus then actually does what He sees the Father do, He must be acting of His divine nature (Omni- attributes).

Moreover, if He can judge (i.e. save and condemn), then He must be using divine authority, authority that no mere Holy Spirit indwelt man has. And, if He actually performed this during the incarnation, then He acted, once again, as God, not a Holy Spirit-moved man.

 

[Craig de CrossWise]

And I don't see why you make the distinction between eternally and temporal.

Because BJ does. If Jesus is "eternally God" yet had "emptied Himself of divinity", then temporally the man Jesus was not divine, i.e. God.

 

[sunlover1]

And I don't see why you make the distinction between eternally and temporal.

Because BJ does. If Jesus is "eternally God" yet had "emptied Himself of divinity", then temporally the man Jesus was not divine, i.e. God.

And again, you're taking that ONE sentence out of context of the paragraph.

 

[Craig de CrossWise]

Here's another similar quote:

…Jesus emptied Himself of divinity and became man (see Philippians 2:7). While He is eternally God, He chose to live within the restrictions of a man who had no sin and was empowered by the Holy Spirit. In doing this, He provided a compelling model to follow

Once again, it's the same basic thing. Eternally God, yet temporally a divinity-divested man.

 

[sunlover1]

sunlover1,

If Jesus can see the Father (and no man can see the Father - John 1:18), then Jesus must be using one or more of His Omni- attributes. That is, if He were using the Holy Spirit instead of His own divine attributes, then it follows that any Holy Spirit indwelt individual should be able to do the same, right?

And, If Jesus then actually does what He sees the Father do, He must be acting of His divine nature (Omni- attributes).

Moreover, if He can judge (i.e. save and condemn), then He must be using divine authority, authority that no mere Holy Spirit indwelt man has. And, if He actually performed this during the incarnation, then He acted, once again, as God, not a Holy Spirit-moved man.

Now i see what you're driving at.
I'm going to make an entire thread on this though.
We're now debating how Jesus does/did what He does/did.
And again, BJ is not alone in this understanding that God
(Jesus Christ) did everything He did by the power of the Spirit.

 

[Craig de CrossWise]

And again, you're taking that ONE sentence out of context of the paragraph.

I'm not taking it out of context; I've provided the full context, and I'm asking you or anyone to reconcile "eternally God" with "emptied Himself of divinity and became a man". If Johnson is claiming Jesus is "eternally God" then He can't also say that He divested Himself of divinity/deity in becoming man - unless BJ construes the eternal realm as separate and distinct from the temporal, such that Jesus is God only in the eternal realm yet a man in the temporal realm.

 

[sunlover1]

Here's another similar quote:

…Jesus emptied Himself of divinity and became man (see Philippians 2:7). While He is eternally God, He chose to live within the restrictions of a man who had no sin and was empowered by the Holy Spirit. In doing this, He provided a compelling model to follow

Thank you for not taking it out of context.

Once again, it's the same basic thing. Eternally God, yet temporally a divinity-divested man.

But He DID choose to live within the restrictions of a man without sin.
This is the miracle of His sinless sacrifice.
This guy makes it CLEAR that Jesus CHOSE to and didn't HAVE to.
So he's not saying that Jesus was "merely man" with the power of
the Holy Spirit, He's saying that Jesus was GOD who "emptied Himself"
of ..
I'm not even going to put it in MY own words, because I don't care
to be in that same boat as Johsnson is on this, having folks try
to misrepresent me.

The spirit behind the paragraphs is clearly evident.
He's never suggested that Jesus was without His "godness"
(there I did it. sigh) He makes it quite clear that Jesus can
do whatever He 'chooses' to as He IS eternally God.

 

[Craig de CrossWise]

But He DID choose to live within the restrictions of a man without sin.
This is the miracle of His sinless sacrifice.
This guy makes it CLEAR that Jesus CHOSE to and didn't HAVE to.
So he's not saying that Jesus was "merely man" with the power of
the Holy Spirit, He's saying that Jesus was GOD who "emptied Himself"
of ..


You are reading into Johnson's words here, and that's my point. We must take BJ's words at face value. Johnson states twice in the same book that Jesus emptied Himself of divinity in becoming man. That is flat-out heretical. If he means something else, then he should state it clearly.

 

[sunlover1]

But He DID choose to live within the restrictions of a man without sin.
This is the miracle of His sinless sacrifice.
This guy makes it CLEAR that Jesus CHOSE to and didn't HAVE to.
So he's not saying that Jesus was "merely man" with the power of
the Holy Spirit, He's saying that Jesus was GOD who "emptied Himself"
of ..

You are reading into Johnson's words here, and that's my point.

No, I'm trying to explain what he said IN context.
You keep taking one sentence without the others.
It's as if you have an agenda.

We must take BJ's words at face value. Johnson states twice in the same book that Jesus emptied Himself of divinity in becoming man.
That is flat-out heretical. If he means something else, then he should state it clearly.

He did.
You don't want to see it.

ETA
I just looked at your website and I see now that most of the site is dedicated
to warning folks about pentecostalism/Bill Johnson/ Bethel etc.

I created this thread to learn about what this guy teaches,
not to magnify one sentence OUT of context and make him
look like he's saying something that he's clearly not.

You may have an agenda that's different than mere fact finding.

 

[Craig de CrossWise]

sunlover1,

You wrote, I just looked at your website and I see now that most of the site is dedicated to warning folks about pentecostalism/Bill Johnson/ Bethel etc.

Please note my distinction re: "hyper-charismatic" vs. charismatic. I'm not against Pentecostalism; but, I do wish to warn about the false teachings of Bill Johnson, since he's very prevalent.

Here's another quote:

…Jesus gave Himself to be crucified. He did not raise Himself from the dead…His job was to give His life to die. The Father raised Him by the Spirit… (source: “ewenhoffman” Maintaining the crosswalk- sermon of the week Feb 27th 2011. <link deleted since I cannot post links yet> 16:45-17:00. Emphasis in original. As accessed 03/11/12. Johnson stated the same basic thing on Facebook in mid-February of 2011 in an exchange with Kevin Moore: “…He needed to be raised from the dead. Acts 13 calls Him ‘the first born from the dead.’ He did not raise Himself. The Father through the Spirit raised Him…”)

Jesus stated plainly that He would raise Himself from the dead (John 2:19-22 / 10:17-18). In fact, it was the entire Trinity who raised Jesus [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].

Once again, we have BJ teaching against Scripture.

 

[Craig de CrossWise]

Here's another quote, one of the one's in which BJ proof-texts John 5:19:

&#8220;&#8230;Jesus had no ability to heal the sick. He couldn&#8217;t cast out devils, and He had no ability to raise the dead [ED: not even Himself?]. He said of Himself in John 5:19, &#8216;the Son can do nothing of Himself.&#8217; He had set aside His divinity. He did miracles as man in right relationship with God because He was setting forth a model for us&#8230;Jesus so emptied Himself that He was incapable of doing what was required of Him by the Father &#8211; without the Father&#8217;s help&#8230;&#8221;

First of all, let's put John 5:19 in proper context:

19 Jesus gave them this answer: &#8220;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. (NIV)

This illustrates that Johnson very well DID have ability, as He was able to see the Father (and no man sees the Father - John 1:18), AND He was able to do what He saw the Father doing.

If Jesus was "setting forth a model for us", then who can "see" the Father, much less 'do what we see the Father doing'?