Bill Johnson

[NorrinRadd]

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

Except that all of those superhuman things that He did -- demonstrations of power over nature, suprasensory knowledge, ability to heal instantly, authority over demons -- were also done by others in Scripture before and after Him.

 

[NorrinRadd]

...
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’”

I'm not sure you can demonstrate from the context that that is what John 14:12 means.

Meanwhile, the context of your quote is John 6, where it shows John's version of the teaching commonly associated with Paul, i.e. that we are saved (i.e. obtain eternal life) by faith (believing) in Jesus (Him whom God sent), not "works."

 

[NorrinRadd]

As to NorrinRadd’s claims ...

To be clear, while there is nothing in the quotes I provided with which I disagree, the words are not my own. They are those of, respectively, (1) Walter Martin, (2) Gordon Fee, and (3) Gerald Hawthorne.

...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.

Since you're new here, I might as well tell you that "what has been believed historically" doesn't carry a ton of weight with me.

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.

That's fine. From my perspective, it is also irrelevant.

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.

The second of those citations actually weakens your point, especially given the overall context of ch. 10. Jesus repeatedly affirms acting under the command of His Father, not as independent deity.

And apart from that, the Resurrection comes *after* His earthly ministry, so it is a separate topic.

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.

As is often the case in Scripture, and especially in John IMO, there are a lot of statements that are in "tension" (what regular people call "contradiction") to one another in that passage. At this point, I don't find your case persuasive.

Not only doe Jesus see the Father (and no one ever sees God – John 1:18), ...

Ex. 33:11, Num. 12:8 -- See above comment about "tensions."

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).

To whom did He ever impart life prior to John 20:22, after He had been resurrected?

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.

This argues in favor of His actually having divested of those attributes, since an omniscient being cannot "grow" in wisdom (Luke 2:52). An omnipotent being cannot be "unable" to do miracles (Mark 6:5).

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.

With all due respect, it takes a lot of guts to say stuff like that, and then accuse Bill Johnson of double-talk and linguistic gymnastics.

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).

That should be... something.

 

[NorrinRadd]

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.

I assume the boldfaced portion is the part that concerns you most. If he had not included the first part -- "While Jesus is eternally God" -- it would concern me also. But if you're going to get bent out of shape over the second part, then you should also be upset that Peter (or the pseudepigrapher) said we humans "partake" of the "divine" nature, and that John said the Word "became" flesh.

 

[NorrinRadd]

I'm still waiting for someone to adequately address Johnson's quote below. Please explain how this can be theologically orthodox (and logical!):

…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

I don't know how this can be more clear, as far as denying Jesus' earthly divinity. If He "emptied Himself of divinity and became man" how can He be divine, i.e., God in the flesh?

As you can see, I have now addressed it for you, and will add a bit here:

By your logic, if "emptying" Himself of divinity meant He ceased to be God, then when Peter (or whoever) said we "partake" of the "divine nature," he meant we BECOME gods or part of God.

You are unfairly reading too much into those few words, without holding Scripture to the same standard.

 

[NorrinRadd]

sidenote: i wonder if Bill would suggest the Hebrews author was lying...
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

*I* would say this is another instance where Scripture demonstrates "tensions" (a.k.a. "contradictions"). This says Jesus never changed. John 1 says the Word "became" flesh. How does something that "is" one thing "become" another thing, and yet remain "the same"?

If we are going to allow Scripture this sort of loose wording -- which may in fact be unavoidable when humans are talking about things such as the Trinity and the Incarnation -- it is unfair to niggle over one or two words from BJ.

 

[NorrinRadd]

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

Good grief! The only way I would ever perceive that as disparaging study of Scripture is if I came to it with that notion already firmly in place.

 

[NorrinRadd]

CdCW -- Would you be so kind as to comment on these quotes by Walter Martin?

"The New Testament irrefutably teaches that Christ did not exercise at least three prime attributes of deity while on the earth prior to His resurrection. These were omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. Had He done so while a man, He could not have been perfect humanity...

"The miracles of our Lord offer further proof of His limitations as a
man, for He did not hesitate to teach that He personally worked none of them, and that it was the Father who performed the works (John 5:19, 30; John 8:28; 10:37, 38; 10:32; 14:10...

"It can be said on good biblical ground that all of Christ's miracles,
powers, and supernatural information were the result of the Father's
action through Him, thus safeguarding our Lord's identity as a true
man (John 14:10; John 5:30)"


I can look up the source if you want it.

 

[Craig de CrossWise]

NorrinRadd:

I supplied this Johnson quote:

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 in response to the above, you wrote:

I assume the boldfaced portion is the part that concerns you most. If he had not included the first part -- "While Jesus is eternally God" -- it would concern me also…

You, like most BJ defenders, are reading into (eisegesis) instead of extracting meaning from (exegesis) this statement. The dependent clause “while Jesus is eternally God”, makes it clear that Johnson is making a claim of eternal deity, yet the independent clause “He emptied Himself of His divinity and became man” contradicts this very claim. To be emptied of divinity means, by the plain language, to no longer be divine. This sets up all sorts of questions: What does “eternally” mean to BJ? Or, what does “divinity” mean? I’ve found multiple contexts in which BJ construes “divinity” as “deity”, so his meaning on this is very clear to me. And I’ve not yet seen some sort of alternate meaning for “eternally.”

Since you are acquainted with Hawthorne, you’ll note that the author is clear to state that the Word retained all divine attributes in becoming Incarnate, yet the omni- attributes remained latent. While I disagree, at least he’s laid out his beliefs clearly. Johnson, on the other hand, does not, as his claim is self-contradictory. That is, unless he means “eternity past” for “eternal”, or if he construes the eternal realm as separate and distinct from the temporal such that Jesus becomes two separate Beings – One “eternally God”, the other temporally a man who did miracles “as a man yielded to God.”

After the ellipsis of your statement above you wrote:

…But if you're going to get bent out of shape over the second part, then you should also be upset that Peter (or the pseudepigrapher) said we humans "partake" of the "divine" nature, and that John said the Word "became" flesh.

This does not follow and does not add to our discussion. But, briefly, quite simply, we “partake” of the divine nature when we are Holy Spirit indwelt. Nothing scandalous about that. And, John’s statement about the Word becoming flesh is explained well by the context provided in the Gospel of John. The Word is not transformed into flesh devoid of deity a la metamorphosis.

 

[Craig de CrossWise]

CdCW -- Would you be so kind as to comment on these quotes by Walter Martin?

"The New Testament irrefutably teaches that Christ did not exercise at least three prime attributes of deity while on the earth prior to His resurrection. These were omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. Had He done so while a man, He could not have been perfect humanity...

"The miracles of our Lord offer further proof of His limitations as a
man, for He did not hesitate to teach that He personally worked none of them, and that it was the Father who performed the works (John 5:19, 30; John 8:28; 10:37, 38; 10:32; 14:10...

"It can be said on good biblical ground that all of Christ's miracles,
powers, and supernatural information were the result of the Father's
action through Him, thus safeguarding our Lord's identity as a true
man (John 14:10; John 5:30)"


I can look up the source if you want it.

I cannot speak for Martin, but I certainly disagree. Martin has proof-texted John 5:19 and 5:30. In between this verses we find Jesus acting divinely by: giving life to whom He chose (21); judging (providing eternal life or death) all of mankind (22) having been given this authority by the Father (27); even providing eternal life in the then present (24-25) for "...a time is coming and has now come...".

Jesus Christ is 100% man and 100% God. He's not 90 or 95% God. Yet, as the God-man He lived a life in obedience to the Father, as this is the choice He made in becoming incarnate (Phil 2:3-7).

And, Martin's statement here is problematic on its surface:

The New Testament irrefutably teaches that Christ did not exercise at least three prime attributes of deity while on the earth prior to His resurrection. These were omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. Had He done so while a man, He could not have been perfect humanity...

His conclusion doesn't necessarily follow. Since most believe that Jesus' power came from His baptism, let's go back to Jesus as a boy at the temple in Luke 2. How did Jesus know to be about His Father's business/house? Obviously, this was by omniscience. If the claim is that it was by the Holy Spirit that He knew this, then what was the point of baptism?

 

[Craig de CrossWise]

By your logic, if "emptying" Himself of divinity meant He ceased to be God, then when Peter (or whoever) said we "partake" of the "divine nature," he meant we BECOME gods or part of God.

You are unfairly reading too much into those few words, without holding Scripture to the same standard.

Partaking of the divine nature does not mean we BECOME gods or part of God. And Scripture does not make the claim that Jesus emptied Himself of divinity - Phil 2:7, or anywhere else. But, Johnson is making that claim, and Johnson is the one at odds with Scripture.

Even if we were to be gracious and assume Johnson meant "divine attributes" instead of "divinity" the problem still retains. If Johnson intends to teach that Jesus retained all divine attributes but chose not to exercise some or all of them, he should state this clearly. Johnson is quite articulate otherwise, so why the inarticulation here?

The ekenwsen is best understood metaphorically, not literally. Gordon Fee states this. While I don't have Fee's commentary on Philippians, I do have an essay in C. Stephen Evans' book Exploring Kenotic Christology in which Fee states:

This leads us, then, to ask whether the verb ekenwsev is best understood literally or metaphorically, as a way of expressing what Christ did 'as God'. Did he literally 'empty himself of something' when he took the form of a slave? Or did he metaphorically 'make himself nothing' by assuming the form of a slave, in becoming human?

...it would...seem more likely that the verb is an intentional, very powerful metaphor, similar to Paul's usage of the verb regarding the cross in 1 Corinthians 1:17. Just as the cross would lose its meaning and power if presented in the guise of the 'wisdom of the world', so Christ, fully equal with God as he was, nonetheless made himself nothing by taking the form of a slave (p 33, emphasis in original).

Fee continues on the next page:

...In any case, I for one have some difficulty with the language of kenosis when applied to Christ in his Incarnation, if by that, on the basis of this text, we mean that the Son 'emptied himself of anything' in his becoming human. I find that language hard to reconcile with the affirmation that he was 'fully God' (p 34, emphasis in original).

Fee goes on to state that he believes Christ retained all divine attributes, yet chose not to exercise the 3 Omni- attributes during the Incarnation:

...Thus, without ever 'setting aside' or 'emptying himself of' anything essential to his being truly God, he chose in becoming incarnate to live out a truly human life on our planet, in which he would be totally dependent on the Father through the work of the Spirit (p 34).

Again, while I disagree, Fee at least lays out a coherent statement, stressing that we cannot say he 'set aside' or 'emptied himself' of anything.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Making a context to discuss why this man is considered an heretic
in GT (Helping to keep other threads on track )


Let's try to look at his words only for this thread.
What did he say that makes him dangerous.

Long videos not appreciated by me

discerning of spirit on words behaves like the new age places i've ministered to . "of the flesh" i'll read some words to see if this is true .

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I Read,
Hosting His Presence | Bill Johnson Ministries
And got the idea that the church in the wilderness post captivity, i'd say he's with the gentile mirror of the Assyrian captivity .

since a lot of people are more on the side of the Judah mirror in GT, that would be a typical reaction as Jews and Samaritans didn't get along too well in the first advent either .

 

[Craig de CrossWise]

NorrinRadd,

You wrote, in response to one of my statements:

This argues in favor of His actually having divested of those attributes, since an omniscient being cannot "grow" in wisdom (Luke 2:52). An omnipotent being cannot be "unable" to do miracles (Mark 6:5).

Just because with our finite minds we cannot conceive of a Being who is omniscient yet, in His humanity, grows in wisdom, does not make it not so.

Christ was only 'unable' to do miracles because of their lack of faith. He did do a few according to that verse.

 

[VickyH]

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 wonder what/where BJ see's the 'anointing' as being? No word about the Holy Spirit, but he uses the word anointing. Then removes the divinity of Jesus, so I guess he would also downplay the Holy Spirit.

According to the last sentence, we need the anointing to take dominion. Now it becomes clear, his dominion theology. Of course. We are also little God's so why would Jesus be special?

False teaching. False teaching. False teaching.

 

[VickyH]

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

He is preparing his people to 'not touch God's anointed'. Clear strategy of deception.

 

[Rick Otto]

NorrinRadd,

You wrote, in response to one of my statements:

This argues in favor of His actually having divested of those attributes, since an omniscient being cannot "grow" in wisdom (Luke 2:52). An omnipotent being cannot be "unable" to do miracles (Mark 6:5).

Just because with our finite minds we cannot conceive of a Being who is omniscient yet, in His humanity, grows in wisdom, does not make it not so.

Christ was only 'unable' to do miracles because of their lack of faith. He did do a few according to that verse.

Even with our finite minds, we can observe contradiction.
Correlation doesn't always = cause & effect.

 

[sunlover1]

I wonder what/where BJ see's the 'anointing' as being?

I guess we don't know.
What do you see it as being?

No word about the Holy Spirit, but he uses the word anointing. Then removes the divinity of Jesus, so I guess he would also downplay the Holy Spirit.

Guessing isn't very helpful, or kind.
What if he's one of God's friends?

According to the last sentence, we need the anointing to take dominion. Now it becomes clear, his dominion theology.

What's his "dominion theology"

Of course. We are also little God's so why would Jesus be special?

Is that what Johnson said?

He is preparing his people to 'not touch God's anointed'. Clear strategy of deception.

Is this fact?

 

[simonthezealot]

Good grief! The only way I would ever perceive that as disparaging study of Scripture is if I came to it with that notion already firmly in place.

Really? telling us to go off the map..is exactly would a cult would do.

he stated, "But to follow Him, we must be willing to follow off the map—to go beyond what we know"

This is outright telling us NOT to use scripture as our plumbline and ONLY source of truth.

 

[sunlover1]

Really? telling us to go off the map..is exactly would a cult would do.

he stated, "But to follow Him, we must be willing to follow off the map—to go beyond what we know"

This is outright telling us NOT to use scripture as our plumbline and ONLY source of truth.

What do you do if God speaks to you and there's no Scripture to help?