Bill Johnson’s ‘Born Again’ Jesus, Part I
September 17, 2010 850 Comments
[For a more in-depth investigation, see the series Bill Johnson's Christology: A New Age Christ? in all its parts. For additional articles see Anthology of Bill Johnson Articles (So Far)]
{Update on 11/22/11: I’ve just realized the information sourced from “Got Questions” at footnote 25 has been updated/corrected. This article has been updated to reflect that change. More explanation is contained in comment 842 below.}
{I’ve just now found an error (Jan. 2, 2011) in my copy of the NIV Study Bible regarding kenosis which I had perpetuated in a portion of endnote 9. I’ve now deleted this erroneous verbiage and put an explanation of this in comment #136 of this post. I sincerely regret the error.}
[This article could not have been completed without the work of others who came before me, the assistance of those who pointed me to certain texts and documents, the expertise of those whom I consulted for advice and clarification on theological matters, and the help of the individuals who assisted me on readability before finalizing this document. To all of these I say, “Thank you!”]
[The Kingdom of God is at Hand, Part II provides pertinent information as a bridge of sorts to Part II of this article.]
On a recently uploaded YouTube video[1] there are two clips put together exposing some faulty teaching of “Apostle” Bill Johnson of Bethel Church in Redding, CA.[2] In the second part, which begins at 3:40, Johnson states that Jesus was ‘born again.’ Here[3] is the uncut sermon from December 20, 2009 with the ‘born again’ Jesus portion beginning at 33:48. Following is the transcription:
“…Did you know that Jesus was born again? I asked… the first service and they said, “No.” But I will show it. It’s in the Bible. He had to be. He became sin.
In Hebrews 1 it says this, “For to which of the angels did he ever say, ‘You are my son. Today I have begotten you’?” And Acts 13 explains that: “God has fulfilled this for us, their children, in that he has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: ‘You are my Son, Today I have begotten You.’ And that He raised Him from the dead, no more to return to corruption.” He was born through Mary the first time and through the Resurrection the second time. He was ‘born again.’” [4]
Did Jesus become sin? If so, when? Was it at His incarnation? Was it on the cross? Was it some time in between?
As we examine Scripture we find, of course, that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life.[5] However, Scripture does say He ‘became sin’ as substitution for ours:
21God made Him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God. [II Corinthians 5:21 NIV]
Please note that Jesus Christ did not ‘become sin’ in that He did not become a sinful being with corruptible flesh but, rather, our sins were imputed to Him by the Father to atone for the sins of all who believe on Him. The following explains this:
“God used the principle of imputation to benefit mankind when He imputed the sin of believers to the account of Jesus Christ, who paid the penalty for that sin – death – on the cross. Imputing our sin to Jesus, God treated Him as if He were a sinner, though He was not, and had Him die for the sins of the entire world (1 John 2:2). It is important to understand that sin was imputed to Him, but He did not inherit it from Adam. He bore the penalty for sin, but He never became a sinner…” [6]
We’ve established the correct interpretation regarding how Jesus Christ ‘became sin;’ but, what is Johnson’s belief? Apparently, he does not ascribe to the orthodox view because, if so, he would not state that Jesus had to be born again. Regarding this apparent view of Johnson: who would be worthy to atone for Jesus’ supposed sin in order for Him to be born again?
Going back to the second paragraph of the transcript, Johnson quotes the question from Hebrews 1:5a, then attempts to answer this question over in Acts 13. The trouble with this is that these are two completely different contexts. Why did he do that? It just leads to potential confusion.
Logic would lead us to think that Johnson was making a thesis statement in the first paragraph while explaining it in the next. So, to paraphrase Johnson: Jesus ‘became sin’ and thus had to be ‘born again’ which can be proven using Scripture.
Therefore, if we take Johnson’s words in the second paragraph as a strict chronology in the context he provides by isolating the verses in Hebrews and Acts, we should find the answer to his thesis statement. In addition, we may be able to determine his underlying theology. First, he quotes the first part of Hebrews 1:5:
For to which of the angels did God ever say,
“You are my Son; today I have begotten You?”
Next he states:
And Acts 13 explains that…
Explains what? Explains ‘to which of the angels did God ever say…’? No, that’s not what Johnson answers (it was a rhetorical question in the context of Hebrews and, hence, did not require an answer) as he has shifted to a completely different context over in Acts as pointed out above. So, which question IS Johnson attempting to answer?
…God has fulfilled this [“You are my Son; today I have begotten You” from above] for us, their children, in that he has raised up Jesus [at the Resurrection]. As it is also written in the second Psalm:
‘You are my Son, Today I have begotten You.’ [Jesus is the Father’s begotten Son, today at the Resurrection.] [Bracketed comments mine for explanation.]
If we take his words at face value here he seems to be inferring that Jesus became God’s Son at the resurrection. Johnson appears to solidify this thought by continuing with the following:
…And that he ‘raised him from the dead, no more to return to corruption.’
Johnson now states that Jesus was ‘born again’ “through the Resurrection:”
He was born through Mary the first time and through the Resurrection the second time. He was ‘born again.’
So, can we conclude that Johnson believes Jesus was ‘born again’ through the Resurrection, and subsequently, or simultaneously, became God’s Son only then? The view of Jesus being God’s Son at or through the Resurrection is only unorthodox if the belief is that Jesus was not the Son of God before this event. We’ll return to this at a later point.
Now that we understand when and how Jesus was ‘born again’ according to Johnson, it may seem plausible to assume he is also explaining with the words in the second paragraph of the transcript when and how Jesus ‘became sin.’ Is it possible then, that he is saying it is through Mary that Jesus ‘became sin?’ This would make sense if he equated “corruption” with “sin” and that Jesus’ birth through Mary made Him ‘corruptible flesh,’ i.e., human.[7] We’ll attempt to answer this later.
In his book When Heaven Invades Earth from 2003, Johnson further defines his theology:
“Jesus lived His earthly life with human limitations. He laid his [sic] divinity aside 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).” [8] [all as per original]
This is bad Christology[9] (the view of Christ’s nature, person and deeds) which we’ll explain more a bit later. When did Jesus lay aside His deity? And, when, if ever, did He pick it back up? Did Jesus have to strive to be sinless? This is just faulty theology. [This issue of Johnson’s faulty Christology is also spoken of here.] Is it that Johnson just does not understand orthodox Christian doctrine? This seems doubtful as he is a fifth generation[10] pastor by his own admission.
This also contradicts Johnson’s words in the transcript. How could Jesus have been spotless and without sin yet ‘became sin’ thus making it a requirement that He be born again? How can that be reconciled?
Perhaps the words from Johnson’s books can be harmonized with the words in the video/audio in order to understand his theology.
Returning to Johnson’s When Heaven Invades Earth we find Jesus as a boy at the Temple[11]:
“He was simply a 12-year-old boy with priorities that were different from everyone else.” [12]
With this he may be inferring that Jesus was not yet divine; but, this is inconclusive.
The “Anointing”
However, with his words below, Johnson claims outright that Jesus did not become The Christ until His baptism[13] which, by extension, means He was not divine at the Incarnation:
“Christ is not Jesus’ last name. The word Christ means ‘Anointed One’ or ‘Messiah.’ It is a title that points to an experience… …He had to receive the anointing in an experience to accomplish what the Father desired.” [emphasis mine]
“The anointing is what linked Jesus, the man, to the divine enabling Him…”. [14]
Scripture makes it clear that Jesus was divine at His Incarnation[15] by identifying him as “Immanuel” (God with us)[16] and the “Anointed One” – The Christ[17] – at the virgin birth, contrary to Johnson. Given his view that Jesus was not The Christ at His birth, then, by extension, does this mean he believes Jesus was born into the same fallen, Adamic sin nature as the rest of us?
This points, once again, to faulty Christology known as the Kenosis heresy.[18] Adding Johnson’s words from a few paragraphs earlier: “The sacrifice that could atone for sin had to be a lamb, (powerless)…” drives it home. Louis Berkhof in The History of Christian Doctrines quoting Everard Digges La Touche: “In the most absolute and consistent form it [the Kenosis doctrine] teaches what La Touche calls ‘incarnation by divine suicide.’”[19]
Adding to this, Johnson, in his book The Supernatural Power of a Transformed Mind: Access to a Life of Miracles states:
“…Jesus had no ability to heal the sick. He couldn’t cast out devils, and He had no ability to raise the dead. He said of Himself in John 5:19, ‘the Son can do nothing of Himself.’ He had set aside His divinity… …Jesus so emptied Himself that He was incapable of doing what was required of Him by the Father – without the Father’s help…”[20]
Johnson lifts this Scripture out of its proper context. So, was Jesus Christ really “powerless” with the ability to do “nothing of Himself?” He makes clear His words:
17”The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life – only to take it up again. 18No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.” [John 10:17-18]
Johnson explains his belief that Jesus received the “title” of Christ at His baptism:
“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.” [21]
With the above, Johnson misconstrues the meaning of the word “anointing” in this context. First of all, in the Gospel accounts the Greek word from which we get the word “anoint” is not used at all in regard to Jesus’ baptism. The Holy Spirit ‘descended upon’ Jesus.[22]
In Acts 10:38, in which Jesus is described as having been ‘anointed’ with the ‘Holy Spirit’ (also see Acts 4:27, Luke 4:18 and Hebrews 1:9), the Greek word used is chrio which is defined:
To anoint (physically with oil; spiritually, with the Holy Spirit), to assign a person to a special task, implying a giving of power by God to accomplish the task. [23]
Johnson is over-literalizing a metaphor. The spiritual application should be used rather than the physical. Referring to the Holy Spirit as a ‘smearing’ smacks of sacrilege. This error begun in the first two sentences has compounded itself in the third with its implications. He’s equating ‘Christ,’ The “Anointed One,” with the Holy Spirit “anointing.”
Here’s the Strong’s definition of “Christ” from the Greek Christos:
“Christ, Anointed One, Messiah, the Greek translation of the Hebrew 4899 (cf. Greek 3323). The Messiah is the Son of David, an anointed leader expected to bring in an age of peace and liberty from all oppression. In the NT, the Messiah is Jesus, who came first to bring liberty from sin and peace with God and who will come again to bring all things under His control.[24]
The orthodox view of the significance of Jesus’ baptism is stated here:
“Jesus’ baptism…symbolized the sinners’ baptism into righteousness of Christ, dying with Him and rising free from sin and able to walk in the newness of life. His perfect righteousness would fulfill all the requirements of the Law for sinners who could never hope to do so on their own…
Perhaps most importantly, the occasion of the public baptism recorded for all generations to come the perfect embodiment of the triune God revealed in glory from heaven. The testimony directly from heaven of the Father’s pleasure with the Son and the descending Holy Spirit upon Jesus [Matthew 3:16-17] is a beautiful picture of the Trinitarian nature of God. It also depicts the work of the Father, Son and Spirit in the salvation of those Jesus came to save…[25]
Note that Jesus “publicly announced Himself” as the Son of God; however, He already was the Son of God at His incarnation (and before this, of course). Jesus Christ being ‘fully God and fully man’ at the virgin birth did not need the Holy Spirit. He was already the “Anointed One.”
This same “anointing” is available to others according to Johnson.[26] With his belief, then, by implication, when individuals receive the Holy Spirit – thus receiving the same ‘Christ’ “anointing” as Jesus – they will, in essence, be just like Jesus. Taken to its logical conclusion, this leads to the view that once an individual receives this ‘Christ anointing’ he/she will be Joe/Jane Christ. Quoting Johnson:
Through the shedding of His blood, it would be possible for everyone who believed on His name to do as He did and become as He was. [27]
This seems to state outright that we can become just like Jesus Christ. While we are to strive to be ‘like Christ’ by the leading of the Holy Spirit, we are never going to be equal to Christ. Jesus Christ is the one and only Son by nature.[28] We, however, are adopted as sons (and daughters) by grace.[29] There is only one Christ and He is Jesus Christ!
According to Johnson, after receiving the “anointing,” we are to pass ‘it’ to others. Not necessarily others who are or wish to become Christians exclusively, but to anyone:
“For the most part, the anointing has been hoarded by the Church for the Church. …thinking it is for our enjoyment only. …This wonderful presence of God is to be taken to the world.” [30]
“…When we are smeared with God, it rubs off on all we come into contact with – and it’s that anointing that breaks the yokes of darkness.” [31]
“…The anointing is substance. It is the actual presence of the Holy Spirit, and He can be released into our surroundings” [32] [all emphasis mine]
Johnson is claiming the “anointing” is a transferable, tangible substance; however, the “anointing” is also described as the “smearing” on of the Holy Spirit at baptism. Are these one and the same? Presumably not since Johnson refers to the “anointing” above as an impersonal ‘it.’ The Holy Spirit, as the third person of the Trinity and part of the Godhead, is most certainly not an ‘it!’
This seems as though Johnson is implying the Holy Spirit may be manipulated almost at will. If that’s the case, could we just ‘pass Him on,’ so to speak, to unbelievers – those in “the world” – in order to bring salvation?
The Apostle John makes it clear there is a counterfeit anointing. Is it possible Johnson is passing a counterfeit?
20But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth. I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth…
26I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. 27As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit – just as it has taught you, remain in him. [1 John 2:20, 26-27 NIV; emphasis mine. Underlined portion is rendered in other translations as “is true, and is not a lie”]
Johnson also speaks quite a bit about the antichrist spirit:
“The nature of the antichrist spirit is found in its name: anti, “against”; Christ, “Anointed One.’” [33]
“…The spirits of hell are at war against the anointing, for without the anointing mankind is no threat to their dominion.” [34]
“The antichrist spirit has a goal for the Church – embrace Jesus apart from the anointing.”[35]
The first sentence is nearly correct; however, it’s not a complete definition (see below). However, in the second and third passages, once again we find Johnson confusing “anointing” with “Anointed One.” Johnson’s view here then may be better stated as ‘anti-anointing,’ ‘anti-Holy Spirit,’ or, perhaps, anti-hagiopneuma [or anti-pneumahagios].[36]
Johnson defines further his version of the antichrist spirit calling it a ‘religious spirit:’
“The spirit of antichrist is at work today, attempting to influence believers to reject everything that has to do with the Holy Spirit’s anointing. …That spirit has worked to reduce the gospel to a mere intellectual message, rather than a supernatural God encounter. …But, never does this spirit expect the anointing of God’s power to be available in the here and now…”
“It is the antichrist spirit that has given rise to religious spirits. A religious spirit is a demonic presence that works to get us to substitute being led by our intellect instead of the Spirit of God.” [37]
Since Johnson’s definition of antichrist would be more accurately termed ‘anti-anointing,’ or ‘anti-Holy Spirit,’ then this “demonic presence,” – the term he uses to describe those with ‘religious spirits’ (those who hold to doctrine over personal experience) – are actually those who are against Johnson’s “anointing” rather than against Christ.
The prefix ‘anti’ from which the term ‘antichrist’ is derived is defined as:
“in exchange for (often as a sign of benefaction), in place of (often as a sign of contrast), instead of (often as a sign of an exchange of a relationship), one after another (often as a sign of purpose or result). Note that this preposition used in absolute does not mean to be ‘against’ or ‘in opposition to’ something.” [38]
Therefore ‘antichrist’ is not just ‘against Christ’ it can be ‘instead of Christ,’ ‘in place of Christ,’ et cetera.
Johnson’s Christology Defined
If we take Bill Johnson’s words in total so far, we have Jesus devoid of divinity at birth, but receiving His divinity at baptism by the “anointing” of the Holy Spirit and thereby becoming the “Anointed One” and consequently obtaining the ‘title’ of Christ. Immediately following this “anointing,” The Father declared, “This is My much loved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”[39] In laying His divinity aside he was “powerless,” completely dependant upon the “anointing” in seeking to live a sinless life. He was successful in living out a sinless life; however, because He had ‘laid His divinity aside,’ he died as the man Jesus – a “powerless” lamb – on the Cross. Further, since He ‘became sin’ He had to be ‘born again.’ He was ‘born again’ through the Resurrection and was consequently reaffirmed as God’s Son. Presumably, He reacquired His divinity which He previously laid aside.
The remaining question to attempt to answer: When was it that Jesus ‘became sin’ according to Johnson? Logically, it was either at birth or at the Cross. Let’s explore these two options.
First, if He ‘became sin’ at the Cross as per the orthodox meaning as described near the beginning of this article – i.e., our sin was imputed to Him by the Father– then it would not have been necessary for Him to be ‘born again.’ So, it is fair to say he either does not hold to this doctrine or he does not fully understand it.
Second, If Johnson’s view is that Jesus ‘became sin’ on the Cross like that of Word of Faith, then, it is considered heretical.[40] We can’t know for sure since, of course, Johnson is not clear on how he supports this particular view.
The next possibility then is that Johnson believes Jesus ‘became sin’ at His incarnation. Since Jesus apparently did not have a divine nature until His baptism, according to Johnson, then it is logical to assume that He had only a human nature and, by extension, He inherited an Adamic, sin nature. Going back to the second paragraph of the transcription: if we consider, as noted above, the possibility that Johnson was actually explaining his viewpoint on when and why Jesus ‘became sin,’ it is plausible that his interpretation of “corruption” in Acts 13 is “sin,” and thereby “corruption” could mean “corruptible flesh.”
It seems the most plausible conclusion is that Johnson believes Jesus ‘became sin’ at the Incarnation since Jesus was not divine until baptism; however, this is not made certain in the texts.
It appears Johnson has adopted a Christological view close to that of Cerinthianism, derived from its main spokesman Cerinthus. A form of 1st century Gnosticism, this is one of the heresies the Apostle John was specifically refuting in his first epistle.[41] He did this by proclaiming that Jesus Christ came in the flesh, was the Son of God, and had preexisted as part of the Triune God [vv 1:1-4]. Further, he identifies that which is antichrist [vv 2:22-23; 4:2-3].
1Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus [Christ] is not from God. This is the spirit of antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world. [I John 4:1-3 NIV. Emphasis mine.] [42]
The study note of 4:2 referencing ‘Every spirit that acknowledges that’ “Jesus Christ has come in the flesh” ‘is from God’ states:
…Thus John excludes the Gnostics, especially the Cerinthians, who taught that the divine Christ came upon the human Jesus at His baptism and then left him at the cross, so that it was the man Jesus who died.” [43]
The Apostle John goes further in showing that Jesus was also divine at the Cross (blood):
6This is the one who came by water and blood – Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7For there are three that testify:[the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit and these three are one] 8[And there are three that testify on earth:] the Spirit, the water and the Blood; and the three are in agreement. 9We accept man’s testimony but God’s testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about His Son. 10Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. 11And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. [I John 5:6-11 NIV] [44]
The study note referencing verse 5:6 explains the importance of Jesus being divine at the Crucifixion:
“…He [John] now asserts that it was this God-man Jesus Christ who came into our world, was baptized and died. Jesus was the Son of God not only at His baptism but also at His death (v. 6b). This truth is extremely important, because, if Jesus died only as a man, his sacrificial atonement (2:2; 4:10) would not have been sufficient to take away the guilt of man’s sin…” [45] [emphasis mine]
Sad to say, but, Bill Johnson’s ‘Jesus’ is not the one of orthodox Biblical Christianity. In addition, his ‘Christ’ is inconsistent with Scripture; and, this ‘Christ’ does not offer true salvation.
The Good News!
However, there is good news! Salvation is available through the one True Savior: the Anointed One, The Messiah, the one and only Son of God – Jesus Christ.
Orthodox Christianity asserts that Jesus Christ is the one and only Son of God, [John 3:16] incarnated through the Virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit coming upon and overshadowing her [Luke 1:26-35; Matthew 1:18], fully God and fully man [John 5:18; Philippians 2:6-7] – the unique God-man – at all times during His earthly ministry. He was preexistent as part of the Triune Godhead (the Trinity) from ‘the beginning’ [Genesis 1:1; John 1:1] and He is ‘the alpha and the omega’ [Revelation 1:8, 21:6, 22:13], the beginning and the end.
Salvation into eternal life is only through Jesus Christ [John 14:6] as a result of His death, burial, and resurrection on the third day [Philippians 2:8; Matthew 28:1-7; Luke 24:1-10,46] which atoned for our sins [John 3:16; Romans 5:8, 10:9]. Christ has now ascended to be at the right hand of the Father [Acts 2:33] serving as our mediator [Galatians 3:19-20; 1 Timothy 2:3-6]. Salvation is a free gift of unmerited grace through faith in Jesus Christ [Ephesians 2:8-9]. Jesus’ death also fulfilled the Law of Moses [Matthew 5:17; Romans 8:1-2]; consequently, Christians are free from this bondage [Galatians 3:10-25].
If you believe the above and acknowledge the fact that you are a sinner in need of a Savior [Romans 3:23, 5:12, 6:23], repent of your sins [Luke 13:5; Matthew 3:2], and accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, you will gain eternal life [Romans 10:9,13]. At the point of salvation the Holy Spirit indwells each and every believer [Romans 5:1-2,5] identifying each one as a Christian who has become a new creature [2 Corinthians 5:17]. Christians are a Royal Priesthood [1 Peter 2:9] with the confidence to enter the Most Holy Place [Mark 15:37-38] to petition the Father by prayer [Hebrews 10:19-22] in the Name – i.e., in the character – of Jesus Christ, His Son as revealed through His Word.
The Holy Spirit empowers all believers [Romans 8:9-11] to live out the Christian life; and, His indwelling is a seal guaranteeing eternal life [2 Corinthians 1:21-22; Ephesians 1:13-14] if we stand firm to the end [Matthew 24:13]. The Holy Spirit brings conviction of sin and guides into all Truth [John 16:8-11,13]. He will testify and bring glory to Jesus Christ [John 15:26, 16:14]. The Holy Spirit gives believers spiritual gifts [1 Corinthians 12:7-11; Romans 12:4-8; I Peter 4:9-11] just as He determines [1 Corinthians 12:11] and, He intercedes on our behalf [Romans 8:26-27]. AMEN!
This article, The Kingdom of God is at Hand, Part II, provides pertinent information as a bridge of sorts to Bill Johnson’s ‘Born Again’ Jesus, Part II.
John,
Maybe you have already done this, I don’t remember. But would you mind doing it again if you have? This thread is waaayyyy….too long to hunt back for an anwer!
Would you state your definition of “divinity” for us as you understand Bill Johnson using it?
John,
Jesus wept [John 11:35] and Jesus slept [Matt 8:25; Mark 4:38; Luke 8:24] — yes, Jesus had a human nature. But, He also had a divine nature. He was and is the God-man. Stressing one over the other results in error.
You say Bethel is not suggesting Jesus was not divine. Here’s a statement from When Heaven Invades Earth which is in the article of this thread:
“The anointing is what linked Jesus, the man, to the divine, enabling Him to destroy the works of the devil” [WHIE p 79]
and, one from Face to Face with God which is used in part II of this article:
“…The outpouring of the Spirit comes to anoint the church with the same Christ anointing that rested upon Jesus in His ministry so that we might be imitators of Him.” [p 77]
This is making a clear distinction between “Jesus, the man” — not the God-man but “Jesus, the man,” in His humanity devoid of divinity — which is borne out in the rest of the sentence when he says “to the divine.” “Divine” in this sense is the “Christ anointing” as made clear in the 2nd quote above. Using Johnson’s redefinition of anointing=Christ would necessarily entail denying Jesus as being the Christ, before “the anointing.”
If that’s not clear enough, here’s another quote from Face to Face:
…The outpouring of the Spirit also needed to happen to Jesus for Him to be fully qualified. This was His quest. Receiving this anointing qualified Him to be called the Christ, which means “anointed one.” Without the experience there could be no title. [p 109]
This makes it clear that Jesus could not even be called Christ until He received this “title” as a result of the “Christ anointing.” This quote is a restatement of the following one from When Heaven Invades Earth:
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.1 The name Jesus Christ implies that Jesus is the One smeared with the Holy Spirit. [p 79 WHIE]
All this points to a plain ol’ “Jesus” at the Incarnation since, according to the Johnson view, Jesus did not even receive the “title” of Christ, Messiah, or the Anointed One until Baptism and, consequently, this is when He received the name ["The name Jesus Christ implies that Jesus is the One smeared with the Holy Spirit"].
Bill Johnson can claim that Jesus was divine at all times during the Incarnation; however, his words above would run contrary to that claim.
John, you wrote: “Personally, I believe there is more than enough room in the fullness of God’s counsel for charismatic and orthodox viewpoints.”
Shouldn’t these viewpoints be one and the same? The Assemblies of God church, which is pentecostal and hence charismatic, has a basic belief system which adheres to proper Christology and the hypostatic union.
This isn’t or shouldn’t be an either/or thing.
Meg,
You asked for a source for the hypostatic union. Well, here’s a good one:
http://carm.org/jesus-two-natures
Jesus is the most important person who has ever lived since he is the Savior, God in human flesh. He is not half God and half man. He is fully divine and fully man. In other words, Jesus has two distinct natures: divine and human. Jesus is the Word who was God and was with God and was made flesh, (John 1:1,14). This means that in the single person of Jesus is both a human and divine nature, God and man. The divine nature was not changed when the Word became flesh (John 1:1,14). Instead, the Word was joined with humanity (Col. 2:9). Jesus’ divine nature was not altered. Also, Jesus is not merely a man who “had God within Him” nor is he a man who “manifested the God principle.” He is God in flesh, second person of the Trinity. “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word,” (Heb. 1:3). Jesus’ two natures are not “mixed together,” (Eutychianism) nor are they combined into a new God-man nature (Monophysitism). They are separate yet act as a unit in the one person of Jesus. This is called the Hypostatic Union.
Also, I should note that taking the following quote from Face to Face with God and applying the logic and exposition brought forth in my previous comment which shows Jesus did not receive the “title” of Christ/Messiah until Baptism also implies we acquire divinity once we receive this same “Christ anointing”:
“…The outpouring of the Spirit comes to anoint the church with the same Christ anointing that rested upon Jesus in His ministry so that we might be imitators of Him.” [p 77]
The “little gods” heresy.
Hi john, hope you are ok. JUst want to post a quick response to your latest comment. can you see your own contradictions or are you oblivious to them? you say all at bethel agree Jesus was and is divine yet you then quote Hebrews 2 to deny that affirmation. this is confusing to say the least. further, from Craigs quotes from bj books it is clear that his is a gnostic view. does Johnson affirm the eternal divinity of Jesus? yes! does Johnson deny the divinity of Jesus? yes! this, unlike some of the seeming paradoxes in scripture, is simply untenable in terms of Christian orthodoxy.
Thanks Craig for the info.
I don’t profess to know all the answers, nor do I use big words to sound more intelligent than I am. I have no “thesis” to prove, but only questions to ask and learn from. Being a student of the Word, and not commentaries from great theologians or the like, I am committed to be able to stand on the last day, knowing of Whom I believed, not what someone else has said. I say this with all humility, knowing that I have so far to go. “For the word of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” Heb 4:12
Bill, in response to the earlier comment. Please forgive me. I came on here seeking to find truth and found it: I saw the condition of my own heart.
I have walked circumspectly concerning my own actions, reactions, offenses since experiencing a very real death in my personal life. All I have is Him. I have dies dozens of deaths and will probably die more before it is all over, but no one can take or add it my testimony. That is reserved for the Author and Finisher of my faith.
1 Corinthians 2 is my prayer. My prayer has also been, “Give us the eyes of a blind man, that we may see.” Bartimaeus got it. We all think we see so well, yet our own hearts are blinded by our wisdom. We want to put God is a box. We want to categorize doctrine. In reading through all these arguments, I have felt more apart from God. It’s divisive. But it has lead me straight into the arms of the One whom I have known. But it was Love that lead me, not man. It was the Holy Spirit that wooed me, not man. Human logic doesn’t stand a chance in a Kingdom yet to come. The only time I have felt close to Him was when I came away and looked at the condition of my own heart, yet again and realized how desperately l need Him.
Thank you for all your work, Craig! May others come to this site and find what I have: I need more of Him. May Your Kingdom come and Your will be done on earth as it is in Heaven.
Meg,
I certainly don’t have all the answers either. And, I continue to learn daily. I learn from Him and I learn others who’ve learned from Him. The Christian Church has evolved over the centuries. The point of the creeds and doctrines are so that errors of old do not get replicated yet again. We learn from the past.
To be a Christian only requires simple faith — faith in the one who has atoned for our sins, Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior. However, there are other religions out there and, worse, there are others within our own faith who look like the real deal yet are not who can and will lead astray. They are wolves in sheep’s clothes, tares amonst the wheat.
Logic and the Christian life are not mutually exclusive. We should have one with the other.
We must search ourselves to see if we are in the faith [2 Cor 13:5].
John, you said, “All Bill Johnson is saying is that, to the extent that Jesus was 100% man, He was able to serve as a model for humanity of complete submission to God operating in all the limitations of humanity. Jesus demonstrated that we not only can, but are supposed to, draw our resources from another kingdom. When viewed in this light, his teaching seems incredibly simple and makes perfect sense. Johnson is offensive to many people because the Jesus he teaches is so huge, and that, to the extent we fail to appreciate this, we are operating at – what? – maybe 1% of what we should and could operate at? Living victoriously means far, far more than enduring until the end; it means co-opting the resources of our Inheritance to draw from the power resident in the other kingdom.”
Was thinking about this and thought about why was it that Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane “…he took with him Peter (the one that would deny him thrice) and the sons of Zebedee (the ones that wanted to sit on either side of Heaven) and began to be sorrowful and very heavy (the Blue Letter Bible states “this is the strongest of the three Greek words (85, 916, 3076) in the NT for depression.” http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexion/lexion.cfm?Strongs=G85&t=KJV).”
Why?
Was it because He felt sorry for them? Mankind? Was it because for the first time he was put in a place that he was able to relate to what it would feel like as a human to be possibly separated from God and thus reacted the way He did? I mean, depressed — that it such a human emotion. Can divinity feel that way? Or Divinity? (I don’t know! I am just asking what everyone else thinks.)
Or did He feel for the first time what it was going to be like being separated from His Father? I purposely put the he/HE as I did. Please read it as such. Or was it both? Or neither?
Perhaps this is what John meant when he spoke about understanding the Incarnation. I don’t think it was meant to be a bash, but perhaps we DON’T fully understand the Incarnation.
Perhaps Bill Johnson is really saying that Jesus put restrictions on Himself to live as a man only while here on earth. Even in the Garden He demonstrated this for our benefit. Did He need to receive an anointing (“Take this cup from Me, but not My will but yours be done) by the Holy Spirit so as to connect Him to the Father since He limited Himself on earth to living as a man? Even though, He was truly God at the time? I don’t think BJ is denying that Jesus was (and is) God.
If a God-Man died for our sins so that we can have access to the Father, then when we ask Him into our hearts, do we not then have to “die” to our own desires of the flesh, wills, etc. to have full access to the Father? In doing so (dying to “self”), from personal experience, I have heard and seen more that I could ever think or imagine. You talked about the “manifest Sons of God.” What are your thoughts about this?
Meg,
You raise some good questions! Yes, Jesus was “heavy” for He know that He was to die a horrible death on the Cross. In order to Atone for our sins, Jesus Christ has to be the perfect God-man. He couldn’t be merely man, of course.
But, here’s the thing. To stress Jesus’ humanity over His divinity is error. He was both. That is the point here.
With this quote, ““The anointing is what linked Jesus, the man, to the divine, enabling Him to destroy the works of the devil” [WHIE p 79], Johnson is stressing Jesus humanity over His divinity to the point of claiming it’s the anointing which links Him to the divine. This is unorthdox teaching. This is heresy. To try to explain this in other than the plain language here is to redefine standard orthodox Christian terminology.
If we assume that the “anointing” was a requirement for Jesus to perform his miracles, then we reduce Him to less than God.
If you want to know more about “manifest sons of God” teaching, then read Part II.
It has been pointed out that my last comment (4/28 4:37pm) which uses the term “God-man” could be construed as Eutychianism/monophysitism (see my earlier comment on 4/27 @ 6:53pm which briefly explains it as well as the orthodoxy of the hypostatic union) which is heresy. That was not my intention; so, I hereby apologize for my mistake. The correct way to refer to Jesus Christ’s two natures, both human and divine, is “truly God and truly man” or “fully God and fully man.”
The term “God-man” is a convention and not heresy in and of itself as it depends on context; however, I want to try to cross all the “t”s and “i”s.
Craig-
I like “truly God and truly man” much more than “God-man”.
I agree. Wait! am I agreeing with John Ashton? LOL
Who would have ever thought? I’m going to take a break here to breathe in this moment.
OK, since we’ve found a point of agreement, let’s see if we can find more. Sound good?
The way I understand chapter 7 of WHIE, the anointing of the Holy Spirit at Baptism is the means with which Jesus received His title of Christ. Is this how you see it?
Hey Craig-
As you know well, I’m circumspect in the way I look at many things. To be honest, i have never given any serious thought to when and how Jesus received his anointing (assuming he even needed to receive it) and how this relates to or is symbolic of the extent to which we can follow His steps. Given the number of things at Bethel that make me feel uneasy, i’m sure that it’s off-base in some ways; I’m always partly right in the things I discern, and Bethel, of course, is certainly not infalliable. I think you and I are not in agreement as to the length of the list of non-negotiables in the faith. In the end, I think it’s all about balance.
As I said above, Beyondgrace made some extremely valid points about the charismatic church in general. Some of this is true of Bethel. Let me offer one example. I used to attend one of the churches under Bethel’s authority. The place was wild — people rolling in the isles, laughing, “manifesting”…. right in the middle of a sermon! If the same people were at Bethel, they’d last 20 seconds before security ushered them out. In some ways, Bethel’s order and structure resembles a reformed church!!! So here’s my question: Which church is operating in the Spirit? If Bethel is TRULY submitted to the Holy Spirit, then why does it squelch it when people are manifesting? Then again, are all of these manifestations authentic, or is it learned behavior??? Why, in other words, does the Holy Spirit manifest so differently at two sister churches? The bottom line is that Bethel has an image to maintain. The services are broadcast all over the world, and, to be perfectly frank, it has to regulate behavior in order not to look too out-of-control. Now, being somewhat of a purist, I simply cannot fully accept that explanation. If the “crazy and out-of-control” manifestations are 100% authentic, then it seems to make sense that both churches can’t be right. Insofar as this is true, I believe there is a degree of inconsistency, showmanship and, dare I say, insincerity that is manifesting. That is my honest opinion.
You don’t see any of this at churches that are more grounded. Then again, to be frank, I think these churches tend to limit God.
So here’s my “final answer”: Every church is off-base; every church has blind spots; every church is out-of-balance. Frankly, I think sociological principles play a larger role at “spirit-filled” churches more than people realize. The same is true at conservative bodies. At the end of the day, God is bemused by us. All He asks is for maleable hearts willing to submit to uncomfortable ideas such as, “Oh my, maybe we’ve been off-base here for decades….” At the end of the day, we need each other. Even if you and I disagree, your thought processes bring me back into balance.
I realize that, in a very real sense, this may not settle anything. But if you and I can enjoy a beer – or even two – amidst the tension that emanates from our views, beliefs and opinions, I think Jesus, at least for the most part, is satisfied.
John,
Well, it seems by the way you’ve answered the question that you understand the inherent contradiction in this particular doctrine. I’m glad you at least see my point.
Balance = Spirit + Truth. Not one at the expense of the other. That’s how we are to worship.
Blind spots are one thing, and I agree everyone has them; however, a logically inconsistent statement (of which there are quite a few in WHIE and chapter 7 in particular) should eventually be changed to adhere to logic. The book is about 7 years old. Perhaps it should be updated. That is, unless there is a different agenda.
Hey Craig-
First of all, it would not surprise me a bit if I get an urge to really look into this in the detail you’ve dedicated to it, and coming to the conclusion that you’re right on the money. I like, and am familiar with your approach to truth.
But there are two facets to a subtle wrinkle that I’d like to submit. First, we all agree that the goal of the game is to get the ball into the end zone as many times as possible. Once that is established, we can all play in the same league. But things get very interesting (and, perhaps, uncomfortable) when we find that 50 coaches all have differing (and sometimes opposing) philosophies of how to actually get the ball in the end zone, and that even within each coaching system, there can be considerable dissent. I loved Pete Carrol; Jim Tressel drives me nuts he’s so conservative. But they both win. My heart is with Don Coryell, but he never made it to the Big Show. Which (at least sort of) leads to the next point: Winning isn’t as important as how you win. Being right isn’t as important as how you are right. I get many of your points, and I agree with you more than I disagree. But I feel you have a bit too much of a personal stake in it. I say this tenderly… Your very personality is wired in ways that many people just can’t appreciate. But I think your passion for accuracy may be keeping you from seeing the bigger picture of what’s happening at Bethel. We’ve talked about the Incarnation…. My beer is going to taste just as good if you never see it “my way”. I think a more foundational line of demarcation is the way that Bill’s Christology is deeply embedded in the profoundly practical assumption that Jesus was a model that we can and must follow. To what extent we can follow this represents the boundaries of some of the subtle contours of thought that shape what may appear to be a faulty Christology, but are, in actuality, some brilliant insights revealed by the Holy Spirit born out of a sincere desire for truth.
The endgoal is the salvation of individuals from eternal damnation. We do this by preaching the true Gospel. Then, it’s the Spirit who convicts and enables the individuals’ desire to come to Christ. The first step of the unregenerate is recognizing their sinful condition and their need for a Savior. The individual must have at least a basic understanding of the Atonement. Next is repentance and the acceptance of The Savior, Jesus Christ, which then brings justification/salvation. Then comes the process of sanctification by the Spirit which continues until the day we take our last breath here on earth — whether by death or the Rapture. This process will involve some trials, tribulations and chastisement; and, it will require active participation. Does Bethel teach this or something resembling this?
I view discipleship as two-fold: 1) preaching in order for individuals to be saved (justification); and, 2) teaching in order for those saved to grow in their faith (sanctification).
Christianity is not driven by pragmatism. It’s about absolute Truth. Jesus Christ is the person as identified within the whole counsel of Scripture. So, let’s be sure the Jesus we present is, in fact, the one consistent with Scripture — not one of seemingly never-resolving contradictions.
BTW, I’ve changed my Statement of Faith by rewriting somewhat ambiguous sentences, altering some and adding some including a sentence on Theophanies/Christophanies.
Hey Craig!
Half the human species is full of “seemingly never-resolving contradictions”. I had a lot of first dates – and not many second – until I learned that absolute truth is, in a very real sense, a matter of perspective, and is as elusive as it is compelling. If you think about it, the very grace that lies at the foundation (the unalterably true attributes of God) of our faith defies rationalization. Like a woman, it’s not meant to be understood so much as enjoyed. Whatever understanding there is results from it being courted, not harnassed.
John,
Now, it seems you’re having a circular argument. You saw the point I was making earlier; but, now you’re going back and making it seem as though saying Jesus Christ receiving His title and name of Christ at Baptism, which by simple logic implies He was merely “Jesus” rather than “Jesus Christ” prior to Baptism, is OK as this would be just one of those things that “defies rationalization.” No, accepting this view entails that one believe Jesus was, in the words of Johnson himself “Jesus, the man” and not “linked” “to the divine” prior to His Baptism:
“The anointing is what linked Jesus, the man, to the divine, enabling Him to destroy the works of the devil” [WHIE p 79]
Given that this is straight out of New Age teaching, shouldn’t this be amended? That is, unless this is exactly what Johnson intends.
Hey Craig-
Sorry for long delay….
I lived three decades in a New Age-Friendly part of the country…. We are in total agreement as to its dangers. New Agers are correct in the sense that they realize there’s a lot more “out there” than meets the eye. Insofar as Bethel’s beliefs reflect this, there are similarities. The difference is that the new agers don’t acknowledge the need for atonement and personal accountibility to divine authority.
John,
You happened to catch me at the computer just now.
Respectfully, I disagree with your assessment of New Age thought re: atonement and personal responsibility to divine authority. The belief is self-salvation (auto-soterism) and they make themselves accountable to their “spirit guide(s).” They see Jesus’ life as symbolically representing the way to salvation — “Jesus is our model.”
I’ve been working diligently on an article which will illustrate some of this and more.
hey guys,
Sorry for my absence from the conversation. Been busy getting work stuff done and preparing for vaction. Couple thoughts. Personally while respect the sentiment in “Truly God, Truly man” or “fully God, fully man” I think scripture gives us more apt description and really catches God’s full meaning. That is the phrase “Son of God come in the Flesh” it catches the fullness of it all. the fullness of God come into fullness of the flesh. It is Emanuel, God with us. John, if there was a setting aside divinity until some special “annointing” (sic) moment, then it becomes less than God with us and does more fully fit the New Age concept of Christ and the elevating the divine within. To me, Fully God, Fully man could be stated and believed by the new age set. As Craig pointed out, they think we can all be divine (note the root of that John, the new age is really very old age at core)
I got news for you as well John, most of the USA has become “New Age” friendly from the popularity of Oprah, for the touting of things like the secret and other forum of repacking the “law of attraction” as well as the popularization of Yoga. It should be disturbing that The Bethel/Bill Johnson version of Jesus has more in common with New Age views than it does with scripture and the grasping of Son of God come in the Flesh.
peacebringer,
Respectfully, I disagree with this portion:
To me, Fully God, Fully man could be stated and believed by the new age set.
The basic New Age belief is each individual has two natures: one human (of course) and one latent, not yet realized, divine. So, the New Age goal is to transcend humanity by reaching divinity. Putting “fully God, fully man” in the same sentence would be anathema to the New Ager.
Or, perhaps I’m just not seeing what you mean by this(?).
Probably jsut not seeing what I mean, yes, to most people they consider the divinity latent, but they are looking to reach the “fully god” part of self and arriving at the “Bhudda” the “transformed” the “christ” state. Even in humanism and Maslow you have the reaching of the altruistic self. So fully God, fully man denotes something attainable, not necessarily of self. It is quite the contrary to fully God coming in the Flesh. Fully God, fully man does not really denote fully the hypstatic union and leaves room Kenosis and other heresies. Again, I reiterate that what John wrote is the best phrase. Son of God come in the Flesh. He gave it as a testing of spirits for a reason. A spirit can easily proclaim that Jesus was fully God, fully man but being the Son of God come in the Flesh is a whole lot more specific. The divinity was not “attained” it is not something that reached a “full” level. He is who he always as been. Again there is the verse that denotes that in Jesus “All the Fullness of the Godhead dwelt in bodily form.” WHich is really another phrasing of “the son of God come in the Flesh” both statements say the same thing. And this is critical.
Hope you saw my point now in terms of the leway and twists in “fully God, fully man”
And for a new ager, they want to achieve that level. “fully divine in their humanity” (mormons too for that matter)
Let me give you a specific examaple. In the Twin Cities here, the new is filled with the visit of the Dalai Lama who is one who is considered “fully god, and fully man”
Pingback: “Christ” in the New Age « CrossWise
Sorry for not replying earlier as I was finishing up the article which was posted early this morning.
I see what you’re saying; but, I’ve not heard of “fully God, fully man” pertaining to ‘humans’ before. I’ve always understood Maslow to mean that we are to actualize our highest human self. However, obviously, Maslow’s hierarchy has New Age overtones.
I dunno, the way I see reaching the highest “Buddhic” state is by transcending humanity en route to achieving divinity. I’ll take your word that the Dalai Lama is considered “fully God, fully man.” I’d think it much more fun though to just go all the way and dispose of our “causal body” in favor of being “released from the trammels and limitations of the flesh” as manifested sons of God.
Heh, Craig, no problem am pretty busy here. the Dalai Lama is referred to as the “god king” and while Maslov is humanistic based and not new age based is shows the progressiont to get to a “full state” or “higher level” certain Maslow wouldn’t define as god or divine. He would be fully human.. Bhuddism claims to be “anti-religous” and not about dieties but you have the Dalie Lama as a reincarnated god/king who at this point even proclaims he could choose to stop reincarnating in order to avoid China’s influence on t he next Dalai…
the point is, reaching a point of “full divinity” is allowed for in the phrasing of fully God, fully man that is not allowed for in “the Son of God come in the Flesh”
peacebringer,
Interesting.
On a related note, I thought the newest CrossWise article would be of interest to readers here: “Christ” in the New Age.
John Ashton: I would like you to read it over and see what you think.
This new article expounds on the kenosis issue brought forth in this post:
http://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/kenosis-christology-and-bill-johnson-part-i/
Part II will be posted in the near future.
Here’s part II of the article on kenosis:
http://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/2011/06/16/kenosis-christology-and-bill-johnson-part-ii/
Just a quick question. If we accept Christ into our lives, and surrender to his Lordship, and live according to the word in obedience, as a confirmation of that. What does that make us?
If one accepts the Jesus Christ of the Bible, accepts Him as Lord, lives by the Word, then they are a Christian by definition.
Did you have a question that pertains to the article?
Why dont you just call Bill Johnson and ask him the big questions? It seems like you are slicing and dicing and exerpting…like you are trying to catch him in his words. His exposition in sermon is not a journal article. I belong to a reasonably conservative church and have been trained in recognizing truth. And I recently read some of Bill’s stuff. He didnt strike me as a false prophet. Clearly from all the back and forth you have on these comments, reasonable people can disagree. Have you ever called Bill and asked him for an interview? I mean, all these false prophet charges are serious. I mean, doesn’t Matt 18 tell us what to do if you have ought against your brother? Why malign the man in public?
Jon,
Thanks for coming by. While I’ve not personally tried to contact Johnson, others I know have. And he’s not answered save for one guy who posted a comment on his Facebook and received a response on one question yet received nothing regarding a contradiction Johnson made in response to him.
Nonetheless, Matthew 18 does not apply to public teachings which are to be exposed publicly. Since I don’t know Johnson personally, I don’t have a personal beef with him; so, again, this passage does not apply.
Johnson’s errors are Christological ones which strike right at the core of our faith. Recall Jesus’ words about false Christs and Paul’s words in II Corinthians 11:2-4, 13-14. The NT is replete with warnings on false teachers.
You wrote, “I belong to a reasonably conservative church and have been trained in recognizing truth.”
So, then, presuming you’ve read the complete post, do you not have a problem with the quotes of Johnson’s? For example, do you believe this one is truth?:
“…Jesus had no ability to heal the sick. He couldn’t cast out devils, and He had no ability to raise the dead. He said of Himself in John 5:19, ‘the Son can do nothing of Himself.’ He had set aside His divinity…Jesus so emptied Himself that He was incapable of doing what was required of Him by the Father – without the Father’s help…”[20]
I guess this is a much simpler question: I’m assuming you know what it means to be “born again.” Given that you’ve “been trained in recognizing truth” do you not see the obvious problem with Johnson’s assertion that Jesus had to be ‘born again’ because He “became sin?” Did Jesus really become sin? If so, who paid the price for Jesus’ sin? If Jesus “became sin” how could He atone for ours?
This is so obviously far from orthodox Christianity I’m really surprised that you do not see the theological implications in such a thing. If you sincerely do not, I’ll be happy to show you.
Ah, the old Matthew 18 response… except that has nothing to do with the examination of unbiblical statements by the leadership. The examination of doctrine was something commanded, and used to be exercised up to recent times – without the need to apologise and have a group hug.
That is because the examination of doctrine isn’t a personal attack, and it isn’t “falling out with your brother” much less “sinning against him” that would require an apology.
IF a Christian in your church has stolen your credit card, then obviously you need to pop along and have a chat to him first, and if he won’t repent then you go with the elders, and if he still won’t repent you warn the entire church in your area that they have a thief amongst them. THAT is Matthew 18. Very practical.
If a man who is held up as a leader and teacher preaches something unbiblical, and he does it in public, repeatedly, then you don’t hang around in fear of hurting his feelings before you respond. We all have the command to test the spirits, to judge doctrine and to reject the lies. If we fail to do that, we are less than Spirit-filled saints.
(Actually the early church and apostles quickly disfellowshipped, publicly condemned and withdrew from any who preached a gospel that was not grounded in the truths Jesus taught them. This was to protect the weak, keep the gospel pure, and stop heresy taking root in the churches. If we had been following their example Craig’s blog and those like it wouldn’t have become necessary.)
Forgive me being off topic Craig but congratulations for 1 WHOLE YEAR of this blog bringing biblical enlightenment of truth in these ever growing deceptive days.
It’s no small task to research and unearth error to the degree that you have relentlessly done here.
You are clearly appreciated by most who come here but not least, I believe, by our Heavenly Father Himself.
Keep it up faithful brother
Yes, it’s hard to believe it’s been a year! Time flies more and more as I get older and this year has REALLY flown by.
Thanks for your kinds words. It’s only by His strength that I can do this. All glory to the God of the Holy Bible — the One who sent His son Jesus Christ to die on the Cross for our collective sins and who sent the Holy Spirit to indwell us and guide us into all Truth.
“Got Questions” was used as a source for this article and the site has apparently revised the information cited at footnote 25. The applicable verbiage has been updated/corrected substituting the current information with the now deleted portion. The “Got Questions” site previously had verbiage which could be construed as what is known as functional kenosis. So sorry for any misunderstanding or inconvenience.
Craig,
You stated above on Sept. 17 2011, “Did Jesus really become sin? If so, who paid the price for Jesus’ sin? If Jesus “became sin” how could He atone for ours?”
-2 Corinthians 5:21 “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”
Maybe an exposition on this verse is neccessary. Because yes Jesus did become sin for us. I’m trying to follow you here. I try with Mormons for example to say you are right in saying Jesus is our elder brother, but He is so much more. Not disagreeing with them in statements that are right. Then putting it in proper context to show how we are His mother, brother, sisters if we do the will of God.(Matthew 12:50) Then showing how Jesus is so much more than that.
Mother if we hide His word in our heart then act on it giving birth to it in the flesh. God says feed the poor to my heart. I do not abort the Word I act on it and it is realized in the flesh. One example. Spirit becoming flesh. Not a literal giving birth to physical Jesus but a giving birth to God’s will which is exactly what Jesus is. The very representation of the Father’s glory.
I want to hear your commentary on the above verse however. I do not think Johnson is stating Jesus had sin. As you stated “Jesus’ sin”. He has repeatedly stated Christ lived a perfect life in the flesh.
More his interpretation of the above verse.
matt, you wrote, “He [Bill Johnson] has repeatedly stated Christ lived a perfect life in the flesh.”
Yes, and Bill Johnson also stated that Jesus was/is eternally God yet he claims Jesus “had NO supernatural capabilities whatsoever” thereby contradicting the former as God is by very nature supernatural.
Perhaps you are unaware that both Kenneth E. Hagin and Kenneth Copeland propounded the ‘Jesus Died Spiritually’ (JDS) heresy having stated that Jesus died spiritually, took on the nature of Satan, went to hell, became sin and was subsequently ‘born again’ using the same identical methodology/proof-texts as Johnson [ie, Hebrews 1:5 then Acts 13:34]. [See part II for more.] No, Johnson does not go this far as he’s much too clever for that, yet he never explains himself leaving his discreete statements hanging.
It is both irresponsible and inexcusable to play around with any sort of statement that Jesus was ‘born again’ because He ‘became sin’. Jesus Christ became a sin-offering to make Atonement on the Cross, not in hell, and He was NEVER ‘born again’.
I’ve already explained 2 Corinthians 5:21 right in the body of the article. Perhaps you should read it again (starting right after Johnson’s statement):
Did Jesus become sin? If so, when? Was it at His incarnation? Was it on the cross? Was it some time in between?
As we examine Scripture we find, of course, that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life.[5] However, Scripture does say He ‘became sin’ as substitution for ours…Please note that Jesus Christ did not ‘become sin’ in that He did not become a sinful being with corruptible flesh but, rather, our sins were imputed to Him by the Father to atone for the sins of all who believe on Him…
And, frankly, it follows that Johnson would state that Jesus did not raise Himself from the dead (contrary to Scripture) because if he adheres to the JDS heresy, Jesus could not raise Himself. This is not just carelessness, it is blasphemous heresy.
Thanks for the reply!
A member of the Eastern church named Apollinarius taught people that Jesus had a human body but no human mind. I wondered from some of the statements I’ve heard on here if that is the same position of some of the readers. I can’t remember at the time who commented but used Jesus’ words of knowledge as proof that Jesus was “all knowing”. I know He was in His Spirit but I do not beleive He exercised that in His flesh. He simply did what the Father does and says.
I know that this very issue is what helped Theodosius to convene a council in Constantinople in A.D. 381. There they redefined the Creed of Nicea. It actually was held to clarify the relationship of Jesus’ two natures. One of the Great Cappadocians(Basil, Gregory,Chrysostom) actually stated, “If deity took the place of a human mind, how does that help me? Deity joined to flesh alone is not truly human!”
I just wanted you to clarify since you put a great deal of emphasis on the Nicene Creed if you or anyone on here hold to the position of Apollinarius? Not an accusation looking for clarification.
And yes I’ve been reading a lot of church history when I can between jobs and kids. So I’m trying to better understand the history of our faith. Thanks for getting me engaged.
I’m glad you’re studying! Apollinarianism was labelled as heresy as you’ve found. It’s for this reason that modern theologians stress the Chalcedonian Creed of 451AD which superseded both Constantinople of 381 and Ephesus of 431. This takes care of Apollinarianism, Nestorianism and Eutychianism (I’ll let you search those out).
This is more adequately addressed in the 2nd Kenosis article:
http://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/2011/06/16/kenosis-christology-and-bill-johnson-part-ii/
From that article:
“Historically, councils were called to establish creeds (statements of beliefs) in order to codify specific truths as borne out in Scripture while simultaneously refuting specific errors. The ecumenical creeds – those accepted by the Church catholic, as in universal, and not merely the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) but to also include Protestant and Eastern Orthodox churches – have largely been uncontested over the centuries as to their veracity, or accuracy, compared to Scripture until the 19th century84 with the various kenosis doctrines…”
Of the four ecumenical councils embraced by the Church catholic (universal) which include Christological discussions (Nicea in 325, Constantinople in 381, Ephesus in 431, and Chalcedon in 451), the Council of Chalcedon is the most recent and most definitive…
Please direct further comments/questions over there.
You wrote, “I know He was in His Spirit but I do not beleive He exercised that [omniscience] in His flesh. He simply did what the Father does and says.”
Please read
http://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/kenosis-christology-and-bill-johnson-part-i/
The above article addresses this subject.
Pingback: false doctrines | KevStar.us
Jesus did not become God’s Son at his baptism or the resurrection. He was eternally God’s Son and always will be. He never gave up his Divinity or His divine attributes for one second while on earth. He came in the power of God as a man because He was God!
Shan,
Amen to that! Now, can you tell that to Bill Johnson?
Quoting from my own commentary in the article:
This same “anointing” is available to others according to Johnson.[26] With his belief, then, by implication, when individuals receive the Holy Spirit – thus receiving the same ‘Christ’ “anointing” as Jesus – they will, in essence, be just like Jesus. Taken to its logical conclusion, this leads to the view that once an individual receives this ‘Christ anointing’ he/she will be Joe/Jane Christ.
With the benefit of over 2.5 years of further study and understanding, there are things I would have written a bit differently in this article. For example, instead of “when individuals receive the Holy Spirit…” it should be, by properly interpreting Johnson, “when individuals receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit…”, as this is really what Johnson means.
However, more importantly, I recall when writing the last sentence above (“Taken to its logical conclusion, this leads to the view that once an individual receives this ‘Christ anointing’ he/she will be Joe/Jane Christ”) thinking, “Surely Bill Johnson has thought this through; surely he understands that this is the logical implication. How could he miss this, or how can he think something so obviously wrong?” But, having read numerous occult/esoteric material since this time, I’m quite confident that this IS the intention. In so-called “esoteric Christianity” (really an oxymoron from the true Christian perspective), Jesus was merely a man who was ‘christed’ at baptism, and He had set the pattern/model for all men to follow. This particular doctrine has been in place since at least the 2nd century in the early Gnostics. The more I understand Gnosticism, New Age/New Spirituality, and other esoteric/occult material, the more I see that the teaching of Johnson and other hyper-charismatics is really Neognosticism – a new Gnosticism.