Open Challenge to Bill Johnson/Bethel Supporters
March 21, 2011 510 Comments
[Here's Another Challenge to Bill Johnson/Bethel Supporters.]
[2/27/13: Here's another challenge: Open Challenge to Fans and Critics of Bill Johnson/Bethel Church.]
The following is based on an original idea of and primarily written by W B McCarty in conjunction with Craig who provided minor additions, changes and editing.
Many have charged that the teaching of Bill Johnson is unbiblical and wrong. Not a few have charged that his teachings violate orthodoxy – the ancient, common theological understanding of the Christian Church – and therefore entail or promote heresy. On the other hand, no small number of Bill Johnson supporters have denied these charges.
This brief article challenges Johnson supporters to reconcile just one of Bill Johnson’s statements in his book When Heaven Invades Earth (WHIE) with Christian orthodoxy. The article does not address all the suspect statements in that book or suspect statements in other books, sermons, or talks.
Here is the selected statement of Bill Johnson:
“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)” [When Heaven Invades Earth, Shippensburg, PA: Destiny Image, 2003, p. 79].
And, here are the questions that comprise the challenge:
1. To what “limitations” does Bill Johnson refer? Does he mean that the God-man Jesus, in His divine nature, lacked divine attributes such as omniscience (possessing all knowledge) and omnipotence (being all powerful)?
a.) If so, how could God relinquish divine attributes and yet remain God? In what sense might a limited, finite man be considered God, when the very term “God” denotes infinity?
b.) If so, given that all things consist in Jesus (Col. 1:17) who upholds all things by the word of His power (Heb. 1:3), why did the world not cease to exist during His Incarnation?
c.) If so, how did Jesus regain His divine status? Can other non-divine beings gain divine status?
d.) If so, how could the finite sacrifice of a non-divine man pay the infinite penalty of the sins of humankind?
2. What does Bill Johnson mean when he writes that Jesus “laid his [sic] divinity aside?”
a.) What, exactly, was laid aside? That is, what does Bill Johnson mean by “divinity?”
b.) Did Jesus cease to be God at the time of His Incarnation?
c.) If Jesus was not God in His Incarnation, what is the significance of his name Emmanuel ["God is with us" (also Immanuel)]?
d.) If Jesus was not God in His Incarnation, how was he able to forgive the sins of the paralytic man (Mk. 2:9)? Can anyone other than God actually forgive sins?
e.) If Jesus was not God in His Incarnation, how could John’s account of His ministry have as its purpose the affirmation that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” [John 20:31, emphasis added]?
3. When Bill Johnson writes “He laid his [sic] divinity aside,” why does he write “his” rather than “His?”
a.) Does “his” refer to a non-divine Jesus?
b.) If “his” refers to a non-divine Jesus, how and at what point did Jesus regain divine status?
4. As a sacrifice, was Jesus “powerless?”
a.) That is, was He or was He not in possession of the divine attribute of omnipotence even as He hung on the Cross?
b.) If He was not in possession of omnipotence during His time on the Cross, and was therefore unable to free Himself, in what sense was His sacrifice willing?
For those who lack training in the Scriptures and Christian theology, here is a summary of the main points of orthodoxy at issue in Bill Johnson’s statement:
A. Jesus is the eternally pre-existent, second member of the divine Trinity.
B. At His Incarnation, Jesus took on a second, human nature in addition to His divine nature.
C. Since the beginning of His Incarnation, Jesus has been at all times fully God and fully man (known as the hypostatic union).
D. God possesses a number of divine attributes, such as omniscience and omnipotence.
E. By definition, divine attributes are a necessary and sufficient condition of divinity. That is, no one but God may possess divine attributes. And, if God were hypothetically to cease to possess any divine attribute, He would cease to be God.
Note: For further exposition of these points, including biblical references, see any good discussion of the Nicene and Chalcedonian creeds, which are common to the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Protestant Church. No one who rejects these creeds has any reasonable basis to claim to be Christian in the usual, historical sense of that term.
Finally, here are some ground rules for the discussion that the authors of this article hope will ensue:
1. It isn’t intended that the statement/answer/response be selectively cited. Those who wish to support Johnson by bringing in other explanatory material from the book WHIE are free to do so. However, those who challenge the orthodoxy of the statement should not bring in new material. Let’s keep the discussion as focused as possible.
2. Bringing in explanatory material from sources other than the book is prohibited, as doing so would unduly widen the discussion. If this challenge proves popular, the authors may find time to offer similar challenges based on other statements within WHIE and other of Bill Johnson’s books and sermons. The authors believe there is no shortage of suspect statements requiring explanation by Bill Johnson’s supporters or ideally by Bill Johnson himself. Those who are unfamiliar with the works of Bill Johnson should not suppose that the offered statement is the only of his statements that seems unorthodox or heretical.
3. To respond, copy both the corresponding number and its question followed by the corresponding letter and question. For example, if responding to “2b)” then copy and paste from the article the following with your response following that:
2. What does Bill Johnson mean when he writes that Jesus “laid his [sic] divinity aside?”
b.) Did Jesus cease to be God at the time of His Incarnation?
[your response]
Who will take the challenge?
_______________________________________________________________________________
Here’s a new challenge.
wikazi,
It’s always a good idea to figure out what the actual position is of those you are arguing against — otherwise you’re going to be arguing against a misunderstood opponent.
No one here denies that Jesus is going to return someday. No one here denies that there are signs that suggest that things are closer and closer to the end. No one knows the day or the hour, but we can see the signs. Jesus compared it to spring. It’s spring now…yet a few weeks ago things looked different. There were signs that spring was here, but now we really know it’s spring. First we had the flower buds on trees opening up, and now we have leaf buds beginning to open. We’ve had various spring flowers bloom, and die, and others bloom, etc. So how close are we to Jesus’ return? Only God knows.
As Craig has said, no one here is denying the authority of Scripture, or that the Holy Spirit empowers followers of Jesus to live out our calling in Christ. Just what that calling is is what this debate is about. So you need to ask us what we believe about the Holy Spirit and His purpose in our lives…if you do that, you will see what we believe and what we don’t believe. There is going to be some variation here, but the regular posters are in agreement that Bill Johnson’s theology about the Holy Spirit is off.
You should ask us how we exegete Scripture, and try to understand where we are coming from…rather than telling us that we don’t interpret it properly, or that we are spiritually blind, or that we are not reading it with the eyes of children, etc.
No one here is denying that Jesus is/was without sin. No one here is denying the blood atonement.
You need to understand what it is that we are disagree with Bill Johnson on.
You wrote:
“Jesus isn’t returning for a weakling Church as most of you believe, I most surely don’t know how you all interpret the scriptures as to who Jesus is, as I understand the Word, He is.”
My response:
Exactly. So ask us what we believe before accusing us of being spiritually blinded, which is in effect what you did.
You wrote:
“Its fine, you can live under the law if you wish, I will live under grace”
My response:
Please don’t make assumptions about us without basing it on some evidence.
Where did this comment even come from? No one here is advocating a gospel message of following the law. No one here denies grace.
I’m wondering — does this blog only allow for 500 comments on a given topic? I posted a comment here, and it hasn’t shown up — not even how it usually does — telling me that it’s waiting to be approved.
I noticed that this topic has 500 replies…so I was wondering if it hit a ceiling?
For some strange reason your comment was lost in cyber space, yet it just showed (within the past 20-30 minutes or so) in my spam filter.
In any case, I blocked wikazi from futher comments as I was hit with more ad hominem. Life’s too short – as my ‘Before You Comment’ tab states.
Hmmm…well then hopefully wikazi takes the time to read your articles and the comments on this blog, and find out your position as well as the positions of others who post here.
Perhaps he would be interested in reading your most recent article on Biblical Literalism, and learn a bit about proper exegesis of Scripture. That would be a good start.
Craig,
You know…I’ve just been thinking….I am wondering if wikazi meant a different Bill Johnson than the one we’re talking about. When I’ve done Internet searches before, I have come across links to at least one other Bill Johnson who is a pastor….
So I’m thinking he may not have taken the time to read much of the website to understand that your articles and our comments are referring to Bill Johnson of Bethel Church in Redding California, rather than to another Bill Johnson.
The reason that I suggest this as a possibility is because wikazi posted a link to an article on Jesus-is-Savior.com, which is an EXTREMELY fundamentalist website/extremely conservative website that many even many conservatives see issues with. Many Christians do not see it as a legitimate source of information.
I did some looking around on the site (it had been awhile since I looked it over), and look at what it lists as false teachings:
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Doctrines/false_doctrines.htm
Look what it says about charismatic teachings.
Either wikazi didn’t read the rest of the Jesus-is-Savior website, and he is ignorant of the content on this page, or he was trying to defend the teachings of another Bill Johnson.
So all that arguing with you could have been for nothing, as he didn’t really understand what you were writing about, having misunderstood and thought you were writing against someone else’s teachings.
I suppose anything’s possible. But, this particular post specifies the book When Heaven Invades Earth; and, if one knows the book, one should know who the author is, i.e., the Bethel Church “pastor”.
Yeah, you would think….but maybe wikazi didn’t actually read much of the article.
I don’t know — either he didn’t read much of your article, and thought you were talking about another Bill Johnson, or he didn’t read much of the jesus-is-savior.com website, or both (he didn’t read much of either your article or the website).
I just have one Question for the author .Before you aired your cretinism of Bill Johnson on the internet.,did you do the scriptural thing Paul exhorts us to do if one is overtaken in a fault. To pray and get beam out of your own eye ,then go personally to bill Johnson Then if he didn’t hear you take others ‘before you tell whole Church .It appears that you if you haven’t personally confronted bill Johnson ‘you are guilty of the greater sin of causing division.selah
Gary,
Yes, attempts were made to contact Johnson – by a number of individuals I know – and these were all never returned. Yet, in any case, you miss the point. False teaching which is made in public can and should be addressed in public.
You are a bit confused, though. It’s Jesus, as recorded by Matthew in the Sermon on the Mount, who speaks of the ‘beam in your eye’. And, it’s also Jesus, as recorded by Matthew, who explains the steps for SIN against another, not false teaching, in Matthew 18, to include taking it before the Church as a 3rd step. Moreover, Paul confronted Peter in front of them all [NIV]:
But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?” [Galatians 2:14, NKJV]
However, in the case here, the whole point of this particular post is to get the reader to participate by answering the questions posed. How does the reader understand Johnson’s statement in this particular post? If you’d like to answer any of the questions as per the directions of this post, feel free. If you just wish to ignore the beam in your eye, but expose the speck in mine, don’t bother. To be clear: if you post any more comments that do not specifically answer the questions of the post, they will be summarily deleted.
One final word: you may wish to brush up on your NT reading before speaking on matters of Scripture. It may be helpful to actually quote or reference chapter and verse.
ALL READERS:
I will no longer release ANY comment on this thread which does not attempt to answer the questions in this post. And, don’t think to try to answer a question and then add a bunch of other off-topic commentary along with it and expect me to release your comment. Anyone wishing to comment should read my ‘Before You Comment’ tab at the top of the blog.