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.
You’re correct on your correction. This account is only in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) but not John. In Mark it’s 2:3-12.
The feeding of the five thousand is in all the Gospels. I found it in the “Harmony of the Gospels” in Strong’s Strongest Strong’s.
Thanks, Craig. That was actually one of the two possibilities that I was thinking about
Thanks for confirming this.
Matthew 9:8 glorified God, who had GIVEN such AUTHORITY to men. Jesus always kept authority as the Son of God. He was given authority because of His perfect life as the Son of Man. Living as man in the flesh with the limitations of the flesh. Further read in the Scriptures and see the occasions it was stated Jesus was given authority and would do nothing outside the Father. (Matthew 28:18, John 17:2,John 5:19, 5:30, John 8:28) to name a few.
I like the Crisp guy from the statement you have put here. As far as the divine communicating to the flesh, the sinlessness of His Spirit could communicate to His flesh. The weakness of His flesh desiring to eat when the Spirit had not lead Him too could not communicate to the Spirit. His Spirit never slept or slumbered, his flesh not glorified did. His flesh did not want to die, but it could not lead His Spirit astray. He submitted the weakness of His flesh to His Spirit. The flesh could not defile His spirit or communicate to His Spirit. Not so with us. 2 Corinthians 7:1 ” let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit” Communication is a means of expressing oneself. The Spirit could express itself in the flesh. The flesh could not express itself in His Spirit. Or think of telephones. If one end was the Spirit it could talk on the other end being flesh. The flesh did not have a line to the Spirit however. It did not have a say.
Thanks Craig, that does explain the within/without bit. Still struggling with the tempted in every way just as we are part. Because clearly from how you’ve defined it there was no consideration ever given to the sin. How can that be classed as temptation!
I’m not understanding how Jesus can sympathise with me, if he’s never had to resist sin!
matt,
Be careful not to ascribe “Son of Man” too narrowly. There are times when this term is used to show His preexistence [John 1:51; 3:13,14; 6:27, 53,63] which obviously point to divinity over humanity. Also, keep in mind that Jesus Himself was God AND part of the Trinitarian Godhead simultaneously and that He was in His divinity (not just humanity) in a subordinate role to the Father.
matt,
You wrote, re: Jesus, “…the sinlessness of His Spirit could communicate to His flesh.” Please keep in mind that in the miraculous, virginal conception Jesus’ humanity was made without original sin. Of course, His divine nature was sinless as well.
Keep in mind that Crisp is stating a theory which essentially explains how the two natures of Jesus Christ worked within the person of Christ. He’s taken the Biblical concept as laid out in the Council of Chalcedon and tried to explain it via the nature-perichoresis theory. Kenosis theories, on the other hand, violate Chalcedon by reducing God in one way or another. [With the exception of the 'loophole' some recent kenosis proponents have claimed in which it is pointed out that Chalcedon does not define God. While this is true, that was beyond the intent of Chalcedon and, besides, Scripture defines the Godhead.]
I was merely stating that the Spirit maintained the sinlessness of the flesh despite temptation.
Thanks for the clarification however.
Matt,
All right, so the Scripture says that God had given such authority to men…I will grant you that. However, I don’t believe that is talking about knowing people’s thoughts. Jesus knew their thoughts. This is a divine attribute….God being all knowing.
The title ‘Son of Man’ in this context is specifically used as a Messianic title for Jesus, and only Jesus. This was a direct reference to a prophecy about the Messiah from Daniel. See Daniel 7:13-14.
Daniel 7:13-14
13 “I kept looking in the night visions,
And behold, with the clouds of heaven
One like a Son of Man was coming,
And He came up to the Ancient of Days
And was presented before Him.
14 “And to Him was given dominion,
Glory and a kingdom,
That all the peoples, nations and men of every language
Might serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
Which will not pass away;
And His kingdom is one
Which will not be destroyed.
The Jews in Jesus’ day considered this to be a Messianic prophecy. Jesus made other references to His claim to being the promised Messiah based on this passage. When He talked about coming on the clouds in the future, He was referring to this prophecy. Jesus’ use of it is both a claim of being the Messiah and one of claiming Deity. In other words, to be the Son of Man is to have God’s authority because He is both the Messiah and God, second person of the Trinity.
Because there is only one God, and that one God is triune, I don’t think that Jesus could do anything without the other members of the Trinity. He is one God. I think it would be impossible for Jesus to act apart from the Father. Jesus isn’t the Father, and the Father isn’t Jesus…but all three persons of the Trinity are so linked….
Do I believe that miracles and such things happen today? Yes. But we are no way on the same level as Jesus. The Holy Spirit can use us, but we are not incarnations of God. Jesus is and was unique. He is and was the Messiah. We aren’t. We cannot bring ourselves up to the level of God.
Psalm 139:1-6
For the choir director. A Psalm of David.
1 O LORD, You have searched me and known me.
2 You know when I sit down and when I rise up;
You understand my thought from afar.
3 You scrutinize my path and my lying down,
And are intimately acquainted with all my ways.
4 Even before there is a word on my tongue,
Behold, O LORD, You know it all.
5 You have enclosed me behind and before,
And laid Your hand upon me.
6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me;
It is too high, I cannot attain to it.
Isaiah 55:8-11
8 “For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” declares the LORD.
9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways
And My thoughts than your thoughts.
10 “For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven,
And do not return there without watering the earth
And making it bear and sprout,
And furnishing seed to the sower and bread to the eater;
11 So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth;
It will not return to Me empty,
Without accomplishing what I desire,
And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.
Matt,
I’m wondering if you understand what original sin really is. Back, before Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they were created without a tendency towards sin. This didn’t mean that they couldn’t be tempted — but rather that they had no inborn drive towards sin.
The inborn drive to sin is illustrated when someone uses the example of a child being told not to do something. When a child is told not to do something, they usually end up doing it. Our inborn nature is rebellion.
Adam, Even, and Jesus didn’t have this inborn tendency. If they were told not to do something, they had no drive to disobey. Once Adam and Eve disobeyed, they received the drive towards sin. All humans would then inherit this tendency towards sin.
Jesus didn’t have the tendency/drive towards sin. This doesn’t mean that He wasn’t tempted — He just didn’t have the tendency towards it. Therefore, it wasn’t just because of the Holy Spirit that He didn’t sin. He chose not to sin — a choice that no other person since Adam and Eve could really have.
Jesus did not inherit original sin.
Matt,
I also have to wonder if you believe that flesh = evil and Spirit = good. I’m asking that, based on your comments above:
“…the sinlessness of His Spirit could communicate to His flesh.” and
“I was merely stating that the Spirit maintained the sinlessness of the flesh despite temptation.
Thanks for the clarification however.”
It seems like you’re almost equating flesh with being evil or being sinful — or, another way of saying it would be that it almost seems like you’re saying that the human nature is evil.
Then, it seems like you’re saying that Spirit is good.
Is this what you believe? Is this what you understand Bill Johnson to be teaching?
I’m asking for clarification about this because it’s really important.
matt,
really wanting to understand your perspective here. You stated “He was given authority because of His perfect life as the Son of Man.” And not sure where you are drawing such a statement, as do not know of a Biblical reference to Jesus having authority because of sinlessness. Jesus has authority as the Son of God. He has autority as the Lamb of God, because of what in his innocence he was able to do. You go on to talking about “his Spirit” and “flesh” and it is confusing as to
eh, last post cut off
what is confusing whether you are referring to Jesus spirit (as a human) or the Holy Spirit. It really is hard to follow what you are saying. Now, did he maintain correct balance of spirit over the rest of self, yes. But really not sure what conclusions are coming from and what your frame is.
Jesus faced all sin, all temptation including that well beyond what we understand. He was tempted in every way, with what is tempting to him. To be Messiah in a way other than God’s plan. To not follow thourgh. He resisted to the point of shedding blood. That is a body/flesh reaction to standing firm and resisting the temptation. It was not easy. Yet, it was about His gift and sacrifice. It was about Jesus doing. it was not about his “innocent” state.
peacebringer,
The Scripture states it was “as” drops of blood, not actual drops of blood.
Whether there was actual blood or not, there was still a physical and emotional reaction. There is an actual physical reaction. Would need to be at home to sort out that “as” or “actual” a bit more. There is debate. It is medically possible to sweat blod. It is an acute stress reaction. We have later scripture indicating that “have not resisted temption to the point of shedding blood.” And I do not believe that is pointing to the blood on the cross, but to the extreme resistance to temptation that body has such a severe reaction. So, sure, it can be taken to read “as” and would have to look more into that with other tools. However, that point is but a tangent.
Here is one article showing the other side of that particular debate: http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1086
Not being a langauge expert myself look at tools and really need to look closely at how the original language was written including the author. Luke was a physician and certainly would use “medical descriptives” vs literary descriptivse. Often the “not blood” and as blood really comes down to rationalizing what happen, but yes, the english translation can be taken sweat like blood. Regardless, whether there was blood in sweat or not, he was at the highest level of angony adn distress possible, yet resisted. There was emotional and physical torment in the resisting, whether it meant there was blood or not is reather secondary. And as said that was a bit of distraction.
I have 2 references I can check once I get home – one by Darrell Bock and one by John Nolland. I’ll post the results then.
Matthew 26:41 “The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Mark 12:38)
That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (John 3:6)
who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. (Romans 8:1)
I wouldn’t say the flesh is evil. I’m saying when the flesh leads it becomes evil. The flesh is a tool to be used to further the Kingdom. It really doesn not become evil until it leads. When the Spirit leads it then it is Godly. The Spirit of God of course. Just like the carnal mind is at enmity with God but a spirtual mind is life and peace. (Romans 8:6) One sense the mind is good and in the other bad. It is all according to the focus. When the flesh gives obedience to God it is awesome. When the flesh seeks its own it becomes evil. It all really comes down to submission.
Example the Spirit(Holy Spirit) lead Christ into the wildnerness. Christ became hungry(flesh) and normal reaction to going without eating. Christ was led not to eat so, being tempted to eat in the (flesh), He submited Himself to the Father’s will as directed by the Holy Spirit and did not eat. He did not allow His flesh to communicate with His Spirit and lead Him to disobedience simply because He hungered. His Spirit(Christ Spirit) submitted to God until God told Him that He could now eat. He proved the flesh did not master Him but He mastered the flesh. His divine nature as the Son of God communicated to the flesh, I’m boss. Not by might or by power but by my Spirit says the Lord. I think that verse could apply to the situation. It wasn’t by a glorified flesh that knows no hunger, but by a flesh that did hunger. Still made submissive by the Spirit of Christ and perfectly sinless from conception.
Just like in my life. God gave me a sex drive(flesh) for reproduction. Not a bad thing. God said,” Be fruitful and multiply” and the moment He said so, sex and sexual drive came. Then God said,”It is good!!!” Extra exclamation points my own. Sex is not bad when used in the right way to further the relationship I have with my wife and reproduce. Now if I simply lived based on my sex drive (flesh) without restraining it out of love(spirit) for my wife it can cause all kinds of bad problems in my life. I recognize that love creates barriers to protect relationship.
Flesh makes a good slave but a horrible master. Hope that clarifies my view point. No I have never heard anyone talk about this the way I do. It is more my own way to relate to Scripture. My belief on tithing sorda makes me not the most welcome guest at NAR related functions.
Craig,
– As far as John 1:51 “not long from now you will see angels ascend and descend on the Son of Man” I believe this references Jacob’s latter Genesis 28:12. Jesus was saying He was Jacob’s latter. I see the sacrafice as the Son of Man, as we needed a perfect man to atone for man. Because of Christ death in bodily(Son of Man) form He made a way through His blood for us to access heaven. Colossians 1:20 “and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.” His body then became the access or latter between heaven and earth and bridged the chasm for us. It was the flesh sacrafice and blood of the Son of Man that could only be done because He was the Son of God.
- John 6:27 “but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you” Again the cross or what Christ did in the flesh as a man born to a woman give us our substance. The cross guarantees us eternal life through faith in the Son of God. Please tell me what you think about these ideas.
I can’t give my full attention to this, but on first blush I’d agree. But, Son of Man is merely one designation – and it seems to have been Jesus’ favorite self-designation – but keep in mind that “Son of Man” does not equal solely the flesh side of Jesus which is what it seems you are construing.
But, yes, it all comes back to the Cross and for proper Atonement to be made the requirements were an unblemished man. Since, of course, there were and never will be a sinless man; Jesus came to be the Perfect Sacrifice, once for all.
Matt,
Thank you for taking the time to give me a thoughtful reply.
I think, though, that you are creating a false dichotomy between spirit and flesh.
It is true that the word “flesh” is often equated in scripture with our fallen sinful nature. However, it in no way is equated with being human. This might sound contradictory, and I’m not sure if I can explain this very well, but I will try.
To be human doesn’t mean fallen. If it did, then you would be right in saying that the fact that Jesus was human meant that He would have to rely on His fully God part or rely on another member of the Trinity.
What I’m trying to say is that human nature was created good. Therefore, evil is not part of the definition of what it means to be human.
However, Adam and Eve did sin, and thus for every human since then (except for Jesus), being human meant that we were sinful. This isn’t really a definition of humanity or being made of flesh, but rather reflects the human condition.
Jesus was human, but was without sin. He was without original sin. Thus, in His human nature, He was humanity as God intended it to be. To say that He was made of flesh doesn’t mean that He was sinful.
Does this make any sense?
It seems that you are still struggling to see that Jesus was born without original sin. He had no sinful nature….He had no tendency towards sin.
For the rest of us, we are weak towards sin because of our sinful nature…because of original sin.
You used John 3:6, which is talking about being born again. Jesus didn’t need to be born again because He was sinless.
It is true that if our sinful nature leads, then we fall into sin. However, this was not a problem for Jesus. Jesus’ human nature was without sin — not because He was relying on the Holy Spirit, but because He didn’t have original sin. Jesus had no carnal mind.
But Jesus did yield to the Father. If He didn’t, He would have been sinning. So…Jesus did submit to the Father.
Being hungry does not equate with “the flesh.” Yes, as a human being, Jesus was hungry. I respectfully disagree with you about the purpose of the wilderness experience. Satan came along and temped Him several times — temped Him to disobey God. Satan tried to get Jesus to sin via a very similar method that he had used on Eve. I don’t think the purpose of the wilderness was to conquer His flesh (seeing how I don’t believe that Jesus had original sin), but rather to be tempted by Satan and to resist him. This might sound like the same thing to you, but there is a little difference.
Since I don’t believe that Jesus’ human nature was sinful, I don’t believe that the issue was His human nature trying to say that it was the boss. It wasn’t the Holy Spirit vs. the human nature of Jesus that was battling. Rather, it was Satan vs. Jesus — the whole person of Jesus (100% man and 100% God, both natures in one person).
You have to be careful because you’re dangerously close to the gnostic view about flesh vs. spirit.
Arwen4CJ,
The problem I find with all heresy is that it has degrees of truth. The problem is it pushes things to extremes. You see this in extreme Grace(I hate that term as all grace is extreme) but you see what I’m saying. Then you go to legalism. All truth will have tension. I think the problem is something getting pulled to one extreme or another.
Take for instance my statement love creates boundaries to protect relationship. Some could construe that as re-establishing law. However it is where the law comes from that dictates legalism vs. spirit led living. Legalism is establishing law in an attempt to produce righteousness. The other is the Spirit of Love(God) leading to establish boundaries as a mean to protect relationship. You can really find what would appear to be Grace and Law in my statement the trick is Grace always comes from relationship. Grace that is turned into law is no grace at all. Grace is relationship with the Almighty through the Cross.
-What is your definition of 100% man if it didn’t mean He experienced all the same pulls of the human nature as we do?
-What did it mean Jesus overcame the world? In what way? Was it not overcoming the temptations we are all tempted with? In his hunger He refused to eat. In His fear in the flesh He refused to compromise. He drank the cup the Father gave Him. In that He gave us the perfect example and now we can be reassured that the same Spirit that dwelt in Christ lives in us. That through Him we can overcome. We simply need to submit to God as Christ did and the Devil will flee from you. (James 4:7)
I believe Jesus was 100% God and 100% man. He did not take away from His divinity He added to it. Great is the mystery of His incarnation.
Be careful here. Jesus was/is part of the Triune Godhead. When He submitted to the Father He did so in subordinate relationship as part of the Trinitarian ‘family.’ As the unique God-man (I’m using a convention here with “God-man”) Jesus Christ defeated Satan by not succumbing to the Devil’s temptations to circumvent the Cross.
We submit to God, the Trinitarian God, and the Devil will flee from us.
matt,
You wrote, “I believe Jesus was 100% God and 100% man. He did not take away from His divinity He added to it. Great is the mystery of His incarnation.”
A hearty AMEN to that! Now, given your statement, would you be willing to concede that this is not what Bill Johnson is teaching?
Matt,
You wrote:
“The problem I find with all heresy is that it has degrees of truth. The problem is it pushes things to extremes. You see this in extreme Grace(I hate that term as all grace is extreme) but you see what I’m saying. Then you go to legalism. All truth will have tension. I think the problem is something getting pulled to one extreme or another.”
My response:
That’s exactly the point. I’ve heard it said that heresy is 90% truth and 10% error. It’s the 10% error that is the problem. There is truth in all false teaching, including heresy. Why? Because if it had no truth to it, no one would fall for it.
It is true that discussions about theology can push things to extremes in the conversation, but sometimes that has to be done in order to uncover the falsehood.
I care about theology. Why? Because if we’re told to hold to sound doctrine, and also…if we don’t hold to sound theology more and more error eventually creeps in. Beliefs about Jesus are central to the Christian faith. If people have the wrong view of Jesus, then that error shows up again in beliefs about the atonement, and thus can lead to a false gospel.
There are some matters of faith that are not essential issues, and differences don’t matter as much. However, when it comes to Jesus and His work on the cross, we really need to really watch our doctrine so that we are not believing in a false Jesus or a false gospel.
Yes, there is tension between two extremes, and yes…we need to be careful we don’t go one way or the other.
You wrote:
“-What is your definition of 100% man if it didn’t mean He experienced all the same pulls of the human nature as we do?”
My response:
Jesus was human — He became one of our species. He wasn’t just half human or 75% human or whatever. He was fully human. He was just like Adam was before Adam fell — didn’t have a tendency towards sin. This does NOT mean that He didn’t experience temptation. He did. He had to face temptation. I don’t know what that exactly looked like or felt like, as I have original sin. But He was tempted by Satan in the garden, and would have been at other times.
You wrote:
“-What did it mean Jesus overcame the world? In what way? Was it not overcoming the temptations we are all tempted with? In his hunger He refused to eat. In His fear in the flesh He refused to compromise. He drank the cup the Father gave Him. In that He gave us the perfect example and now we can be reassured that the same Spirit that dwelt in Christ lives in us. That through Him we can overcome. We simply need to submit to God as Christ did and the Devil will flee from you. (James 4:7)”
My response:
Jesus did overcome sin — He lived His life perfectly on Earth, without any sin whatsoever. But He did more than just this — He became the perfect sacrifice and took the punishment that we deserved upon Himself and died n our place. Humanity’s main problem is sin — our rebellion against God. Jesus offers us complete forgiveness for our sin. He bought us with His blood. He is the ultimate conqueror. He also defeated Satan and conquered death. Jesus wasn’t just an example for us, but He is our Savior and Lord and King. He is the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords. He is the one whom all glory and devotion is due.
The problem is that we can’t just submit to God as Christ did. Jesus didn’t get rid of our sinful nature on the cross, but rather paid for us. Our sinful nature is still a part of us, we can rely on the Holy Spirit…but we’re still going to sin.
(I’m guessing by saying “That through Him we can overcome. We simply need to submit to God as Christ did and the Devil will flee from you,” you meant that we can live a sin free life, given what you said about Jesus overcoming the world. Please correct me if I’m wrong about what you think).
Jesus’ death was all about our redemption and His grace.
Thank you for taking the time to engage with me in discussion. Sometimes when we discuss things with other Christians it helps clarify our own views, and can sometimes help us understand each other. It can show where there is disagreement, but also clear up misunderstandings.
I would like to add that the theological term for Jesus’ humanity is that while He was fully human, He was not ‘merely’ human. That is, His humanity could not have been as a sort of ‘chasis’ for another human soul to fill. He was made unique and without the inherent sin nature we all have.
The problem is that we can’t just submit to God as Christ did. Jesus didn’t get rid of our sinful nature on the cross, but rather paid for us. Our sinful nature is still a part of us, we can rely on the Holy Spirit…but we’re still going to sin.
This is very important and contrary to Bill Johnson:
Many believe His power exists only to help us overcome sin. This understanding stops very short of the Father’s intent for us to become witnesses of another world. Doesn’t it seem strange that our whole Christian life should be focused on overcoming something that has already been defeated? Sin and its nature have been yanked out by its roots…”
“…Many in the church are camped on the wrong side of the Cross… …I don’t need power to overcome something [sin] if I’m dead to it” [WHIE p 110]
This is referenced in the “Sinless at the Other Side of the Cross” section of Bill Johnson’s ‘Born Again’ Jesus, part II
This is part of the “resurrection life” Johnson speaks of – the other side of the Cross.
@ Craig,
you wrote:
“Be careful here. Jesus was/is part of the Triune Godhead. When He submitted to the Father He did so in subordinate relationship as part of the Trinitarian ‘family.’ As the unique God-man (I’m using a convention here with “God-man”) Jesus Christ defeated Satan by not succumbing to the Devil’s temptations to circumvent the Cross.
We submit to God, the Trinitarian God, and the Devil will flee from us.”
My response:
Oh…wow…you did a much better job of answering that then I did. “Jesus Christ defeated Satan by not succumbing to the Devil’s temptations to circumvent the Cross.” Yes!!!
And the first part of what you said — Amen to that as well.
Matt,
It’s foundational that we understand that Jesus was 100% man and 100% God in the incarnation. According to what you said above, you affirm that to be the case.
It’s also foundational to understand that Jesus had no original sin, but we do. Why? Because that makes Jesus sinless, and it shows our need for God to save us. Jesus didn’t need to be saved because He was without sin.
It’s also important to understand that, at the incarnation, Jesus didn’t lay down any of His powers as God.
Then, we need to understand the centrality of the cross and what it all means. It wasn’t an event that took place so that we could perform miracles and be a mini-Jesus, taking the world back for God. (Johnson seems to teach that this was the purpose of the cross).
Johnson clearly teaches that Jesus did not have any God powers while He lived on this Earth. He then seems to teach that we can walk in signs and wonders and be just like Jesus — in every way. The reason he gets away with doing that in his theology is because he rendered Jesus powerless while on Earth, saying that He relied completely on the Holy Spirit and the Father. It follows, then, in his teachings, that we can be just like Jesus and be exactly like Him. This leads right into the Manifest Sons of God teaching.
However, if Jesus didn’t strip Himself of His powers as deity during the incarnation, all the rest of Bill Johnson’s theology unravels.
Peacebringer,
I know the Luke 22:44 passage was not a central part of your discussion; but, since we’ve discussed and I promised to get back with you, here’s what I’ve found.
The sources I used were John Nolland [Word Biblical Commentary 35C, 1993, Nelson Reference & Electronic], Darrell Bock [Exegetical Commentary on the NT: 9:51-24:53, 1996, Baker], Craig A. Evans [New International Biblical Commentary, 1990, Hendrickson] and NIV Study Bible [1995, Zondervan].
All note that some early manuscripts do not have vv 43-44. The NIV, in reference to “drops of blood” states, Probably perspiration in large drops like blood, or possibly hematidrosis, the actual mingling of blood and sweat as in cases of extreme anguish, strain or sensitivity.
While Nolland [p 1084] has commentary on vv 43-44, he puts it all in brackets and does not elaborate much. He states there are good arguments for and against inclusion in the canon. Noting that Luke essentially keeps the emotionalism out of the account in the Garden of Gethsemane, Nolland states he “excluded them primarily on the emotional tone of the verses…” [1080-81]. Bock [1754-55] presents a more mediating view and keeps the verses within the commentary proper but pronounces the ‘sweat as blood’ as metaphorical rather than actual [1761]. Evans [323] states, “Some manuscripts insert vv 43-44 here, which surely reflects an early Christian scribe’s desire to show an immediate and dramatic answer to Jesus’ prayer.”
When quoting submit to God and the devil will flee I’m simply quoting James 4:7. (Submit therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you.) Not saying we are perfect or sinless after faith. Overcoming sometimes is a process of learning not to trust myself and to trust God in my weaknesses. This is not stating perfection. More Proverbs 24:16 For a righteous man falls seven times, and rises again. More an attitude, a belief, a hope against hope that I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. Not a confession of perfection. A confession that my imperfections no longer have the ability to seperate me from the Father’s love because sin has been dealt with. I can fall and get back up and not come under curses. I got room to grow up and not have it all together. Perfect love cast out fear because fear has to do with punishment. I get rest. I get family the family of God.
matt,
It wasn’t that you quoted James 4:17 it’s that you equated how we submit to God with Jesus’ submission to the Father. I contend that it’s not the same thing.
Matt,
You wrote:
“Not saying we are perfect or sinless after faith. Overcoming sometimes is a process of learning not to trust myself and to trust God in my weaknesses. This is not stating perfection. More Proverbs 24:16 For a righteous man falls seven times, and rises again. More an attitude, a belief, a hope against hope that I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. Not a confession of perfection. A confession that my imperfections no longer have the ability to seperate me from the Father’s love because sin has been dealt with. I can fall and get back up and not come under curses. I got room to grow up and not have it all together. Perfect love cast out fear because fear has to do with punishment. I get rest. I get family the family of God.”
Awesome.
Then, are you aware that Bill Johnson goes against what you just wrote? See what Craig wrote above [at 7:17], in quoting Johnson…
Arwen4CJ,
Interesting I didn’t know Johnson stated that. I’ll have to prayerfully research it. I already know however that Johnson has plenty of beliefs that are vastly different from my own. He could be right in some I could be wrong on others and vice versa. I don’t expect everybody to have it all together. My interest is someone’s intentions, and where their fatih for their salvation rest. Does it rest in their efforts or with God’s effort. I’ve still not reached a conclusion. It doesn’t matter to his salvation what conclusion I make though. It is up to God and only God can truly see his heart. For now I consider him a brother in the Lord.
May be off here for a few days. I’ll holla at you all in a little bit. Thanks for hearing me out, means a lot.
Martin and matt,
I have recommended Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology previously; and, while I still highly recommend it, there’s a shorter version which I’ve just been made aware:
http://www.christianbook.com/bible-doctrine-wayne-grudem/9780310222330/pd/22338/1262928160?item_code=WW&netp_id=118054&event=ESRCG&view=details
At 450 pages it is much shorter than the 1200 page systematic. Of course, it’s a bit less expensive as well. While I don’t have a copy, it does get good ratings in both Christian Book.
Matt,
Yes, prayerfully researching this would be very important. I’ve read a few testimonies from people who were associated with Bethel, most of them attending his school. Several of them stated that one of the most prominent things they are taught is that they can no longer sin (or no longer have the ability to — something along those lines), now that they are Christian. For this reason, I’m assuming that it is a major doctrinal point of Bethel and of Bill Johnson. He does mention it in his book, as Craig quoted above.
While, yes, there are some good things that Johnson says — I do believe that spiritual gifts are for today, too…and I do think that people should take risks for Christ, and it does seem that Johnson has a deep passion…but Johnson’s teachings are very skewed by the false stuff. Some people say that we should chew the meat and spit out the bones. I strongly disagree.
I would much rather eat boneless meat. There are hundreds of Christian authors out there. There are probably biblically sound authors that make the same good points that Johnson makes, without having to weed out all the false doctrine.
If you want to read a book that inspires passion in following Christ, read John Piper’s book “Don’t Waste Your Life.”
If you want a book that integrates beliefs in the spiritual gifts with Christianity, read Rich Nathan’s book “Empowered Evangelicals.” J.I. Packer wrote the forward to that book (at least the first edition, which is the one I have.)
If you want to read a book about Knowing God, read J.I. Packer’s “Knowing God” book.
Jerry Bridges is also good.
For personal growth, read Robert McGee’s “Search For Significance.”
If you need help on a certain issue, read things by Paul David Tripp, Ed Welch, David Powlison, etc.
If you want to read about marriage and relationships, read anything by Gary Chapman or H. Norman Wright.
If you want to read about spiritual warfare, read Chip Ingram’s “The Invisible War.”
If you were a woman, I’d recommend Elizabeth George and Nancy Leigh DeMoss.
Which reminds me, Nancy Leigh DeMoss is good on the topic of Forgiveness.
There are other solid Christian authors out there, too…but what I’ve listed here is a start. In general, I think it’s better to be more widely read — to read books by several Christian authors, rather than to focus on just one or people who only associate with each other. That’s just my take — it gives you a wider range of Christian writings, and if one of your authors is a heretic, hopefully you will see that when you read the writings of other people.
Oh…and of interest, Wayne Grudem was in the Vineyard for a while. I don’t know if he still is. But, like Rich Nathan, he would believe that spiritual gifts are for today. If you read theology books by him, he would be supportive of spiritual gifts — but he wouldn’t overemphasize them. I haven’t read his theology books, but I’m pretty sure that the spiritual gifts would just be a minor point, and that the major points would center on Jesus Christ, His death on the cross, and His resurrection. He should be solid.
I agree that it’s good to read books from orthodox Christians of differing persuasions. On this site I quote from various sources whether Dispensational, Reformed, etc. John MacArthur has some good things to say, but since he’s a cessationist and an adherent to a pre-trib Rapture I disagree with him on those points.
Even though I recommend Grudem, I don’t necessarily agree with everything he writes. However, his systematic is one of the easier to understand. Having said this, a caveat: Grudem endorsed the Mike Bickle/Sam Storms’ Grace Training Center as evidenced in the back of a few of Bickle’s books. He may well have done so on the strength of Storms without knowing much about Bickle’s history/theology.
Also, Arwen4CJ, I know you promote the Vineyard; but, I have some reservations there as it was Wimber who brought the “apostolic/prophetic” into the Vineyard via Paul Cain and Mike Bickle. The two most recent articles on CrossWise here go into that. This is not to say all Vineyards are bad, of course.
Hey Craig,
SOrry didn’t back to you sooner. I had actually writter response, hadn’t signed in and so lost my response and had trouble getting motivated to write it again.
The information referenced comes off to me as an “academic” approach. Doing a bit more examination there is questions r/t text as some scribes included, some didn’t, some asteriked it doubting the authenticity. Perhaps because of it talking about an angel minestering and who would have witnessed that and sweat looking like blood seemed unusal. Facts, there is a medical condition of extreme stress. Hebrews passage reference resistance to the point of shedding blood. So I tend to believe God puts forth that which he wants us to understand. Now whether it got to point of sweat mixed with blood or just extreme sweat, the point is that it is the apex of stress. Jesus was as stressed as possible, obdience was difficulty, even for him as it involved such extreme endurance. In my battles with temptation, my self can buckle well before that point. As the rest of us.
So while it is interesting the textual criticisms and examinations and helpful to understanding accurately what is to be rendered, the essential point is the same unless you believe the text was not authentic, but writter of Hebrews certainly did.
@ Craig,
you wrote:
“Also, Arwen4CJ, I know you promote the Vineyard; but, I have some reservations there as it was Wimber who brought the “apostolic/prophetic” into the Vineyard via Paul Cain and Mike Bickle. The two most recent articles on CrossWise here go into that. This is not to say all Vineyards are bad, of course.”
My response: Although I support Vineyard, I do not support all of them. John Wimber died before I got involved, so I don’t really have much to say about him….although I don’t like it that he brought the false stuff into Vineyard. I think he definitely made some mistakes. I”m not a Wimber fan.
I like the stuff that Vineyard is supposed to uphold — the Bible, reaching out to the community, growing in faith, small groups, worship, etc. I like some Vineyard leaders, such as Rich Nathan and the old pastor from River Valley Vineyard. I support any Vineyard that teaches sound theology, and I oppose any Vineyard that has NAR stuff.
I don’t know…maybe some day I will find a denomination that has mostly churches in it that I agree with.
That’s been the hardest thing — to find a church that actually preaches the gospel and has orthodox theology, where people value the Bible take it seriously, encourage people to grow in their faith, that really values worship (like I said, contemporary worship style is where I feel I can truly worship God), and one that seeks to reach out to the community that it is involved in. I like small groups or a setting in which I can talk to people about faith. I want all of this in a church, but I don’t want any of the NAR garbage.
So far, Vineyard is the closest that I’ve found — but there are also a lot of NAR Vineyard churches as well
I want authentic Christianity — that is what I’m after. I don’t care what denomination or church it is in. I just happen to have found it at a couple of Vineyards — but then that authentic faith is lacking in other Vineyards…some of it is creeping into the church at home.
Why is it so hard to find a good church these days?
If the United Methodist Church would get back to its roots, I probably would be all right in that denomination, but so many of the UMC churches are like the one that I grew up in.
I want to go somewhere where people are on fire for Jesus, but in the right way — not chasing after manifestations, signs, wonders, etc.
You’re not alone. There are others out there who are now without a church. If you find that you are without a church, you could try (assuming you have one or more) a local Christian publication in which you could place an ad expressing your desires and perhaps find small group.
Looking into this subject has definitely been an interesting journey. Just found this verse and realized this is where the whole debate originated (Philippians 2:7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.) I didn’t realize the Greek word for empty was Kenoo or something simiar.
Could someone explain to me the difference between ontological kenosis and functional kenosis or point me to some good internet based info. Thanks!
matt,
Well, you could start by reading the information right here on CrossWise:
http://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/kenosis-christology-and-bill-johnson-part-i/
“Kenosis comes from the Greek verb transliterated kenoo rendered “to make empty” [Phil 2:7]; “destroy;” “render void, of no effect” [I Cor 1:17, 9:15; Romans 4:14]; “deprive of (its) justification” [2 Cor 9:3].1 This word is used only five times in the NT. The Kenosis theory is largely derived from a peculiar exposition of Philippians 2:7…”
Further on in the article:
“This brings us to a subtler form of kenosis known as functional or functionalist kenosis.49 Adherents claim the Logos retained all divine attributes; however, the ‘omni’ traits (omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence) were not utilized during the Incarnation as these were voluntarily ‘put aside.’ [Other views may claim even more attributes were voluntarily unutilized yet still present.] Jesus Christ still had the ability to use all His divine traits yet consciously chose not to exercise these attributes while incarnate.50
“There are other variations of functionalist kenosis;51 however, they all suffer from the same inherent problem as Oliver Crisp remarks in Divinity and Humanity:
“…The functionalist account…still requires too much of the traditional understanding of God and the Incarnation to be given up. Withholding the exercise of certain divine attributes for the duration of the Incarnation implies a real change in the Word from his preincarnate to his incarnate state that is monumental…” 52
“Crisp goes on to assert that the complete non-exercise of any divine trait amounts to a denial of immutability, traditionally an essential aspect of divinity,53 which would, of course, contradict Hebrews 13:8 [and Heb 1:12; Psa 102:27]. Also, for the second person of the Trinity to cease using His omnipotence would mean the cosmos would no longer be sustained [Col 1:17; Heb 1:3].54”
You can view part of Crisp’s book on google books:
http://books.google.ms/books?id=sNUFIgrmmAYC&pg=PA152&dq=functionalist+kenosis&hl=en&ei=WznKTrDjIKy_2QXx1439Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=functionalist%20kenosis&f=false
However, many of the pertinent pages are not shown in the preview.
The theory in functional(ist) kenosis is that Jesus retained all of His divine attributes, yet He did not use any of the ‘omni’ traits (omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience – and possibly others were not utilized) during His earthly life relying instead on the Holy Spirit to perform all His miracles. Ontological kenosis goes further. With this theory, Jesus actually divested Himself of all His ‘omni’ attributes (and impeccability – sinlessness or inability to sin, and possibly others) leaving Him without the capability to do any miracles even if He wanted.
The first chapter of Crisp’s book was initially published in a Tyndale Bulletin and is available in full here:
http://tyndalehouse.com/tynbul/library/TynBull_2005_56_1_07_Crisp_PerichoersisProblems.pdf
I caution you that this one is a bit deep. However, Crisp makes a very important point with respect to how Jesus performed His miracles which is also quoted in the above CrossWise article:
“It could be argued that it is the Holy Spirit that enables the human nature of Christ to perform miracles, rather than Christ’s divine nature, if, say, the divine nature of Christ is not thought to act in and through the human nature of Christ in this way [via nature-perichoresis] during the Incarnation. But this is not a conventional view of the means by which Christ was able to perform miracles. A conventional view would claim that Christ was able to perform miracles in virtue of the action of his divine nature in and through his human nature in the hypostatic union.” 48
For more on kenosis, read this link (also referenced in the above CrossWise article):
http://kenosis.info/index.shtml#Introduction
Bill’s statement of Jesus laying aside his deity is not unique to him. Jack Hayford made a similar remark some years ago in a televised sermon. I find both statements to be accurate and encouraging to true believers. Jesus performed his miracles as a man filled with the Spirit of God rather than using his deity to accomplish what He did. Jesus said, “These things and greater will you do…” If it was Christ’s deity that provides healing and miracles, we will never measure up. If we do them because of the power of His Spirit within us, we should open ourselves up to receive as the early church did and see lives changed by the power He has afforded us.
I have not listed any associated scripture because they’re all there for the youngest believer to discover with little coaching.
Mike,
Your timing is good as I’ve been putting the finishing touches on my newest post Greater Works Shall You Do. It has quite a bit of Scripture references and reputable commentaries to refute Bill Johnson’s “greater works” claim: that Jesus’ miracles, signs and wonders are to be eclipsed.
I’m not surprised that Hayford would make a similar remark re: Jesus ‘laid his deity aside’ as he’s part and parcel to the Latter Rain movement. He was the one who suggested we take the Gamaliel approach [Acts 6:33-39] to Bentley/Lakeland, i.e., “if it’s of God it will not be stopped; if it’s of man it will fail.” Using that approach, it seems that the LDS church and Jehovah’s Witnesses are from God. Obviously, that’s a very poor approach to take. Much better if we measure things by the plumbline of Scripture.
To compare the idea that “greater works” would align Bill Johnson or Jack Hayford with LDS or JW’s is a stretch. What’s to say that greater means numerically? Jesus was limited by His humanity in time and space. He could only be in one place at a time. He shared the same limitations of the rest of mankind. Yet, He put His Spirit within us and multiplied Himself for the sake of the lost. We are not God, but He lives in us and wants us to bring His Kingdom wherever we go. This isn’t rocket science and certainly not heresy.
Mike,
You miss the point. I was comparing Hayford’s ‘Gamaliel’ approach to JDS and JWs.
I presume you’ve not read the “Greater Works Shall We Do” post I referenced above which shows that Jesus did, in fact, do the miraculous as God and not a Spirit-filled man and that greater does not mean numerically greater. Yes, the greater in the context of John 14:12 (and 5:20 and 1:50) is greater in quality; however, Jesus is not speaking of signs and wonders.
Yes, Jesus in His physical body was limited in physical location obviously, yet the Logos, His deity, was not constrained within the physical confines of Jesus’ earthly body and remained omnipresent. This is how He was able to sustain the cosmos while incarnate:
1 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. [Hebrews 1:1-3, NIV 1984]
Jesus was “the exact representation” of the Father, i.e., He was fully divine. And, here we see that He is “the image of the invisible God” and “all [God's] fullness” dwelt in Him”:
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. [Colossians 1:15-20, NIV 1984]
Again, all things hold together in him. The verb tense indicates a continuing sustaining of “all things” which illustrates He did this during His earthly ministry as well.
You wrote, “…He put His Spirit within us and multiplied Himself for the sake of the lost.” Yes, I’ll certainly agree with that. I do think you’d benefit by reading the article I referenced above.
Neither my remarks nor Bill Johnson’s are in conflict with the above mentioned passages. We don’t eclipse the works of Jesus; we build upon them. It’s the idea that the ceiling of the apostles and prophets (foundation) becomes our floor. Are we to settle on the miracles that Jesus performed and say “That’s all there is”? Or are we to (as shown in Mark 16:15-18) perform the works of the Christ that we “believe” in?
Claiming Jesus “laid His deity aside” does, in fact, contradict the above mentioned verses. How can non-deity sustain the cosmos? Johnson specifically states that Jesus had “NO supernatural capabilities whatsoever” [p29 WHIE] meaning quite clearly that, according to Johnson, Jesus lacked all the ‘omni’ traits: omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience.
Again, Jesus is not speaking of greater signs and wonders in John 14:12.
The Christian life is not about performing great signs and wonders; it’s about winning souls to Christ by preaching the true Gospel:
The greatest miracle of all is the changed hearts of individuals as they transition from eternal death to eternal life by the acceptance of the true Gospel of Jesus Christ: by believing and confessing that Christ died on the Cross in propitiation for the collective sins of mankind, was raised from the dead, and by acknowledging individual inherent sinfulness and subsequently repenting, one is spared God’s eternal wrath passing from death to everlasting life.
These are the “greater works” of which Christ refers. Whether or not there are any attendant signs and wonders is not the point.
We must keep in mind Jesus words in the Sermon on the Mount:
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’ [Matthew 7:21-23 NASB]
See post here: http://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/2011/04/08/look-at-the-fruit/
I cannot nor do I want to convince you of this. I would prefer that scripture might but maybe not.
If God were to do a miracle in your life like raise a family member or friend from the dead, would you reject it and call it a work of satan? That is a very fearful place to be.
Mike,
Again, you misunderstand. God can and does do miracles. I’ve not once denied this; and, I’m not a cessationist (call me a very cautious continuationist, I suppose). What I’m denying is Johnson’s claim that Jesus did all His works by the power of the Spirit (contrary to Scripture) and that we can do even greater signs and wonders than Jesus by the power of the Spirit using John 14:12 as proof-text (again contrary to Scripture when put in its proper context).
But, yet Satan has done [Exodus 7:10-12; Job 1-2] and will continue to do signs and wonders to deceive the elect, if possible (Matt 24:24):
9 The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, 10 and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness. [2 Thess 2:9-12 NIV 1984]
Does Johnson love the truth? It seems he de-divinizes Jesus turning Him into “another Jesus” (2 Cor 11:4) and turns the Gospel into a signs and wonders gospel (“another gospel” – 2 Cor 11:4). Johnson also claims that God heals everyone which truly defies logic. First of all, Johnson himself has had some physical ailments and currently wears glasses while his son Eric remains deaf. The logical conclusion to belief in perpetual healing is that those (with enough faith, presumably) who adhere to this doctrine should never die for even death should be “healed”. How did that work for E.W. Kenyon, Kenneth E. Hagin and Hobart Freeman? With all the claimed healings at Bethel why hasn’t Bill Johnson (or Bentley, etc.) offered to heal Doris Wagner who has been sick for quite a while and C. Peter Wagner who is also sick? There have been a number of individuals in the hyper-charismatic realm who have passed away. Why hasn’t someone raised any of these from the dead?
Every single claim of dead raising has not been verified – including those Bethel claimed in Brazil. Could God raise the dead? Absolutely! Do I believe any of these dead raising claims from individuals who have de-divinized Jesus? Absolutely not.
So, going back to the subject of this article: do you still believe that Jesus “laid His divinity aside” in contradiction to Scripture?
Thanks for your comments. Bill’s father died of cancer but he did not readjust his theology because his dad wasn’t healed. Not everyone gets healed. People do in fact die of disease or in accidents. We don’t quit believing in the fact that God does what His Word says. Not everyone has a “more abundant” life but it’s available if we accept it.
The apostles didn’t have deity to depend on just the Holy Spirit of God working His works within them. Jesus was and is good with that in my opinion.
I don’t think that God is uncomfortable with Bill’s remarks in WHIE. The reason being; he always gives glory to God for the miracles that occur. People who are doing the “stuff” seem to always become targets for the ones who aren’t. How unfortunate that supposed “christians” won’t rally around the goodness of God and give Him praise when healings and miracles take place. It saddens me greatly.
Mike,
You make my point. Johnson emphatically states that GOD always wants to heal which also runs contrary to Hebrews 12:4-11 and other Scripture. And, again the logical conclusion on a doctrine of perpetual healing is escape from death.
You wrote, “We don’t quit believing in the fact that God does what His Word says. Not everyone has a “more abundant” life but it’s available if we accept it.”
And, what Scripture are referring to in the first sentence? As for “abundant life”: what of all the first century apostles (save for John) who were martyred? What of all the Christians throughout the centuries who were tortured and martyred? And, what about the Apostle Paul’s eye problems as evidenced throughout Galatians? Did he not have enough faith to effect a cure? And, what of that “thorn in the flesh”? Whether it was sickness or not, we have to recognize that God did not alleviate it. Would you say that negates an “abundant life” for Paul?
You wrote, “The apostles didn’t have deity to depend on just the Holy Spirit of God working His works within them.” Yes, and so do we. The purpose is to bring forth salvation. Signs and wonders are secondary, if present at all.
You wrote, “I don’t think that God is uncomfortable with Bill’s remarks in WHIE. The reason being; he always gives glory to God for the miracles that occur.” Jesus was God Incarnate with ALL His divine traits intact. To deny this is to deny Jesus Christ. With a de-divinized Jesus, i.e. a different Jesus [2 Cor 11:4] and a different gospel [2 Cor 11:4], how does this make Johnson any different than Mormons or JWs when they give glory to their god? Even Santeria and Eastern religions, etc. claim healings. While there are some bonafide miraculous healings (I myself have been healed of knee degeneration), we don’t look to the healings as evidence of orthodoxy, we look to orthodoxy first. God will not be mocked. But, He will send a “strong delusion” to those who “refuse to love the truth” [2 Thess 2:9-12].
You wrote, “People who are doing the “stuff” seem to always become targets for the ones who aren’t. How unfortunate that supposed “christians” won’t rally around the goodness of God and give Him praise when healings and miracles take place.” Again, miracles signs and wonders can be imitated by the enemy – that is, if these “healings” are legitimate and not “exaggerated.” I can tell you, I praised God when my miracle occurred (and I know of others who have been healed). But, I remain highly skeptical of any “healings” coming out of Bethel, just like I did with Lakeland.
You misinterpret my remarks. God does want us to be healed. He also wants us to be saved. “God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.” However not all get saved nor do they get healed. Why do we think that because some don’t get healed, God doesn’t want all to be healed. This goes into the man’s will vs. God’s will argument.
So, then 1) Why wasn’t Paul healed of his eye troubles and the “thorn in the flesh”; 2) why did Paul die?
If I could answer that, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. I don’t know, but God still heals and He still wants us to be healed. You tell me.
My point is to illustrate that God does not heal all people all the time. In fact, as far as physical healing VERY FEW have been fully healed as there have been scant few who were translated/raptured and hence not physically dying with death being the ultimate in not being healed.
What Scripture(s) can you cite that state(s) God wants us always to be healed?
Craig,
Do you think God created sickness?
matt,
No. Nor did God create evil. However, He allows both.
67 Before I was afflicted I went astray,
but now I obey your word. [Psalm 119:67; NIV 1984]
71 It was good for me to be afflicted
so that I might learn your decrees. [Psalm 119:71]
75 I know, O LORD, that your laws are righteous,
and in faithfulness you have afflicted me. [Psalm 119:75]
God has a purpose in sickness.
7 To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. [2 Corinthians 12:7, NIV 1984]
Whether Paul’s thorn is sickness or not, it is clear that God is using the thorn to keep Paul from “becoming conceited”.
Surprised at the question and Craig’s response.
Short answer did God create sickness. The answer is yes. As God created all. Now does this mean God is horrible and awful for allowing suffering. By no means. Suffering comes initially from being apart from God’s will. Suffering=the Curse. suffering=entropy. Suffering comes from the initial out of alignment with God’s created intent.
This is difficult to understand and grasp but simple. The simple is God inidcated if departe from me there are consequences. All that is death.
Let me ask each of you, do you think Satan created suffering? Such a few comes with same mindset that demons/satan rule hell and inflict torment. This is bad theology.
Suffering comes as result of fall. Not got time to go further, but do feel free to show how this is not so.
peacebringer,
Did God create evil or does God allow evil? See here:
http://www.gotquestions.org/did-God-create-evil.html
At first it might seem that if God created all things, then evil must have been created by God. However, evil is not a “thing” like a rock or electricity. You cannot have a jar of evil. Evil has no existence of its own; it is really the absence of good. For example, holes are real but they only exist in something else. We call the absence of dirt a hole, but it cannot be separated from the dirt. So when God created, it is true that all He created was good. One of the good things God made was creatures who had the freedom to choose good. In order to have a real choice, God had to allow there to be something besides good to choose. So, God allowed these free angels and humans to choose good or reject good (evil). When a bad relationship exists between two good things we call that evil, but it does not become a “thing” that required God to create it.
Did God create/manufacture The Fall? Or did God allow Adam and Eve the choice to obey Him or to sin?
Also:
http://www.gotquestions.org/sickness-will-God.html
The biblical doctrine of the sovereignty of God states that God is almighty over all. He is in complete control of all things—past, present and future—and nothing happens that is out of His jurisdiction. Either He directly causes—or He passively allows—everything that happens. But allowing something to happen and causing something to happen are two different things. For example, God caused the creation of the perfect, sinless Adam and Eve; then He allowed them to rebel against Him. He did not cause them to sin, and He certainly could have stopped them, but He chose not to for His own purposes and to bring about His perfect plan. That rebellion brought about all manner of evil, evil that was not caused by God but which was allowed by Him to exist.
Sickness is one manifestation of the two broad types of evil—moral and natural. Moral evil is man’s inhumanity to man. Natural evil is composed of things like natural disasters and physical sickness. Evil itself is a perversion or corruption of something that was originally good, but is now missing something. In the case of sickness, illness is a state where good health is missing. The Greek word for evil, ponerous, actually implies a malignancy, something that is corrupting a good and healthy state of being.
Gen 2: 8-9
8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (NIV)
Let’s not forget that there is a tree that had fruit that was of the knowledge of good and evil.
Isn’t it interesting that Satan lied and deceived man with the fruit of this tree rather than the Tree of Life. I also find it interesting that the highest Cheribum of heaven also had the ability to let pride (evil?) take root in him so that he rebelled against God (Ezek). Is this the real freedom of choice? Not that we choose God but rather after true regeneration, what has been transfered to each of us after the original sin of disobedience (possibly the knowledge of good or evil?) is brought to life thru our rebirth of our spirit and the knowledge of good or what is right is activated and we will then want to do what is good and right as we learn the things that God teaches us through His word?
Listen I know that this is a stretch because there is nothing that I know of in the scriptures that teaches this, it is silent. But let’s face it, we know in part and we see in part and this is a great mystery that frankly I don’t think anyone can truely answer to it’s fullest. It may very well be one of the “secrets” of God that are for Him alone (“The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law.” Deuteronomy 29:29) and we will never know till we are face to face with Him in heaven.
So what are these trees? Allegorically are they:
1) Tree of Life being God/Jesus?
2) Three of knowledge of good and evil (deception/death/Satan)?
or are they literal trees that ere planted in the Garden of Eden?
This is a general response to the comments over that last two days. By the way, have any of you thought of asking Bill your questions, personally?
I’ve read these ongoing posts and have become very weary of it all. It’s time to think about who God is, what He does and what He doesn’t do.
Bear with me for a bit on this.
First of all, God is all-powerful (omnipotent, He is all-knowing (omniscient) and He is always and everywhere with us (omnipresent). God did not create evil (sin). Evil comes from the source of evil satan. The idea that God would create evil (sin) goes against His very nature. So let’s get over that right now. Is there evil? Yes, but He didn’t make it happen; we did and do (in Adam and following). Did He create disease? No, evil and its companions come as a result of the fall again stemming from satan’s deception of Adam and Eve.
God’s awareness of man’s condition is by no means evidence that He put all of the pain on us. We have selected it personally beginning right there when we chose to partake of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil versus the tree of life which was permitted. This mindless bantering on the sovereignty of God accomplishes nothing when it comes to seeing people drawn into the kingdom of God. What lost person wants to serve a God that says, “I’m going to show you how much I love you by giving you a brain tumor.” Where is the logic in that? If you want to see who God is let me send you a list of passages that do nothing but describe the attributes of God in His Word. I’ll gladly send it to you.
In the meantime, move on to something more constructive than attacking Bill Johnson for honoring the call of God on his life and doing what he has been called to do. By the way, those that throw out the “few” times when people are healed discount what that healing meant to the one at was afflicted and now is free. Get a doctrinal statement from them. It may sound like this, “All I know is I was blind and now see.”
Mike,
You wrote, “By the way, those that throw out the “few” times when people are healed discount what that healing meant to the one at was afflicted and now is free.”
I do believe you’ve not understood my point in my comment about the “few” who were fully healed (12/17/2011 @ 9:01pm). My point was that only Enoch and Elijah were translated, i.e., never having died a physical death. Besides these two all others who’ve been healed (I’m assuming Lazarus as well) have gone on to die physically. Of course, there will be those who are “Raptured” thereby escaping physical death (no matter if you are pre-, mid- of post-trib).
You wrote, “God is all-powerful (omnipotent, He is all-knowing (omniscient) and He is always and everywhere with us (omnipresent).”
I’m assuming that you believe Jesus is God, and, if so, you must concede that He also possessed the “omni” attributes. Given that, don’t you see the inherent problem in believing Jesus “laid His divinity aside”? These three articles all provr Biblically that Jesus DID have and utilize all the omni attributes:
http://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/2011/12/17/greater-works-shall-you-do/
http://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/kenosis-christology-and-bill-johnson-part-i/
http://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/2011/06/16/kenosis-christology-and-bill-johnson-part-ii/
You wrote, “have any of you thought of asking Bill your questions, personally?”
How do you know I have not? The truth is: no, I have not personally but I know others who have and Johnson generally skirts the questions. He’s not ever answered the one in this challenge to my knowledge.
You wrote, “This mindless bantering on the sovereignty of God accomplishes nothing when it comes to seeing people drawn into the kingdom of God.”
Which kingdom? If you read some of the other posts on this blog you’ll see that New Agers believe in a “kingdom of God”.
You wrote, “In the meantime, move on to something more constructive than attacking Bill Johnson for honoring the call of God on his life and doing what he has been called to do.”
There are numerous articles on this site which seriously question the doctrines espoused by Bill Johnson. This isn’t just nit picking. This is very serious. The NT is replete with Scripture warning about false teachers/prophets. With aberrant Christology and other aspects of his theology is it possible Johnson is one of the ones spoken of in these passages?
You’ve chosen not to address some of the harder questions I’ve posed (or you couldn’t provide an answer as in the question of Paul’s eye problems, thorn in the flesh, etc). And, you have not provided any Scripture which shows that God wants to physically heal all people all of the time.
Does the “abundant life” mean that those who are enjoying this will remain in perfect health? Scripture sure shows otherwise as witness the martyrdom of the Eleven plus Paul (excepting John). Are you saying these did not enjoy an “abundant life”?
And, what if this is the call of my life – to expose false teachings? There are a LOT of other things I could be doing, yet God has laid this on my heart.
And, since we’ve been discussing healing, what do you make of this healing account in which Johnson’s ‘god’ (or Johnson himself) inflicts pain on a man in the process of healing?:
http://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/2011/07/21/by-whose-power-does-bill-johnson-perform-healings/
Please make any comment pertaining to the above articles on those threads.
You will not budge an inch. I leave you with yourself and the hope that you will identify that your calling isn’t listed anywhere in scripture in terms of ministry gifts. My heart is sad.
Mike,
It’s sad that you continue to defend Bill Johnson contrary to the many Scriptures he violates. It’s also disappointing that you cannot/will not defend your position regarding healing OR concede that you and Bill Johnson are incorrect.
3 Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. [Jude 3]
1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.
6 If you point these things out to the brothers, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, brought up in the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you have followed. [1 Tim 4:1-2, 6]
3 If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, 4 he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions 5 and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain. [1 Tim 6:3-5]
19 My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, 20 remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins. [James 5:19-20]
22 Be merciful to those who doubt; 23 snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy, mixed with fear—hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh. [Jude 22-23]
4 Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you.
9 “Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13 but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. [Matthew 24:4, 9-13]
@Mike Ward
False Teachers Among You
by Paul Van Noy
Pastor of Candlelight Christian Fellowship, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho
But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you… And many will follow their destructive ways…They are spots and blemishes, carousing in their own deceptions while they feast with you… they speak great swelling words of emptiness…. (2 Pt 2:1-2, 13,18)
To the world it might appear that all is well in the Christian realm. Much-beloved speakers hold forth from the pulpits of some of the largest churches in the world. Believers and nonbelievers alike buy their books, avail themselves of their programs, and utilize their methodologies. One might come to the conclusion that Peter must not have been referring to the church in our day regarding false teachers. Tolerance is the word of the day. We hear admonitions on a regular basis to “just get along” with those of opposing faiths. “Love” reigns supreme.
But what is this “love” of which they speak? What about those who identify a false gospel or a false teacher among some of the popular speakers these days? Does this “love” still apply to those who expose the ones who are actually deceivers among the flock? We find that those who point out error and apostasy in the church are, in fact, considered divisive and judgmental. Some are told that their criticism will bring harm to the Christian church. They are perceived as arrogant and “negative.” It is clear that the trend among evangelicals to embrace the “politically correct” thinking of the day will have egregious effects on the Body of Christ.
This “state of the church” forces me to ask a few simple questions. If Peter said that there would be false teachers in the church, where are they? How can we identify them? Who will warn others? It stands to reason that if the Word of God warns us that false teachers will be present in the church, doesn’t it follow that we are expected to expose them? How will we recognize them, and what are we to do about them?
The Apostle Paul wrote, “Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves” (Acts 20:30). So we see that these false teachers will bring in things that are corrupt, contrary–opposed to biblical doctrine (teaching). Their purpose is to gather disciples to their own folds, separating them from the true Body of Christ. Paul’s concern was not only that this would occur–but that the church would tolerate it: “For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted–you may well put up with it!” (2 Cor 11:4).
The very thing that Paul warned about has come to pass! Most Christians not only tolerate those who speak “perverse things,” but they ostracize believers who won’t accept them. Do we think that we are wiser than Paul? Are we more mature than Jude? Are we really called to leave the evils of error alone and allow the church to be polluted by the lies? Not according to the Scriptures!
Some may say, “But there are good men and women out there whose ministries have been damaged when others pointed out errors in their teachings.” Couldn’t the same have been said about Paul when he called Peter to account for his error and “withstood him to his face” (Gal 2:11-14)? Paul didn’t intend to bring condemnation upon Peter but rather to move him to repent of his actions. Paul saw the need to keep the message of the gospel pure so that both Peter and those who heard him teach would know the truth–the truth that makes men free!
In the early church, it was the elders of the church who were responsible to give correction and instruction through the Word of God. Today we are fortunate to have greater individual access to the Scriptures, which are every believer’s authority. We know that “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tm 3:16-17).
Every epistle in the New Testament was written to correct error in the church. Did Paul, Peter, James, John, and Jude not understand that to correct those who were in error was in truth a failure to love them? Did they believe that it was none of their business to bring correction to the false teaching? Do we consider them divisive for confronting error and holding fast to the truth? No! They boldly addressed the error and at times even named the offenders.
Paul instructed Titus (an elder) regarding the standards by which other elders should be appointed–and function. He said, “For a bishop must…[hold] fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict. For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole households, teaching things which they ought not….Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth… and [are] disqualified for every good work” (Ti 1:7-16). It is those in leadership who are called to the task of identifying error. Sadly, these are primarily the very ones who are promoting the error from the pulpits and publishing houses.
Jude wrote, “Contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). Paul told the Romans, “Note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them” (Rom 16:17). This is what the Bible says, but the trend today is to “avoid those” who are pointing out the ones who are spreading error!
Every God-called pastor is told, “Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood” (Acts 20:28). Peter said, “Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers…” (1 Pt 5:2a). Along with the calling of God comes gifting and passion. One of the gifts given to every godly pastor is love for the church. If we truly love people, we don’t want to see them fall into error. Error causes harm, and “love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law” (Rom 13:10).
Peter declared, “There were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you…” (2 Pt 2:1-2). Paul said, “Now we exhort you, brethren, warn those who are unruly…” (1 Thes 5:14a). We must by all means “contend earnestly for the faith” (Jude 3). However, we must always remember that, as servants to the Lord and to the Body of Christ, we are called to “comfort the fainthearted, uphold the weak, be patient with all” (1 Thes 5:14b). And always keep in mind that: “A servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth” (2 Tm 2:24-25).
“Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted” (Gal 6:1).
Craig,
Do you believe it is God’s will to deliver drug addicts?
matt,
While I allowed lee-way on your most recent comment, let’s stick to the subject of the post.
I was reading a bit of NT scholar/historicist Craig Blomberg’s blog and found this article:
http://www.denverseminary.edu/craig-blombergs-blog-new-testament-musings/i-suffer-therefore-i–/
…the Asian representatives agreed that one of the biggest theological differences between Asian and American Christianity was that Asians assumed suffering was a normal part of life, especially if you were a believer, whereas Americans were always trying to avoid it or end it. One Chinese theologian explained, “The typical Chinese Christian, when suffering, asks, “How may I acquit myself in a God-pleasing way as I suffer?” The typical American Christian asks, “How may I get rid of the suffering?”
A graduate of Denver Seminary of only a few years ago had some prolonged conversations this summer with me from out of town. A “failed” church plant and the suicide of a family member left him barely believing if there was a God any longer and it certainly sounds as if he’s abandoned Christianity. Without denying the immense pain of his experience, I confess seeing an utter theological disconnect here. Imagine Paul saying after his horrific catalogs of sufferings in 2 Corinthians 4, 6 and 11, “So I gave it all up.” Instead he describes Christ’s direct word of comfort on how God’s power is made perfect in weakness and his grace is sufficient for him (2 Cor. 12:9)…
The so-called prosperity gospel (a.k.a. “health-wealth,” “name it and claim it,” etc.) only makes matters worse with its truncated, one-sided message that leaves countless people around the world believing that if a person just has enough faith God will heal them of whatever hurts they currently suffer. Yet, the death rate is still 100%. Sooner or later, there is something every one of us doesn’t recover from and it has nothing to do with the amount of our faith or obedience!
Here’s a new post which consolidates all the Bill Johnson articles on the CrossWise blog:
http://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/2012/01/19/anthology-of-bill-johnson-articles-so-far/
OK, so I have never read a Bill J’s book and stumbled accross this doing some research on another topic. I have put my comments in brackets just after the portion of the text being discussed.
“Jesus lived His earthly life with human limitations ( This means to me when I read it that He lived in our world with things like time and hunger to deal with). He laid his [sic](Bill capitalized with all other references, may just be a typo, i missed it until you pointed it out…) divinity aside (He could have used His divine power to avoid temptation, hunger etc. but chose to lay this power, divinity aside and live life as a man,fully man, though still God)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) (Powerless to prevent His death as he is bound by his assignment from the Father. Not to say that he could not physically get down, but that being who He is, could not sin, could not and would not stop what was in motion, what had been foretold in the scriptures), and had to be spotless, (without sin)” [When Heaven Invades Earth, Shippensburg, PA: Destiny Image, 2003, p. 79].
Now, I am not a huge fan of Bill, i have never heard him or read him. I have heard of him and some people I respect and who I know as having a good, strong and growing relationship with God really like him, some question him as well. That said, i do think that this appears to be a fairly flimsy arguement against someones writing and having read only a couple of these posts, I look forward to reading this book to form my own oppinion on the matter.
When ever i read a book other than the bible or listen to a message from another human, i always pray that God will use that person (author or speaker) to convey a message from Him to me. I ask that anything not from Him to fall away and the message for me to be recieved. i always read and listen with my bible and verify context and accuracy of quotes. if s quote is make with out a reference i write it down and search it out later.
There would be a lot more good accomplished if less judging went on in the body and more truth was taught. the truth is that if we are Christians then the Holy Spirit lives in us and helps us determine truth. When you hear the truth it resonates with you, it speaks to you, and you recieve a revelation of that truth. the scriptures become alive and your understanding deepens. i believe that the Holy Spirit will reveal a false prophet….Not someone i don’t know over a webpage.
And one last thing – Please do not, ever, use a man written creed to trump the bible! Though those creeds are highly accurate, they are NOT scripture. they were written with a groups input. There was much study done, by more than one person, and i am sure much prayer and consideration was given, but they should never be used as the bible or gospel.
james,
Thanks for taking the challenge.
You wrote, “…I look forward to reading this book to form my own oppinion on the matter…i always read and listen with my bible and verify context and accuracy of quotes…“. I’m glad to see you’ll be reading Johnson’s book and comparing Scripture references to proper Biblical contexts. I’m hopeful you’ll report back here your findings. When Heaven Invades Earth has quite a bit of Scripture references as footnotes many of which are taken out of context. You can start on the first page of chapter 2 in which Johnson proof-texts a portion of John 5:19. When you do so, would call that “judging” or “discerning”?
You wrote, “There would be a lot more good accomplished if less judging went on in the body and more truth was taught…” I find it interesting that you are “judging” me for “judging” Bill Johnson. Perhaps a better word could be “discerning” or “defending for the faith/truth” [cf Acts 17:11; Jude 3, etc.] perhaps? However, I do agree with you that more truth should be taught. That’s exactly what this site is about: illustrating truth while exposing the false. The false is a mixture of mostly truth with a bit of false mixed in – that’s the nature of false teaching.
You wrote, “…He could have used His divine power to avoid temptation, hunger etc. but chose to lay this power, divinity aside and live life as a man,fully man, though still God…” OK, so, you’re belief is what is known as functional kenosis, i.e., Jesus could have used his divinity yet consciously chose not to during the Incarnation. So, then what would you make of Bill Johnson’s statement on page 29 of WHIE [link deleted] “He had NO supernatural capabilities whatsoever!” Would you agree that this explicitly states that Jesus no longer had divine attributes from which to choose?
You wrote, “…i believe that the Holy Spirit will reveal a false prophet….Not someone i don’t know over a webpage.” Do you not think it possible that the Holy Spirit can speak through someone else – even on a webpage?
Can you show me where I’ve used any of the creeds to “trump the Bible”? I will agree that the creeds are only truthful to the extent they agree with Scripture. That being said, I challenge you to find where the creeds cited in this article are at odds with Scripture. I’m pretty confident you won’t find this to be the case; however, I suppose you could be the first one in the last 1500 or so years.
I will say this again. Just because someone is questioning someones else teaching does not mean that that person is judging the teacher…
so…
1) Calling attention to what someone is teaching is not persecuting them.
2) pointing out what one believes to be the logical conclusion of another’s teachings and practices is not persecuting them.
3) Taking strong objection, even to the point of demonstrating emotion and using forceful language and occasional rhetoric devices, to another’s teachings is not persecuting them.
4) Warning others that they may be better off avoiding the teachings of certain ministers is not persecuting these ministers
Craig,
Thanks for your response! I hate it when I leave a reply on a blog that goes weeks without reply. Not the case here!
I have to say, I was getting skeptical that you even read the book as your page reference was off. But a search of the PDF using your quote soon turned it up on page 24. [ED: link now deleted]
That said…… I find myself at a bit of a corss roads here. Though I do and have always believed that Jesus is and was fully God, an equal 3rd of the trinity, that quote in context of the paragraph has me thinking a bit. It presents a challenge to what I have held fast and I need to process it a bit further.
Before I continue I want to remind you that the 4 pages I just read searching for the quote is the first I have ever read from Bill.
With that in mind I would like your thoughts on the following.
What do you make of Jesus statement; “the Son can do nothing …..” Do you think that Jesus can do nothing on His own, or do you believe none of the Trinity does anthing outside of the Father as they are , together one.
If you believe Jesus was God while on earth, do you believe he was then, not man at all but just took the image of man? (which I struggle with as we are already made in His image)
And this is the tipping question for me: Do you believe that we (born agin Christians) can today perform miracles equal to those performed and recorded in scripture?
From your reading of Bill, does he believe that he can also personally forgive sins of others not commited against him? IF so can you attach a book and page.
Lastly- Is this an issue of faith for you? Meaning If I believe that Jesus was powerless as God while on earth, drawing all his supernaturl powers only through the power of the Holy Spirit I can not be a Christian. (Without going to the extent of believing that I can, as He did, forgive sins)
Thanks again, must say that i was kind of laughing this off a bit at first but now am looking forward to your response.
My apologies if this is in the blog already, I have not read the entire thing.
James
james,
I must admit I was beginning to wonder if you were yet another ‘drive-by’ commentator. Thanks for coming back.
I’m short on time at present, but I will respond to a few things and provide you with enough reading to last a while
.
You wrote, “What do you make of Jesus statement; ‘the Son can do nothing …..’ Do you think that Jesus can do nothing on His own, or do you believe none of the Trinity does anthing outside of the Father as they are , together one.
If you believe Jesus was God while on earth, do you believe he was then, not man at all but just took the image of man? (which I struggle with as we are already made in His image)”
Jesus was fully God and fully man while walking the earth. Jesus ate, got tired, slept, increased in wisdom and stature illustrating He was fully man as God does not eat, grow weary, sleep, and is omniscient (all knowing). He had “life in Himself” [John 5:26] and therefore He gives life to whom He chooses [John 5:21]; yet, He only did what He saw the Father do [John 5:19 - the rest of the verse Johnson omits]. In other words, He was fully God as part of the Trinity [John 10:30; cf 8:58]. A careful reading of John 5:19-30 shows that Johnson’s proof-texting ‘proves’ the exact opposite of what Scripture reveals.
Keep in mind that the Father is God; Jesus is God; and the Holy Spirit is God. None are less than God and all are of the some homoousious [Greek transliterated] meaning substance.
For more explanation both of this passage [John 5:19] and also the extent of Johnson’s kenosis (doctrine of ‘self-emptying’) of Jesus, see here:
http://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/2011/06/16/kenosis-christology-and-bill-johnson-part-ii/
Part I of the above provides a very detailed technical background on kenosis: http://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/kenosis-christology-and-bill-johnson-part-i/
You wrote, “And this is the tipping question for me: Do you believe that we (born agin Christians) can today perform miracles equal to those performed and recorded in scripture?” That exact issue is addressed here:
http://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/2011/12/17/greater-works-shall-you-do/
I’ve compiled all the posts regarding Bill Johnson here: http://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/2012/01/19/anthology-of-bill-johnson-articles-so-far/
To continue discussing the issues you’ve raised that are addressed in the various posts referenced above I ask that you pose additional questions to the applicable article.
I’ve read quite a few of Johnson’s books with some sections being re-read dozens of times to be sure I’m not misunderstanding.
For convenience, before posting your next comment, if you’ll click the box next to “Notify me of new posts via email” under the comments box you will receive an email notification of any posts in the given thread.
james,
OK, now with a bit more time I’ll respond to your questions a bit more. You wrote, “…But a search of the PDF using your quote soon turned it up on page 24…” You had me scratching my head for a bit as I was SURE I had the correct page #, but, now I see the discrepancy. I was referring to the page number at the bottom of the page of the book (28) rather than the page referenced at the top next to the up and down arrows (24). This correlates to page 29 of the first edition paperback copy I have.
You wrote, “From your reading of Bill, does he believe that he can also personally forgive sins of others not commited against him?…” No, Johnson does not state this; however, he does intimate that we can reach a point of sinlessness in our earthly life at the bottom of page 28 to the top of 29 [24 and 25 at the arrows or 29-30 of the book proper]. I speak more on this in the following article under the Sinless at the Other Side of the Cross section:
http://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/2010/11/07/bill-johnsons-born-again-jesus-part-ii/
You wrote, “…Is this an issue of faith for you? If I believe that Jesus was powerless as God while on earth, drawing all his supernaturl powers only through the power of the Holy Spirit I can not be a Christian…”
No one is saved by perfect theology, that is, having perfect theology is not a prerequisite for salvation. Each one grows in knowledge (hopefully!) during our Christian walk as this is part of “making disciples of all nations” [see my Statement of Faith tab]. However, orthodoxy regarding Atonement requires Jesus to be a willing sacrifice, i.e., He must have had the ability to disobey and not go through with the Cross. Moreover, to be a perfect sacrifice He had to be God as God is the only one who is by nature sinless. Further, while there are differing interpretations of Jesus regarding the role of the Holy Spirit in His life in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke), the Gospel of John clearly portrays Jesus as performing the miraculous on His own most specifically in ‘giving life to whom He chooses’ [5:21] in the then present [5:24-25].
Having stated the above paragraph, it is absolutely a disgrace for a purported Christian minister to so distort the Incarnational Christ (Christ while He was on earth). Presenting a Jesus Christ who is different from the one in Scripture in the manner Johnson does amounts to a Christ who cannot effect Atonement which means no eternal life for anyone- a very serious problem! This is inexcusable for anyone behind a pulpit much less one of such influence as Bill Johnson. This is discussed in detail in the “Kenosis, Christology and Bill Johnson, part II” article referenced above.
Again, please make any further comments on the relevant thread(s).
james,
It’s now been nearly two weeks since my response to you. Are you still reading here? Are you still “thinking a bit” and therefore still formulating a response to my response to your comment?
The Presence & the Power by the late Wheaton College Professor, Gerald H. Hawthorne, will answer this challenge definitively by one of the leading Evangelical Greek scholars. Your misrepresenting Bill Johnson’s position amounts to bearing false witness and slander. Picking and choosing selective quotes can always make a person appear to be saying something or implying something they are not. Members of cults and non-Christian religions who deny the Deity of Christ do this by quoting selectively from the New Testament verses and passages that would “appear” to deny Christ’s deity while neglecting the countless passages that affirm His full divinity.
The one who issued the challenge needs to repent of sin for doing exactly the same thing with Bill Johnson’s writings. Disagree with a person’s theology. Don’t misrepresent their actual position. Shame on you.
David Hess,
It’s apparent you did not read the challenge. It’s a series of questions to see how the reader understands Bill Johnson’s selected quote.
Explain to me how the authors have misreprented Bill Johnson.
BTW, the correct word given your context would be “libel” rather than “slander”.
Oh, and by the way, the following series has many more quotes by Bill Johnson to support a kenotic Christology:
http://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/bill-johnsons-christology-a-new-age-christ/
Grace said, “Why don’t you try to love him instead. That’s what Jesus would do”
Does God disregard “theology” for the sake of love? Theology is simply the study of God. Jesus did not hesitate to point out wrong theology; theology being what was said, understood, and taught about God the Father and His plan for salvation.
It is imperative that we understand God on His terms. He has chosen to reveal Himself as recorded in the Scriptures and that must be our guideline. Yes, the scriptures say “God is Love” but they says so, so very much more.
We dare not make the mistake of understanding the love of God on human terms that equate love with niceness, compromise, apathy, conflict avoidance, smoothing-things-over, etc.
In our world we may look at books, blogs, podcasts and video to see what someone is teaching. To examine those things and compare them to scripture is the duty of every believer.
What WOULD Jesus do if He heard someone preaching a way of godliness that was not the gospel of Jesus Christ, God’s plan for salvation, a correct understanding of God Himself (including the Godhead and Divinity of Jesus)- in other words, wrong theology?
He would do what he DID.
Like in Matthew 23 when he pronounces several “woes” on to the ‘teachers’ who do not teach of the true gospel, but a man-made idea of how to be right in the eyes of God:
He said they neither enter nor permit those trying to enter to go in (to the kingdom of heaven).
He calls them blind guides
He says they teach all these minor side-issue insights, but completely miss the point of God’s
gospel- which, in relation to this post, is the Divinity of Jesus and that He alone saves.
He says they are full of greed and self ambition
He says they look righteous, but actually they are full of hypocrisy and every unclean thing
He calls them snakes and vipers
My point, Grace, is that Jesus Himself had no room to compromise the truth, and sometimes He was very “unloving” in His reaction to false teaching because He knows only the Truth sets us free and any man made additions to the truth or deviations from the truth, is a trap that keeps us from entering the Kingdom.
To ask someone to explain themselves, when they teach publicly and claim to be a preacher of the Gospel of Christ, is not being unloving. In this case the blogger is asking those who defend certain statements claiming to be the gospel of Christ to explain their support.
We should all be able to explain why we support what we support, and why we believe what we believe.
Given the amount of ‘hit and run’ comments, I will no longer allow any deviations from this “challenge” itself. This means: 1) the comment must follow the directions as put forth in this “open challenge”; and, 2) the comment must not continue to go beyond by making accusations, (pre)judgments against the authors of the challenge. Any comment deviating from these instructions will be summarily deleted. Before posting ANY comment on this site on any thread, one should read the “Before You Comment” tab at the top of this site. It would also be helpful to read the “Why CrossWise” tab as well.
If I had to respond to Bill Johnson’s claims in a few words, it would be to point out that his doctrine directly implies that human beings, without the need for Jesus, can be saved by avoiding sin just as he did. He downplays the need for being born again and receiving the power to overcome sin. He ignores the fact that the ability to overcome sin was in Jesus right from his birth and it is what we receive when we are born again.
zablon,
If I understand you correctly, you are stating, to rephrase a bit, that Johnson’s statement is implying that Jesus’ life of sinlessness is the model we are to follow for self-atonement. Is that correct?
Interestingly, Johnson was asked to clarify his stance on Christology to which he answered on Facebook two years ago (March 21, 2011):
Jesus was (and is) God. Eternally God. That never changed. But he chose to live with self imposed restriction while living on earth in the flesh – as a man. In doing so He defeated sin, temptation, the powers of darkness as a man. We inherit His victory – it was for us. He never sinned!
This would support your claim that it’s Jesus’ sinlessness as a man which is the “victory” here. This is a point I had made in this article
Some have taken this overall statement to mean that Johnson has affirmed that Jesus possessed all His divine attributes while incarnate yet chose not to use them. I beg to differ. If one sees that it’s Jesus’ sinlessness as a man which provided our “victory”, the question becomes when did Jesus make the choice to live as a man. Did the Word make this choice pre-incarnation? If so, was this a choice to totally divest Himself of divine attributes (explicit heresy because this means He was not God during the incarnation) or was this a choice to not use the divine attributes He would continue to possess (a position which is unbiblical and on that ground I’ve argued heretical [cf. John 2:11, John 2:19/John 10:18-19, John 5:21,24-25, Col 2:9, Col 1:17, Heb 1:3])? The way this statement is worded, either option could apply.
The “was (and is) God. Eternally God” could be taken that no cessation of the Word’s divinity had occurred. This would imply that Jesus possessed divine attributes yet willingly chose not to use them. On the other hand, this could be construed that Jesus “was” God pre-incarnation, that Jesus “is” God post-incarnation, yet during the Incarnation He really wasn’t God; this is because He is “eternally God” only, i.e., in the eternal realm He is God, yet in the temporal realm He is not. The latter explanation hinges on how Johnson conceives the relationship between the temporal and eternal realms. If Johnson believes they do not intersect, then his statement would be congruent with this belief.
One could think I’m really grasping at straws with this; however, I submit the following as evidence that Johnson explicitly denies Jesus’ divinity/deity while Incarnate:
…Jesus emptied Himself of divinity and became man (see Philippians 2:7). While He is eternally God, He chose to live within the restrictions of a man who had no sin and was empowered by the Holy Spirit. In doing this, He provided a compelling model for us to follow
I don’t see how the bolded portion could be any clearer: Jesus did not have divine attributes to use even if He wanted to while Incarnate. Yet, we have the same “eternally God” statement following. Either the entire statement is self-contradictory, or the explanation I’ve provided above is the answer. The same with the following:
While Jesus is eternally God, He emptied Himself of His divinity and became a man (see Phil. 2:7). It’s 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.
[Both quotes also from above hyper-link.]
There are lots of problems with the word of faith movement ie the Lord definatively wants a defined outcome. What has struck me is if we know the will of the Lord and ask according to it, it will be done. Few seem to find His will, which is not the same as faith.
Ofcourse if someone was perfect they would be acceptable to the Lord, but the point is because we are not born in communion with the Lord we sin, our hearts of love get callosed over and we lash out in pain.
What concerns me more about the word of faith is the idea prophesy is talking out anything in the name of Lord, believing it is true even when it is obviously false.
In the old testement this is called false prophecy and usually meant the prophet should be stoned. I am all for the gifts but not wishfull thinking.
Wishfull thinking is believing Todd Bentley will lead millions to the Lord.
How would you classify a man who claims to have raised 30+ people from the dead but cannot produce one testifiable example. The best words I could use are liar, charlatan, false teacher, but then maybe I am just being kind.
Who is the God who we follow? Is he not also the Lord of judgement among his own people but it appears some have forgotton who their Lord is and how he warns through scripture.
Peter,
From a Word of Faith viewpoint, what do you make of Johnson’s depiction of Jesus in this new “challenge”?:
http://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/2013/02/24/open-challenge-to-fans-and-critics-of-bill-johnsonbethel-church/
Here’s a link, http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/BTP/Dr_MR_DeHaan/Chemistry/04.htm. Hope you guys learn something about the blood of Jesus, and why it was special. He got a human body when He was born, thus making Him human. If the Holy Spirit did not come upon Him as after His baptism, He would not have been able to do the works of the Holy Spirit, thus He laid down His divine nature to experience fully what we all experience. From being born again up to when we will be made like Him. You have to understand it as a child and then it makes sense.
If He returns, and believe me He will and its closer than you all think, will He come on a rescue mission, or to establish His Kingdom reign?
wikazi,
No one is denying Jesus’ humanity; the point is that Jesus was (and is) both God and man. You start out fine in your line of argumentation with your first three sentences; however, it does not necessarily follow that “If the Holy Spirit did not come upon Him as after His baptism, He would not have been able to do the works of the Holy Spirit, thus He laid down His divine nature to experience fully what we all experience.”
1) How do you reconcile the bold portion with John 2:11?
11 What Jesus did here in Cana of Galilee was the first of the signs through which he revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him.
It was Jesus’ glory, not the Holy Spirit’s glory. Yes, Jesus performed this miracle after His baptism in the Jordan by John and after the Holy Spirit came upon Him “as a dove”; but, this does not mean that this or any of Jesus’ miracles were done by the power of the Holy Spirit rather than the omnipotence He possessed from eternity and continued to possess during His earthly ministry.
And, how do you reconcile that with John 5:21-25?
21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. 22 Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.
24 “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life. 25 Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and
has now come
when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. 27 And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.Wouldn’t Jesus’ ‘giving life to whom He chooses’ be indicative of His own divine working? One cannot argue that He ‘gave life’ during His earthly ministry by the power of the Holy Spirit, for if that’s true then all Holy Spirit indwelt Christians could do the same – obviously untrue. Moreover, Jesus is given the authority to judge – not just at the eschaton, but during His earthly ministry. This is made clear in verses 24 & 25 above.
You said, “If He returns, and believe me He will and its closer than you all think, will He come on a rescue mission, or to establish His Kingdom reign?” I’m not sure what this has to do with this particular post; nonetheless, of course, Jesus is returning to consummate “all things”.
Ok 1st of all, I am not a follower of a man or a man’s teachings or understanding of the bible. Be it who ever. The Word of GOD is the final authority there is in my life, and if it be, then I will stand for the truth as well.
Did you open the link and learn why the blood of Jesus made Him sinless? Because of that very aspect of the absence of sin in Jesus, that made Him to have life in Himself from the Father, because He had no sin. And in order to fully represent man, he had to be empowered from above with the Holy Spirit to do miracles. Just read in Acts what He told the disciples, *they will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon them,*my words. How do you understand the letter to the Ephesians? You say that the Holy Spirit does not give us power to do what Jesus did? Then actually you denying that Jesus said it Himself in Mark 16. Look, to make it simple, because this can turn into a veeeery lengthy debate, Jesus reconciled us to the Father by His sacrifice. In order to live the life (be a disciple of Jesus) we need the Holy Spirit. We can do NOTHING to please GOD, but have belief in what Jesus has done. Even the very faith is from GOD so that man can’t boast at all. What Jesus the Christ, our Lord and Savoir did during His earthly ministry was leaving us an exact copy to follow, not by our own strenght, but by the Holy Spirit, so that GOD can get the glory above all things, in all.
GOD in His nature is unchanging, He won’t let Jesus do things that we that believe in Him won’t be able to do, so please read Ephesians, the whole letter and maybe you will see something. Bill Johnson has never denied who Jesus is, He made it very clear in all his podcasts and literature.
wikazi,
Yes, I did read the link you provided. Given the thesis of DeHaan, why would you conclude that Jesus was somehow less than God if He had the Father’s ‘genes’?
You wrote, “I am not a follower of a man or a man’s teachings or understanding of the bible. Be it who ever. The Word of GOD is the final authority there is in my life, and if it be, then I will stand for the truth as well.”
The Word of God, Scripture, IS the final authority. That’s precisely why I quoted Scripture in my initial comment to you. This doesn’t have to be “a veeeery lengthy debate”; all you have to do is ponder the Scripture I quoted earlier and illustrate how those passages can be construed in any other manner except that Jesus Christ possessed divine attributes; and, therefore, He used His own omnipotence in the miracle at Cana (turning water into wine) and He used His own divine powers to effect eternal life during His earthly ministry. Who else but God could grant eternal life to the thief on the Cross?
You say you’re “not a follower of a man or a man’s teachings”, yet you are here defending Bill Johnson as an apparent follower:
Bill Johnson has never denied who Jesus is, He made it very clear in all his podcasts and literature.
Bill Johnson has effectively denied the full deity of Christ (as have you here) on multiple occasions.
I’d really like you to explain how John 2:11 and John 5:25 do not show that Jesus did the things in those passages by His own inherent divine powers. Unless and until you do so, I will not release any more of your comments, as, at present, you are dodging the questions.
The other problem is that man keeps interpreting that the decending of the spirit as a dove was an infilling of the Holy Spirit to give him some kind of power. I disagree. He was already full of the Spirit of God. The Dove decending was merely a visual to those around the incident to see that God accepted him or “claimed Him”, if you will to be “His Son”. Since he was conceived by the Holy Spirit, He was already filled with the Holy Spirit and since He was and is God as well, He already had the “dunamas” power to perform miracles as a “bond-servant”.
IWTT,
And right you are. This was a sign to John the Baptist:
32 Then John gave this testimony: “I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. 33 And I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’ 34 I have seen and I testify that this is God’s Chosen One.” [John 1:32-34, NIV]
Ok, so here now because I know for a fact you will again differ. John 2:11 u have to read under the light of John 20:30-31, which explains why John wrote his gospel. That was the first miracle John saw and noted as the first miracle of Jesus, AFTER His baptism with the Holy Spirit. Within context, because no one of His disciples would have believed in Him if they didn’t witness either the baptism or the 1st miracle, so that was done for them to believe
John 5:25 in context: Jesus was talking about His resurrection and pointing to that. Remember, He came for what reason? To fullfill the law and pay the penalty of the law, which is death, not for His sin, as He was sinless, but for the sin of the whole world. And by being resurrected He became the firstfruits of many who believed, believe and will believe.
You accuse me of denying the deity of Christ, yet you do not know me from a block of chocolate brother! And by saying I am an adamant follower of Bill Johnson? I don’t believe so, I defend him because I love him as my brother in Christ, I am not you.
Jesus commanded we love each other as He loved us, therefore those who name and shame stand directly oppose to what He commanded and are directly disobedient to the Son of GOD,
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.
Its fine, you can live under the law if you wish, I will live under grace
I forgive you for what you are doing and for what you are still going to do by crucifying the sons of GOD. I speak as a prophet and ambassador of Christ
I don’t see how John 20:30-31 proves your point. Jesus had already stated
36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” [John 10:36-38, NIV]
Not one of us are “His very own”; we were bought with a price – Christ’s sacrifice – and, as a result are adopted as sons/daughters. None of us have a mother who had been ‘come upon’ by the Holy Spirit for our conception. Jesus is the one unique God-man – fully God, including all divine attributes (how could He be fully God without all divine attributes?), and fully man.
John 5:25 very clearly states that the time now is that “the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live”, i.e. have “eternal life” (v 24). Again, who else could grant the thief on the cross eternal life but God; and, how would Jesus Christ, as God, be able to grant this eternal life by any means other than divine authority?
This granting of eternal life (and passing judgment – see John 9:39-42 also) that Jesus Christ did during His earthly ministry is what is called inaugurated eschatology. The Kingdom of God had already begun, yet it’s consummation will not be until Christ returns. This is known as the “already, but not yet”.
You wrote, “You accuse me of denying the deity of Christ, yet you do not know me from a block of chocolate brother!” Here are your words from earlier:
…He laid down His divine nature…
Ponder this: could you “lay down” your human nature, and yet still be human? That’s rhetorical, not needing a response.
Its fine, you can live under the law if you wish, I will live under grace
Properly exegeting Scripture is not ‘living under the law’.
Jesus isn’t returning for a weakling Church as most of you believe
This goes to show that you are listening to man, as Scripture does not support this view in any fashion. In any case, this is WAY off the subject of this post.
I forgive you for what you are doing and for what you are still going to do by crucifying the sons of GOD.
So, I’m crucifying both Bill Johnson and you, eh? You’ve no idea what persecution is. Tell that to the Christians living in Muslim countries.
Anyway, let’s stay on point here. I’ll edit out any other superfluous parts of any further comments.
Yet, again I ask you how can John 2:11, in its immediate context, mean that it wasn’t Jesus own glory on display rather than the Holy Spirit’s?
wikazi,
BTW, no one is arguing against the fact that Jesus only performed miracles after His baptism. His baptism by John was not an empowering; it was a commissioning. And it was a visual ‘sign’ for John the Baptist.
Truly GOD did hid these things from the so called wise, referring to you not knowing John 20, and I wonder if you expect a prize from GOD for what you are doing Craig? I can think of 1 thing you are doing and that’s being disobedient to the Lord, cancel my posts as you wish, as long as you read them and know you stand accountable then
Bitterness has sprung up in your heart, and you unclothe the very annointing GOD placed on your own life for a self righteous outfit of a modern day hypocrite. Loveless indeed
So, the ad hominem begins. I can always just block you; then, I’d not even have to see them come onto the site at all.
Here’s another quote of Johnson, FYI:
…Jesus emptied Himself of divinity and became man (see Philippians 2:7). While He is eternally God, He chose to live within the restrictions of a man who had no sin and was empowered by the Holy Spirit. In doing this, He provided a compelling model for us to follow.
I don’t think that post can be any more clear: Jesus was no longer God (except in the eternal realm – NOT in the temporal realm), according to Bill Johnson. That’s rank heresy!