Bill Johnson’s Christology: A New Age Christ?, part I
March 11, 2012 333 Comments
[See also: The Christ Anointing and the Antichrist Spirit, Part II, Part IIIa, Part IIIb and Part IV (Conclusion)]
Heresy has become the term used to describe anyone who disagrees with a particular leader, but that is not so. We need to give more grace to those who differ from us. The essential doctrines of the church – the Virgin Birth, the divinity and humanity of Jesus, the Atonement, and the like – qualify as issues we should fight for.
- Bill Johnson1
There are certainly those who are hasty in labeling doctrines as heresy when they are not really so. This is both irresponsible and hurtful to the body of Christ. Let’s call teachings heresy and teachers heretics only when this is indisputably evident.
By inference, it would be fair to assume that with Bill Johnson’s statement above he would define heresy as any doctrine which departs from the orthodox Christian teachings on the essentials of the faith. These are “issues we should fight for” and Johnson should consider the following a fight, a defense of the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ and the Atonement over against Johnson’s own doctrine with respect to these essentials.
This article will restate and clarify Bill Johnson’s teaching on Christology – the study of the person and work of Jesus Christ – which has been the subject of many different articles here on CrossWise. Johnson’s Christology will then be compared to that of New Age / New Spirituality teaching which is really not very ‘new’ as it goes all the way back to the early Church.
Preliminary Background
In Constance Cumbey’s pioneering work, the 1983 book The Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow, is the assertion that New Age Christology meets the test of antichrist as per the Apostle John in his first epistle [1 John 2:22].2 Cumbey notes that “New Agers generally do not openly repudiate Christianity”. Instead “they often clothe New Age concepts in Christian language and…undermine Christianity while pretending to be its friend”.3 This was the specific goal outlined by Alice Bailey in her numerous writings (most of which were channeled through her by “Master Djwhal Khul”) and it’s these writings which form much of the basis for the current New Age / New Spirituality:4
The Christian church in its many branches can serve as a St. John the Baptist, as a voice crying in the wilderness, and as a nucleus through which world illumination may be accomplished…The church must show a wide tolerance…The church as a teaching factor should take the great basic doctrines and (shattering the old forms in which they are expressed and held) show their true and inner spiritual significance [ED: occult/esoteric meaning]. The prime work of the church is to teach, and teach ceaselessly, preserving the outer appearance in order to reach the many who are accustomed to church usages. Teachers must be trained; Bible knowledge must be spread; the sacraments must be mystically interpreted, and the power of the church to heal must be demonstrated.5
In a 1982 letter to Cumbey, Marilyn Ferguson, author of the New Age book The Aquarian Conspiracy: Personal and Social Transformation in the 1980’s, defends her professed stance as a ‘Christian’ yet she promotes liberal, non-Christian methods to expand Christianity while simultaneously denigrating orthodox teaching:
My definition of Christianity has expanded over the years. After I became involved in meditation, for example, I experienced the vision of Christ more vividly than I ever had through sermons and dogma. You would be surprised, I think, to know how much of the New Age Movement centers on Christ Consciousness. Many Christian churches are seeing that direct spiritual experience offers a revitalization for modern Christianity.6
“Christ consciousness” is another term for the “expansion of consciousness” or “transformation of consciousness” akin to contemplative prayer aka centering prayer which are all in reality much like transcendental meditation (TM) in methodology. [See “Christ Consciousness” section of the “Christ” in the New Age article.] Note how Ferguson stresses spiritual experience, i.e. mysticism, over “sermons or dogma”. She appears to be following the agenda as set forth by Alice Bailey in the above quote. As Bailey states elsewhere, “Christianity will not be superseded. It will be transcended…”7
Bill Johnson’s Christology Explained
In essence, Bill Johnson, Senior Pastor of Bethel Church in Redding, CA, a recognized “apostle” by some, teaches that at conception, or at least prior to the Virgin Birth, Jesus divested Himself of all His divine attributes thereby living a sinless earthly existence by being totally reliant upon the Holy Spirit while receiving the power to do miracles at His baptism. This divine self-emptying is known as the kenosis doctrine as discussed here. The quotes used in this section are taken from six different books by Bill Johnson (and one sermon) to illustrate that this teaching undergirds his entire theology.
Jesus did everything as a man, laying aside His divinity in order to become a model for us.8
…Jesus did everything in His earthly ministry as a man who had set aside all His divine privileges and power in order to model the Christian life for us.9
..Jesus set aside His divinity, choosing instead to live as a man completely dependent on God.10
…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…11
The above quotes can be construed such that Jesus retained all His divine attributes yet chose not to exercise them; however, the following illustrates that He no longer had inherent deity:12
Jesus Christ said of Himself, ‘The Son can do nothing.’ In the Greek language that word nothing has a unique meaning—it means NOTHING, just like it does in English! He had NO supernatural capabilities whatsoever!…He performed miracles, wonders, and signs, as a man in right relationship to God…not as God.13
…Jesus had no ability to heal the sick. He couldn’t cast out devils, and He had no ability to raise the dead. He said of Himself in John 5:19, ‘the Son can do nothing of Himself.’ He had set aside His divinity. He did miracles as man in right relationship with God because He was setting forth a model for us, something for us to follow….Jesus so emptied Himself that He was incapable of doing what was required of Him by the Father – without the Father’s help…14
Given that deity is by very definition supernatural, Johnson has, in effect, reduced Jesus to less than God. With Johnson’s claim that Jesus had no inherent ability to perform miracles in and of Himself, it is clear that Johnson means Jesus no longer had his divine attributes to utilize even if He so desired. He “had NO supernatural capabilities”; He was totally and completely a man but “in right relationship to God” by the Holy Spirit:
The Father, by the Holy Spirit, directed all that Jesus said and did.15
Analytic theologian Oliver Crisp describes this view that Jesus Christ performed all His miracles by the Holy Spirit rather than His inherent divinity/deity as “not conventional”.16 Furthermore, this doctrine is simply not Biblically accurate. Jesus certainly exercised His deity in providing life to whom He “is pleased to give it” [John 5:21, NIV 1984] during His earthly ministry pre-Cross [John 5:24-25; cf. Luke 23:43].17 This life-giving to the believer was performed by Jesus not as an agent through whom the Spirit worked but because Jesus had “life in himself” [John 5:26].18 In other words, the life Jesus Christ as God the Son gives to those who believe comes from God the Father since both are part of the Triune Godhead. Jesus was not an intermediary per se in this regard.19
Johnson makes the explicit claim that Jesus became the Christ after coming up out of the water at His baptism in the Jordan by John when the Spirit came upon Him as a dove at which point He received the “Christ anointing” (see quote further below) contradicting Luke 1:35/2:11 [cf. Matt 1:22-23/Isaiah 7:14, etc.]. Brackets are inserted to provide explanation:
Christ is not Jesus’ last name. The word Christ means “Anointed One” or “Messiah.” It [Christ] is a title that points to an experience [Spirit resting upon Him after baptism in the Jordan]. It was not sufficient that Jesus be sent from heaven to earth with a title [Christ]. He had to receive the anointing[“Christ anointing” resulting in Christ title] in an experience [Spirit resting upon Him] to accomplish what the Father desired.
The word anointing means “to smear.” The Holy Spirit is the oil of God that was smeared all over Jesus at His water baptism. The name Jesus Christ implies that Jesus is the One smeared with the Holy Spirit [after water baptism in the Jordan].20
Admittedly, this is a bit confusing; but, with his concluding sentence above logic follows that if “the name Jesus Christ implies that Jesus is the One smeared with the Holy Spirit” immediately following John’s baptism, then, by further implication, before baptism He must have been simply Jesus of Nazareth [again, contrary to Luke 1:35/2:11]. Bill Johnson is more direct in the following:
The outpouring of the Spirit also needed to happen to Jesus for Him to be fully qualified. This was His quest. Receiving this anointing qualified Him to be called the Christ, which means “anointed one.” Without the experience [“Christ anointing” by the Spirit after water baptism] there could be no title.21
In Christian orthodoxy the term “Christ” denotes deity/divinity22 which would mean that in Johnson’s Christology Jesus was not divine before the Holy Spirit came upon Him after His baptism by John in the Jordan and, consequently, Jesus would be made divine by virtue of this “Christ anointing” after which He is “qualified” to be called Christ. This is exactly Johnson’s intended meaning:
…The anointing is what linked Jesus, the man, to the divine enabling Him to destroy the works of the devil.23
This statement flows logically from all the previous statements. This “anointing” ‘enabled Him’ for He had “NO supernatural capabilities whatsoever” having laid His divine attributes aside. To reiterate, if, as in the Johnson Christology, the ‘anointing’ “linked Jesus, the man, to the divine” then, as implied earlier, Jesus is merely a human made divine at baptism by virtue of the “Christ anointing” by the Holy Spirit coming upon Him. Further, this would infer that as others receive this same “Christ anointing” they too would be “linked to the divine” in the same manner. The following adds weight to this inference:
…The outpouring of the Spirit comes to anoint the church with the same Christ anointing that rested upon Jesus in His ministry so that we might be imitators of Him…24
Moreover, given that Jesus was called “Christ” when He was, as Johnson puts it, “smeared by the Holy Spirit”, believers should logically be called “Christ” at this “Christ anointing”, too.
Johnson calls Jesus’ second baptism in the Jordan (the first is water, the second follows and is by the Holy Spirit coming upon Him) the “baptism in the Holy Spirit” and this is available to all who believe.25 This is consistent with the over-arching theme permeating all Johnson’s work that “Jesus is our model”. After quoting John 1:32, “I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and He remained upon Him” [NKJV] Johnson continues
…Certainly this is not talking about the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit that was already in Jesus’s life. This was the inauguration of Jesus’s ministry, and the Holy Spirit came to rest upon Him [baptism in the Holy Spirit / “Christ anointing”] as a mantle of power and authority for that specific purpose. But the fact that the Holy Spirit came to rest on Him is evidence of Jesus’s faithfulness to be perfectly trustworthy with the presence of God. The same principle is true for us.
The Holy Spirit lives in every believer, but He rests upon very few…26
Johnson continues to drive home his assertion that Jesus was not inherently God but merely divine by virtue of the Holy Spirit as He was “perfectly trustworthy with the presence of God” (“the presence of God” being the “Christ anointing” or “baptism in the Holy Spirit”) so that the Spirit of God did “rest upon Him”. And we can enjoy this same privilege if we are just as ‘faithful’ proving that we are “trustworthy”.
This anointing [“Christ anointing” / “baptism in the Holy Spirit”] is what enabled Jesus to do only what He saw the Father do, and to say only what He heard the Father say. It was the Holy Spirit that revealed the Father to Jesus.27
It was the Holy Spirit upon Jesus [“baptism in the Holy Spirit” / “Christ anointing”] that enabled Him to know what the Father was doing and saying. That same gift of the Spirit has been given to us for that same purpose.28
If the Son of God was that reliant upon the anointing, His behavior should clarify our need for the Holy Spirit’s presence upon us [“baptism in the Holy Spirit”] to do what the Father has assigned….This anointing [“Christ anointing”] is actually the person of the Holy Spirit upon someone to equip them for supernatural endeavors.29
The second baptism deals with…getting us filled with God so we can walk with Him and more effectively represent Him as His agents of power on the earth.30
Without this “Christ anointing” there seems to be no possibility that God could perform supernatural works through an individual (including Jesus Christ) in Johnson’s theology. The individual is simply powerless until this second “baptism in the Holy Spirit”. In addition, one receives the ability to “walk with God” only after receiving this “Christ anointing” / “baptism in the Holy Spirit”.
Jesus’ inherent powerlessness is carried all the way beyond the Cross to the Resurrection thereby negating the efficacy of Jesus Christ’s Atonement for our sins.31 He cannot even raise Himself from the dead contrary to John 2:19/10:17-18:
…The sacrifice that could atone for sin had to be a lamb, (powerless), and had to be spotless, (without sin).
The anointing Jesus received was the equipment necessary, given by the Father to make it possible for Him to live beyond human limitation…32
…Jesus gave Himself to be crucified. He did not raise Himself from the dead…His job was to give His life to die. The Father raised Him by the Spirit…33
Of course He did not raise Himself from the dead; He could not as He was “powerless” except by virtue of the “Christ anointing” according to Johnson. Faulty Christology always has negative implications on the Atonement.
Bill Johnson’s Christology can certainly be described as heresy. It is known as separationist Christology34 for it separates Christ from Jesus and vice versa. By definition, as Cumbey states above, it meets the test of antichrist as it denies Jesus is the Christ [1 John 2:22] since He is only human (having “laid His divinity aside”) and becomes Christ only by virtue of the “Christ anointing” which also, in effect, denies Jesus is the Son of the Father (as opposed to merely a son) which in turn denies the Father [1 John 2:22-23];35 moreover, Johnson’s Christology denies that the person of Jesus Christ has come in the flesh [1 John 4:1-3] since it was merely Jesus of Nazareth who came in the flesh.
However, Johnson at times makes statements which appear entirely orthodox in and of themselves:
Jesus Christ was entirely God. He was not a created being. Yet He became a man and lived entirely by man’s limitations…36
The first two sentences are completely orthodox while the third is not, yet this third sentence is consistent with Johnson’s Christology as put forth in the foregoing. Confoundingly, these first two seem to contradict the rest of Johnson’s Christological doctrine – but, do they really? Keeping in mind the Alice Bailey goal of “transcending” Christianity by “preserving the outer appearance in order to reach the many who are accustomed to church usages” let’s compare the above with these two quotes from the well known New Age book The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ:
Before creation was, the Christ walked with the Father God…The Christ is son, the only son begotten by the Almighty God…37
We recognize the facts that Jesus was man and that Christ was God, so that in very truth Jesus the Christ was the God-man of the ages.38
Notice how, in the New Age version, Christ is distinct from Jesus for Christ was God as God’s son while Jesus was merely a man. This is not inconsistent with the Christological views of Johnson as shown in this article. This will be explored in much more detail in Part II, Part IIIa, Part IIIb, and Part IV (Conclusion) of this article.
[For more on Johnson's Christology, including more indications of a separationist Christology, see "The Christ Anointing and the Antichrist Spirit".]
1Johnson, Bill Face to Face with God: The Ultimate Quest to Experience His Presence. 2007, Charisma House, Lake Mary, FL; p 71. Emphasis in original.
2Cumbey, Constance. The Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow: The New Age Movement and Our Coming Age of Barbarism. 1983, rev. ed., Huntington House, Shreveport, LA; p 146. This resource is also available as a free download at <https://public.me.com/cumbey> “HIDDEN DANG…ND COVER.pdf”
3Cumbey, Hidden Dangers, p 146. Emphasis added.
4Cumbey, Hidden Dangers, p 39
5Bailey, Alice A. The Externalisation of the Hierarchy. © 1957 Lucis, NY, 6th printing 1981; Fort Orange Press, Albany, NY; pp 510-511; [underscore from emphasis in original; bold added for my own emphasis.] While the book was not published until 1957, most sections within the book have corresponding dates of initial writing, or, more accurately, transmission. The portion quoted here is from 1919, some of the earliest writings of Bailey/The Tibetan.
6Cumbey, Hidden Dangers, pp 146-147
7Bailey, Alice A. From Bethlehem to Calvary:The Initiations of Jesus. © 1937 by Alice A. Bailey, renewed 1957 by Foster Bailey; Lucis Trust, 4th paperback ed., 1989; Fort Orange Press, Albany, NY; p 20. Emphasis added.
8Johnson, Bill Strengthen Yourself in the Lord. 2007, Destiny Image, Shippensburg, PA; p 26
9Johnson, Bill. Release the Power of Jesus. 2009, Destiny Image “Speaking to the Purposes of God for this Generation and the Generations to Come”, Shippensburg, PA; p 79
10Johnson, Bill Face to Face, p 108
11Johnson, Bill, When Heaven Invades Earth: A Practical Guide to a Life of Miracles. 2003, Treasure House/Destiny Image, Shippensburg, PA; p 79
12The terms “deity” and “divinity” are used throughout this article interchangeably (as always on CrossWise unless specifically identified otherwise) both defined as “God” or “godlikeness”. Bill Johnson seems to prefer “divinity” over “deity” as the latter is not readily found in his material. He uses “divinity” as in “godlikeness” e.g. divine attributes.
13Johnson, Heaven Invades, p 29. Emphasis and last ellipsis as per original; underscore added for my emphasis.
14Johnson, Bill, The Supernatural Power of a Transformed Mind: Access to a Life of Miracles. 2005, Destiny Image: “Speaking to the Purposes of God for This Generation and for the Generations to Come”, Shippensburg, PA; p 50. Emphasis and last ellipsis as per original except underscore added for my emphasis.
15Johnson, Face to Face, p 108
16Crisp, Oliver D. Divinity and Humanity: The Incarnation Reconsidered. (Current Issues in Theology series) 2007, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK; p 25. Crisp continues, “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.” Crisp is being polite in not calling this view heterodox or heresy given that Crisp’s point was that such a view violates the Chalcedonian Creed which itself was codified in order to combat the heresies of its day and to provide a means by which to judge future doctrine. To be at odds with Chalcedon is to be in the realm of heterodoxy.
17To make the claim that it was by the Holy Spirit that Jesus “gave life” logically infers that any Holy Spirit indwelt individual can give life to whom s/he chooses – obviously an incorrect assertion.
18Marianne Meye Thompson explains [The God of the Gospel of John. 2001, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI]: “[T]he Son partakes of the very life of the Father: the Son has life in himself. Therefore, when Jesus confers life on those who believe, they also participate in and have to do with the life of the Father because the Father has given the Son to have life in himself, even as he has it. Such predications assume and are dependent upon the conviction that there is but one God, one source of life. Jesus is not a second deity, not a second source of life, standing alongside the Father. Rather, the Son confers the Father’s life, which he has in himself” [p 78; italics in original, underscore added]. “[T]he Son exercises certain divine prerogatives and…exercises them even as God does….Jesus exercises these powers as no other figure – save God – can or does” [p 175].
19Herman Ridderbos expounds [The Gospel of John: A Theological Commentary. 1997, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI; translated from the Dutch by John Vriend], “Just as the Father as Creator and Consummator possesses life, he has given that possession to the Son, not merely as the executor of incidental assignments but in the absolute sense of sharing in the Father’s power. And it is on account of that power and authority that the great decisive ‘hour’ of God is not only coming but here” (during the Incarnation). [p 178; emphasis in original]
20Johnson, Heaven Invades, p 79. Underscore added; other emphasis in original.
21Johnson, Face to Face, p 109. Underscore added; other emphasis in original.
22Grudem, Wayne Systematic Theology. 1994, Inter-Varsity, Grand Rapids, MI; pp 233-38, 543-554, 624-33. Also, Berkhof, Louis Systematic Theology. 1941, 4th revised and enlarged ed, 1991, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI; pp 91-5, 312-13, 356-66.
23Johnson, Heaven Invades, p 79. Underscore added.
24Johnson, Face to Face, p 77. Underscore added.
25Johnson, Face to Face, pp 79, cf. 21-22, 58, 77-82, 100-102
26Johnson, Face to Face, pp 21-22. Underscore added. “The first baptism deals with getting us out of the red…The second baptism deals with getting us into the black – getting us filled with God so we can walk with Him and more effectively represent Him as His agents of power on the earth” [p 58].
27Johnson, Heaven Invades, p 80. Underscore added. This creates a logical fallacy within the Johnson theology: if Jesus could only see/hear the Father by virtue of the “Christ anointing” He received at John’s baptism, how could He know to ‘be about His Father’s business’ [Luke 2:49] as a 12 year old?
28Johnson, Bill Dreaming with God: Secrets to Redesigning Your World Through God’s Creative Flow. 2006, Destiny Image: “Speaking to the Purposes of God for This Generation and for the Generations to Come”, Shippensburg, PA; p 136
29Johnson, Heaven Invades, p 80
30Johnson, Face to Face, p 58
31Insufficient Atonement means no salvation for the sinner. No salvation means no eternal life! As Erwin Lutzer contends [The Doctrines That Divide: A Fresh Look at the Historic Doctrines That Separate Christians. 1998, Kregel, Grand Rapids, MI]: “…The real question is whether [Jesus] Christ is capable of being the Savior of mankind” [p 33]. “If [Jesus] Christ is not God, then God has not saved us” [p 34]. “Only an incarnate Christ who is fully God qualifies to be Savior” [p 36].
32Johnson, Heaven Invades, p 79. Underscore added.
33“ewenhoffman” Maintaining the crosswalk- sermon of the week Feb 27th 2011. <http://ewenhuffman.podbean.com/2011/03/01/maintaining-the-crosswalk-sermon-of-the-week-feb-27th-2011/> 16:45-17:00. Emphasis in original; underscore added. As accessed 03/11/12. Johnson stated the same basic thing on Facebook in mid-February of 2011 in an exchange with Kevin Moore: “…He needed to be raised from the dead. Acts 13 calls Him ‘the first born from the dead.’ He did not raise Himself. The Father through the Spirit raised Him…”
34This term is defined in Heikki Raisanen’s The Rise of Christian Beliefs [2010, Fortress, Minneapolis, MN; p 208].
35Judith M. Lieu [I, II & III John: A Commentary. 2008, Westminster John Knox, Louisville, KY] makes an excellent point on this verse by putting it in proper context: “It appears that what sounds like the traditional formula of belief in Jesus as Messiah has taken on a new dimension of sonship…This confirms that the force of the correct confession is ‘that Jesus is the Christ,’ and not, as is grammatically possible, ‘that the Christ [about whom we know] is Jesus [rather than someone else or as not yet appeared]’…The author’s logic is simple and can be understood within its immediate context. His strategy is to start from what matters: the real charge is not about ‘the Christ,’…Rather, it is that the antichrist denies the Father and the Son: this is no longer denial of belief about (‘that’) but a refusal to acknowledge…it is ultimately a question of acknowledging, or denying the Son…the Son is Son only in relation to the Father, and the Father is Father only in relation to the Son; to reject the Son is to reject both, even if this was not the intention” [p 106]. While Lieu refers to “sonship” this explanation works just as well with the respect to separationist Christology.
36Johnson, Face to Face, p 199. Johnson’s phraseology here sounds not like ontological kenosis but rather metamorphosis instead: God the Son literally transforms Himself into a fully human being devoid of any deity/divinity.
37Dowling, Levi. The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ: The Philosophic and Practical Basis of the Religion of the Aquarian Age of the World. © 1907 Eva S. Dowling and Leo W. Dowling, © 1935 and © 1964 Leo W. Dowling, (11th printing, 1987), DeVorss, Marina del Rey, CA; p 6. On page 3 is the following from the “Introduction” by Eva S. Dowling: “The full title of this book is ‘The Aquarian Age Gospel of Jesus, the Christ of the Piscean Age’…”
38Dowling, Aquarian Gospel, p 8
Claiming that Jesus lived by voluntary limitation in the exercise of his divine attributes is the definition of functional(ist) kenosis. All it takes is one Scriptural proof that functional(ist) kenosis does not line up with the full counsel of Scripture to prove that doctrine false. John 5:21, 24-25 proves it false and therefore unorthdox which is by definition heresy.
And, Johnson, by claiming “Jesus so emptied himself that He was incapable…” and “He had NO supernatural capabilities whatsoever” implicate ontological kenosis (or, worse, metamorphosis) which negates the functional(ist) claim.
[For more on why John 5:21, 24-25 affirm that Jesus used His own divinity see footnotes 18 and 19 in the article and footnotes 102 - 107 in my previous article on kenosis]
I think the bottom line to me here is that his theology is incoherent and contradictory. There are certainly things that he says that by themselves sound like ontological kenosis. I don’t know that we will ever make it all fit neatly together in the way we would hope to be able to. But when he has also made very orthodox statements, I don’t think it is fair to take the unorthodox and assume that they are the ones that are the overriding statements and discount the others.
He may very well be influenced by new age ideas, I think the whole WoF movement is very much influenced by the new age. In fact, I think ideas were borrowed directly from the new age if my understanding is correct. I don’t think that proves that those teaching these ideas today believe they are teaching new age rather then Christianity however.
It is possible that he is someone that is setting out to directly deceive the church. Is it not also possible that he is simply a very deceived person that whole heartedly believes what he is teaching without delving into the ramifications and problems caused by his beliefs?
When someone gives a very direct answer to a question for claritiy about his Christological beliefs, that statement is an orthodox statement, and he has made other statements affiming the same thing in the past, I believe we have to give him at least the benefit of the doubt that he really does believe that Jesus is/was and always has been eternally God. Even if we can’t see how the rest of his statements fit in. Unless we are willing to judge his heart and motives here and state that he is at least more then likely to be a wolf/deliberate deceiver, I don’t think we have any other choice in the matter.
But again, just for clarity sake, I don’t agree with his teaching. And if nothing else at all were said about it, I think the lack of clarity he has shown is very damaging and that it can lead his followers off to all kinds of things that are even more extreme. And that has been seen in some of the comments on FB by some of those followers. And it goes without saying that I disagree vehemently with a whole lot of the other stuff that is a part of Bethel and all things “hypercharismatic”.
And that is the end of my very long answer. And I just hope it makes my thoughts on the subject at least a little bit clearer then mud!
Craig, your claim that functional kenosis is obviously Biblically false would be argued against vehemently by quite a few other Christians out there these days! Including I am sure the verses in John that you say prove it false.
So if he believes in functional kenosis, he is in the company of many, many other current day Christians.
cherylu,
I think your answer is clear enough. The one thing I do know is that God is not the author of confusion.
I’ve no problem backing up the claim re: functionalist kenosis (as defined as Jesus not using omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience during His earthly ministry) by using a number of scholars far more learned than me. I’ve already cited 4 in the footnotes I reference.
The one thing I do know is that God is not the author of confusion
No arguments with that statement. But considering that the whole church across the board is filled with confusion these days, I am not sure that proves anything regarding Johnson trying to delberately deceive. There are umpteen “takes” on just about every theological issue you can possibly think of out there today. ( If you don’t believe that, just get on one of the Christian forums out there and spend a little time. Or look at the myriad denominations we have. All with their own take on things .) And each side of the issue is convinced that they are the one understanding things correctly from a Biblical standpoint. I don’t think that means that any of them are setting out to delieberately deceive the rest of us. Confusion abounds.
Unfortunately, much of the theological debates and confusion have been because of the Hegalian dialectic process. The sheep in the pews, the general layperson, is left to fend for himself theologically. I believe this is why confusion abounds on Christian forums.
That doesn’t explain all of the multitudes of denominations out there and all of the different takes on things they have had. That has been going on for many years now.
I grew up thinking the church I was familiar with and the things I had learned as a child were “the right way.” Then as I got older and spent some time in other church groups/denominations for one reason or another, I saw that their take on things may have been quite different then the one I grew up with. And they were just as convinced that they were right as mine was. And of course that ends up at times with statements to the effect that, “we are the only ones that are right and all of the rest of you are wrong.”
Just because someone says some things wrong does it mean we can’t listen to anything else they say? Yes, according to Scripture that is right.
Blind guides, hypocritical liars, talking out of both sides of their mouth, causing divisions to the body of Christ, having a form of godliness but denying the power…have nothing to do with them.
Cheylu, I’d say you have to make a decision to obey the word. You can’t be on both sides at the same time. Because BJ has confusion and heresy in his teachings, we don’t have to extend to him some sort of “fairness” in our dealing with him. He is a wolf.
Bud said it best…Nowhere in Scripture does God sympathize with false teachers and false prophets. In other words, God doesn’t cut them any slack. He defines what they do, and commands Christians to avoid them and expose them (Jeremiah chapter 23; 2 Peter 2:1; 2 Corinthians 6:14; Ephesians 5:11-12, and many more).
To me you are offering some kind of sympathetic awareness. That is just plain bogus. You can argue till you are blue in the face but you are just smudging the lines, and confusing the truth. And that’s my final say. Back to work….
Craig,
Here are some examples that I can think of where confusion abounds in the church. Some of these are hundreds of years old and I don’t think the Hegalian dialectic likely has anything to do with them at all:
What about all of the differences of opinion on the mode and meaning of baptism? I believe that goes back to the Reformation days, does it not?
How about the continuation/cessation debates? That one is quite old too. And there is a huge spectrum of difference of opinion along what could be called a sliding scale in and between those two “camps” too.
Or the Calvinism/Arminianism debate. Again, in just it’s current form it is hundreds of years old. And as with the continuation/cessationism debate, there are a lot of nuances/differing perspectives on both sides of that issue too.
Or how about pre-trib, post-trip, pre-millenial, post-millenial, a-millenial, partial preterist, or full preterist understandings of things? Now there is a can of worms if I ever saw one!
And the last one I am thinking of at the moment is the differences in understanding of Communion. Is it done simply as a “remembrance” of Jesus death or is there something spiritual that actually occurs when we receive it? And if the latter position is accepted, there are also differing opinions of the “whats and hows” of that. In one current denomination, your understanding of this matter is a determining factor in church membership and if you are allowed as a guest to receive communion in one of their fellowships.
I guess my whole point is that confusion in the church has abounded for a very, very long time. It is nothing new. It didn’t begin with the fairly modern idea of the Hegalian dialectic or on modern day Christian forums. And it certainly didn’t begin with Bill Johnson!
cherylu [re: 3/15 11:34am & 12:18],
But, that in no way excuses anything that is blatantly anti-Biblical. Functionalist kenosis is shown false by John 5:21 – it states plainly that Jesus gave life to whom He chose. Quoting Marianne Meye Thompson (footnote 18):
- Marianne Meye Thompson explains [The God of the Gospel of John. 2001, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI]: “[T]he Son partakes of the very life of the Father: the Son has life in himself [v 26]. Therefore, when Jesus confers life on those who believe, they also participate in and have to do with the life of the Father because the Father has given the Son to have life in himself, even as he has it. Such predications assume and are dependent upon the conviction that there is but one God, one source of life. Jesus is not a second deity, not a second source of life, standing alongside the Father. Rather, the Son confers the Father’s life, which he has in himself” [p 78; italics in original, bold added]. “[T]he Son exercises certain divine prerogatives and…exercises them even as God does….Jesus exercises these powers as no other figure – save God – can or does” [p 175].
…and Herman Ridderbos (footnote 19):
- Herman Ridderbos expounds [The Gospel of John: A Theological Commentary. 1997, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI; translated from the Dutch by John Vriend], “Just as the Father as Creator and Consummator possesses life, he has given that possession to the Son, not merely as the executor of incidental assignments but in the absolute sense of sharing in the Father’s power. And it is on account of that power and authority that the great decisive ‘hour’ of God is not only coming but here” (during the Incarnation). [p 178; emphasis in original]
While there are numerous denominational differences, these are not what are at issue here. If any church adheres to a functional(ist) kenosis, they are adhering to false Christology as the above verses in John illustrate. In addition, this false doctrine violates Hebrews 1:3 and Colossians 1:17 ["in Him all things hold together" which in the verb tense of the Greek denotes a continuous/ing activity].
As regards the ‘confusion’ specifically, Johnson’s Christological doctrine is both confusing and seemingly self-contradicting at times. This is as opposed to the denominational differences which at least (predominately) cohere. Plus, the denominational differences are not confused as something else by the adherents of those doctrinal positions. That’s the difference.
Carolyn,
That is absurd! I never said he wasn’t a false teacher. I never said I agreed with what he said. I did say there are a lot of folks out there today that believe functional kenosis is truth not heresy. And I have NEVER once said that we should listen to anything else he has to say. Not once. Please get your facts straight before you lash out at me!
I also never said I didn’t think he is dangerous. I came out of a church at one time that had gotten into all things Toronto and all things Bethel. I believe it is spiritual poison and I wouldn’t touch it with a ten foot pole. Many friendships I used to have I no longer do because of all of these issues.
My whole point here is simply this. Let’s be careful to NOT accuse Johnson of more then he is actually guilty of. That would not be fair to him. And if you think it IS fair to make false or exxagerated accusations against soemone because they are a false teacher, I would say it is you that has a serious problem and not me! False accustions are wrong no matter who they are directed to. Morever, if we go too far in what we say and become inaccurate in our accusations, those that know it ARE going to be turned off and quit listening to anything else we have to say.
And that is all I have to say on the matter. Good grief.
Craig,
I realize I didn’t state my bottom line point above accurately at all. It is more along the lines of: Yes, there is much confusion in the church. And God is not the cause of confusion. But it does not follow therefore that because there is confusion, someone is setting out to deliberately confuse. Confusion often exists without a deliberate intent to deceive. Now I realize we are talking about an individual versus a corporate body here. But I don’t think in either case severe confusion can necessarily be construed as intent to deceive. That is a non sequitor.
As far as the functional kenosis argument goes, I am not saying that I believe they are right. All I am saying is that they do have powerful arguments, they do believe they are right and that they are not denying Chalcedon in what they say, and they are not just folks from the charismatice fringe like Johnson is. Some of them are pastors and teachers from mainline evangelicalism.
I would have to back and do some re-reading to see how they answer the points you made above. But I really don’t think those are verses that they have some how overlooked. I think they have read them and dealt with them in a different way then the way you and I have always looked at them.
My point with all of that is that if Johnson believes in functional kenosis, he is certainly not alone in evangelicalism as a whole. It is viewed as heresy by some, but by many others it is veiwed as something that is not at all unbiblical. It wouldn’t be as if he has come up with something totally off the wall all by himself that is totally foreign to the evangelical community.
But, once again, I’ve not stated explicitly whether Johnson is deliberately deceiving with respect to his Christology. He may be, he may not be. He is certainly confusing others and may or may not be confused himself in this regard.
However, he sure did deceive regarding the Roberts Liardon acquisition. Perhaps it was important for him to show that “prophecies” can come true by ‘legitimizing’ the Jim Goll “prophecy”. Whatever his motive, he is certainly not averse to deceiving others at least in this one case.
Jesus was present in the creation of the world as part of the Trinity. He was God from eternity.
They claim they do not deny Chalcedon yet, in effect, they do. I’ve encountered this in my recent book review on a book promoting kenosis. In any case, Johnson does not propound a functionalist kenosis. It’s either ontological or a complete metamorphosis. His background is rooted in Word of Faith and WoF explicitly teaches that Jesus was merely a man who was eventually born again in hell. No, Johnson has never stated this explicitly, yet he uses the same prooftexts as Kenneth E. Hagin, Sr. to go to the point he did go in his own born again Jesus statement (by twisting Scripture a la Hagin). There are other times when he uses this same methodology – using the same proof-texts as Hagin – as the BJ II article points out.
You know, I think I have gone round and round this mulberry bush about all I have time or energy for. I don’t think any more talk will likely gain anything.
I am simply not prepared to discuss the functional kenosis thing any further. And I have made my point repeatedly about being cautious that we aren’t accusing Johnson of more then he is actually guilty of (and that is really quite a lot!)
All I am saying is let’s be careful and be sure we are accurate about all that we say. We don’t need to turn people off because we have gone too far.
Enough is enough for now! Good bye everybody.
The Bible, God’s written word, lists the characteristics of a false prophet and false teacher:
– prophesy peace (Jeremiah 23:17)
– teach a lie (Jeremiah 28:15)
– pretend to be true (Matthew 7:22-23)
– teach corruption (2 Peter 2:10-22)
– pervert grace (Galatians 1:6-9)
– lovers of money (Romans 16:17-18)
– teach heresy and deny Jesus Christ (2 Peter 2:1)
– resist the truth (2 Timothy 3:8)
– lovers of fables (2 Timothy 4:3-4)
– destitute of the truth (1 Timothy 6:3-5)
– unstable (1 Timothy 1:6-7)
– cunningly deceptive (Ephesians 4:14)
– lustful (2 Peter 2:12-19)
To whom it may concern (including cheylu) Truce Sister…I freely own my absurdity. I love my absurdity. It is what keeps me humble and makes me human. And I won’t defend my own mistakes. Sure I make lots. But what I will defend is someone else who speaks the truth, someone on the front lines taking the arrows from hypocritical liars and frauds of the faith.
No one here is making any exaggerated accusations. It doesn’t matter what WE think and we most certainly do not need to tip toe around wolves and worry about offending them or those who listen to them.
What we DO need to be concerned about is what God thinks about the wolves? What are his instructions to his sheep? Don’t be deceived, expose, flee, discern, be wise.
The Bible connects antichrists to deceivers. It connects the dots between false prophets and their actions. The Bible does not see any problem with calling an antichrist an antichrist.
So if someone like BJ elevates man into a god with supernatural and divine qualities (WOF doctrine) and denies Christ his deity…then he is of a New Age spirit, he is a deceiver and he is antichrist.
I don’t see that Craig’s specialty is exaggeration. Quite the opposite. He has backed up everything he has said with ample proof quotes and biblical text. Not that he needs my approval but he’s got it anyhow. God Bless! Hope this ends us all on a happier note.
Carolyn,
Thanks for defending the views put forth in the article. While I largely agree with everything you wrote, there’s one difference. While I certainly strongly believe Johnson to be a wolf based upon his doctrine and practice, I cannot know for sure whether he is wittingly or unwittingly deceiving folks. My inclination is that he’s doing this willingly, but I just cannot know for sure someone’s heart and therefore judge motive. This is why I make the distinction between calling his Christology antichrist, which it is by definition (although I know there are some in disagreement), and calling Johnson himself antichrist.
I know there are those who say it’s tantamount to the same thing for having an antichrist spirit is implied in the charge which some understand to connote complicity. However, in considering this further late last night I may have found a proper analogy/explanation. True Holy Spirit indwelt Christians by definition have the Holy Spirit. However, at any time we can choose to be led of the flesh instead. Moreover, we can choose to let the enemy get a foothold. Once the enemy has a foothold we can then become oppressed. Once oppressed we can slip further and further and, in my opinion, become so controlled by the enemy that we can lose sight of the real purpose for which we are Christians – spreading the true Gospel. At this point we could well become an unwilling participant in the devil’s schemes.
Perhaps my logic is faulty in this area. But, this is where I currently stand. I see it as a distinction with a difference.
However, in any case, as I stated in the first paragraph, I cannot know someone’s heart. I cannot know whether someone is willingly deceiving folks or not. But, I’ll state again, unless someone, anyone, can adequately explain the circumstances surrounding the Jim Goll “prophecy” of the Roberts Liardon library and Johnson’s telling of it specifically regarding the timing of its acquisition as anything but a fabrication, that is exactly as I see it. I don’t see how the circumstances can be any more black and white. Given this use of deception for whatever the reason, to me this indicates the very high possibility of doing same in other areas. Therefore, I am of the stong belief/opinion that Johnson is willingly deceiving folks with respect to his doctrine. Part II of this article will attempt to make the case that Johnson is teaching New Age doctrine under a Christian veneer. A part of attempting to make my case will include other Johnson statements with respect to Christology which appear to contradict some Christological statements here (much like the very last one in part I {at footnote 36}).
Here’s another point I wish to make. Johnson himself specifically refers to those who disagree with his teaching on “the anointing” as having an antichrist spirit in chapter 7 of When Heaven Invades Earth [pp 79-85]. No he doesn’t call the individuals antichrists, he says it’s the antichrist spirit behind the individuals:
The spirit of antichrist is at work today, attempting to influence believers to reject everything that has to do with the Holy Spirit’s anointing [p 81]
It needs to be pointed out that by his phraseology here he makes a distinction between the “Holy Spirit anointing” ["Christ anointing"] and Jesus [especially p 80 in one long paragraph contrasting the 'fact' that Apostle John didn't use "Anti-Jesus" but instead "Anti-Christ" and saying cults honor Jesus, the man], i.e. that Christ is separate from Jesus as he does in the first two paragraphs which begin this chapter (see quotes in this article at footnote 20). According to the Apostle John, separating Christ from Jesus is, as stated in the article, the very definition of antichrist.
The spirits of hell are at war against the anointing, for without the anointing mankind is no threat to their dominion. [p 80]
The antichrist spirit has a goal for the Church – embrace Jesus apart from the anointing. He becomes a safe religious figure who is sure not to challenge or offend us. Paul described this deceptive possibility as, “having a form of godliness but denying its power. And, from such people turn away!”
How can people who love God be offended by the Holy Spirit?…[p 84-85]
See the subtle twists and turns in Johnson’s definition of antichrist spirit? He’s turned those who oppose Toronto Blessing type goings-on into having an antichrist spirit. He’s totally flipped the tables! This is some serious twisting of the Apostle Johns words!
Craig,
I agree that Johnson has certainly flipped the tables here — which actually does argue quite strongly for demonic activity behind his doctrines, whether or not he is aware of it.
This reminds me of a less subtle flipping of tables on the anti-christ spirit. I was in Mary Kay workshop once where the director’s husband taught us about “personal growth and development.” The man was a follower of a guy who “channeled” some spirit, and it was very, very New Age. I visited the channelers website and I discovered that the guy believed that Christians who proclaimed Jesus as Savior were the Anti-Christ because we rejected the “truth.”
http://www.abraham-hicks.com/lawofattractionsource/index.php
I can’t find the part of the page that I found several years ago — it was a page link to questions and answers that people asked this Abraham Hicks guy at various seminars and speaking engagements that he has conducted. One of the questions that someone asked him was about the Anti-Christ. The person wanted Abraham Hicks to give his thoughts on the subject. That’s when he said that Christians who proclaim Jesus Christ were the Anti-Christ!
Wow.
A Bill Johnson follower (couple) recently spoke in our church. At the end of the message they gave words of prophecy and called for people to come to the altar for ministry. Then they began to preach about the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. What followed next was pure perversion and illustrates the depths of delusion that Johnson’s teachings engender. They told the church that to reject the baptism of the Holy Spirit was to deny the Holy Spirit (which they had on previous occasions declared was a “force!”). Then they said that to deny the Holy Spirit is the unpardonable sin!
This stuff utterly disgusts me. The unique circumstances of my situation (which cannot be explained here) have required me to stay at this church; however, that is quickly changing–PTL! I cannot express how eager I am to rid myself of this “spirituality” and RUN! in the opposite direction.
What Craig writes about here is critical for people to understand. The fruit of this tree is rotten. What does it say about the tree? Yes, Craig is right–we cannot judge a man’s heart and so it is wisdom to qualify regarding whether Johnson is wittingly or unwittingly leading people astray. However, according to the warning in James 3:1, those in leadership will come into greater judgment. Johnson is a 5th generation “gospel” minister. He has been “schooled” somewhere. He supposedly knows enough about his critics and detractors to denounce them as allegedly having a “spirit of antichrist” according to his own statements. Therefore, by his own words he condemns himself. He has seen the truth. God’s words are spirit and life; they do not return to Him void.
Is Johnson deluded and deceived himself? Certainly. Second Peter 2 and 3 has some serious warnings to him. Specifically:
2:1-3 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who secretly shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now for a long time does not linger, and their damnation does not slumber….
2:18-22 For when they speak great swelling [words] of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, [through much] wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known [it], to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog [is] turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire…
3:15-16 …and consider [that] the longsuffering of our Lord [is] salvation–as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable [people] twist to their own destruction, as [they do] also the rest of the Scriptures.
May the Lord, in His longsuffering, open Johnson’s eyes. May He have mercy on His elect and shorten these days!
YesNa,
Thanks for your comments. They are appreciated. Did you see my answer to your questions re: Johnson and Bentley?
They told the church that to reject the baptism of the Holy Spirit was to deny the Holy Spirit
This is essentially what Johnson states in WHIE in chapter 7 [p 84, etc.].
Hi, Craig! Yes, I’m sorry. I should have responded. I appreciate that clip. I’ve been looking for it!
Actually, these issues run counter to the very heart of the Gospel–which is not to negate or detract from your research, nor to diminish the very preeminence of the Lord Jesus Christ and His deity. What Johnson, WoF-ers, and Dominionists do is impose law upon believers and pervert the gospel of Christ. How can that which was begun in the Spirit be perfected/completed in the flesh? (Galatians)
While these folk would counter (by twisting), “Oh, no! It’s the anointing! It IS the Spirit!”, the truth is that according to them believers are required to DO something, ie. receive the anointing, hear from God, etc. So, what if an individual who has been in this environment for 17 years and signed on “hook-line-and-sinker” has never been truly “slain in the Spirit”, spoken in tongues, heard God’s voice, manifested healing power, experienced gold dust, etc, etc, etc…..
That individual, eager to be a part of the movement that he/she is so hungering to be a part of will either fake it, or be disappointed that God has denied or rejected him, and ultimately angry at God, or become disillusioned and leave the movement. Obviously, it must be apparent that I am talking about myself. Although I did become very disappointed, I never became angry at God, only those who treated me as second class. I have forgiven them and now see them in pity. However, I know of others who have become angry at God and walked away from Him into the waiting arms of Unitarianism, or backsliding.
In my journey, I have come to see the movement for what it is and have repented. I am also seeing God for who He is and am falling in love with Him and His word all over again. My eyes are being opened daily. How beautiful the Gospel is! Recently, I came across an article that has deeply enriched me. I link it here: “The Gospel Assumed is the Gospel Denied”.
http://sidlcms.org/Documents/GospelAssumedGospelDenied.pdf
I encourage all to read it. Johnson’s WoF/Dominionist/MSoG theology just doesn’t fit. The whole purpose of WHIE is to bring God’s kingdom to earth. It is US working to effect the Kingdom of God. Johnson is part of the Wagner/Wallnau/Hillman crowd which pushes the Seven Mountains Mandate. The entire movement is of the works–law–flesh.
James 3:13-18, “Who [is] a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom. But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. This wisdom descendeth not from above, but [is] earthly, sensual, devilish. For where envying and strife [is], there [is] confusion and every evil work. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, [and] easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.”
Maybe if we all would read our Bibles more and the latest books less, we would see with our eyes, hear with our ears and understand with our hearts and be converted.
YesNa,
Actually, your point that it’s work-based fits in quite well with part II for in the New Age religion (as I’m sure you know) salvation is self-salvation (auto-soterism).
The whole purpose of WHIE is to bring God’s kingdom to earth.
Yes, the New Age kingdom instead. As Christians we DO NOT try to bring heaven to earth. However, this is EXACTLY what New Agers are trying to do believing that the Garden of Eden is a spiritual state from which mankind fell and, when we reach our ‘perfection’ it will again manifest itself. Here’s a quote from Alice Bailey:
“Emphasis should be laid on the evolution of humanity with peculiar attention to its goal, perfection…man in incarnation, by the indwelling and over-shadowing soul…The relation of the individual soul to all souls should be taught, and with it the long-awaited kingdom of God is simply the appearance of soul-controlled men on earth in everyday life and at all stages of that control.…The fact will appear that the Kingdom has always been present but has remained unrecognized, owing to the relatively few people who express, as yet, its quality….”
Craig…in this paragraph you used the word subtle.
“See the subtle twists and turns in Johnson’s definition of antichrist spirit? He’s turned those who oppose Toronto Blessing type goings-on into having an antichrist spirit. He’s totally flipped the tables! This is some serious twisting of the Apostle Johns words!”
In the writings of New Agers such as Blavatsky, she and all other occultists “blatantly” flip the truth into a lie. They call Jesus the Antichrist and they call Satan or Lucifer the Saviour of Mankind.
Now, in the “church” the spirits have had to be a little more subtle, but the lie is still there and you really don’t have to look that hard to see it.
Genesis 3:1
Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 Corinthians 11:3
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
Although the same New Age lies have come through the Kenneth Hagins and Kenneth Copelands in subtle ways using the jargon of Christianity, the lies are becoming less and less subtle. They continually pronounce what “God has told me”, exalting themselves and bringing corrupt teachings to their followers.
Should strong language be used against such deceivers? I find it interesting that the Holy Spirit uses “serpent” and it’s derivatives throughout Scripture to describe them. Like here:
Romans 3:13
Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
Matthew 23:33
Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
Those who are preaching the poison of hell, the “power of the tongue” (Kenneth Copeland), the same lies of the serpent to Eve…words of sorcery and lust for power…their own words will condemn them. He is the typical Simon the Sorcerer in Acts 8:
9But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one:
10To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God.
11And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries.
20But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.
21Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.
22Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.
23For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity.
Simon the sorcerer repented. Kenneth Copeland has not yet!
And let me end on this note that God is God and we are not and we are not to be listening to the BJs and the KHs and all the other WOFers….telling us that we are gods and we will not surely die if we listen to them.
But here is what we are to believe. That because our Saviour, Jesus the Christ, is God from eternity to eternity and died in our place, we will not experience the second death…that our God, Christ, who was born in Bethlehem is eternal and from everlasting, incarnated in deity to be the perfect sacrifice for our sin…Christ is our victory. Good news indeed.
Micah 5:2 (King James Version)
2But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
Carolyn,
You wrote, “In the writings of New Agers such as Blavatsky, she and all other occultists ‘blatantly’ flip the truth into a lie. They call Jesus the Antichrist and they call Satan or Lucifer the Saviour of Mankind.”
Yes, they sure do, and as you point out those within the “Church” must be more careful in order to deceive. This is why I use the Bailey quote near the beginning of this article. I will use another in part II which refers to the ‘Christian Church’ as a “necessary expedient”.
Redefining terms and concepts is the goal as I point out in an earlier article “Christ” in the New Age with this article specifically looking at the ways in which “Christ” is redefined with the express purpose to deceive and confuse.
I am so happy to have come across this blog on this topic. My eldest daughter and her family are very caught up in the Johnson teaching. I couldn’t work out where this ‘madness’ about their attitude to healing (and even raising people from the dead) etc came from. This makes it very clear. And once again shows that all truth and heresy flow from your doctrines of Christology.
Michael,
It’s all about doing “greater works” than Jesus. If Jesus is made into merely a Holy Spirit empowered man, then we can do all the miracles He did (including raising the dead) by the same Holy Spirit:
http://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/2011/12/17/greater-works-shall-you-do/
So are you explicity saying that Jesus did his miracles from the position of his divine attributes and not from his humanity and with the power of the holy spirit? Would Jesus be unable to be fully God if he did the latter, and how do you know?
I’m trying to marry up the two concepts that i read in the bible. Because, here in Luke’s Gospel, he emphasises Jesus being “full of the Holy Spirit” – now why would Luke need to state that?
Luke 4:1-2 New International Version (©1984)
Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the desert,where for forty days he was tempted by the devil. He ate nothing during those days, and at the end of them he was hungry.
Just reading a few notes from Gills exposition:
And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost,…. The Spirit of God having descended on him at his baptism, and afresh anointed, and filled his human nature with his gifts, whereby, as man, he was abundantly furnished for the great work of the public ministry, he was just about to enter upon; yet must first go through a series of temptations, and which, through the fulness of the Holy Spirit in him, he was sufficiently fortified against.
Martin [7:51am],
This is all covered in the two-part article Kenosis, Christology and Bill Johnson which I’m assuming you’ve read since you’ve commented on it. In short, if Jesus Christ did not use any of His divine attributes (functionalist kenosis) having chosen not to then He could not have sustained the Cosmos [Heb 1:3; Col 1:17] thus violating Scripture [along with John 5:21, 24-25]. As per Oliver Crisp, this position also violates the Chalcedonian Creed. Crisp quotes Gerald O’Collins:
It is prudent teaching about the Son of God assuming the human condition, the Council of Chalcedon declared that the properties or essential features [homoousios] of both the divine and the human nature are preserved in the Incarnation…This teaching seems to rule out even a cautious form of kenotic theology, which proposes that the divine properties were, at least temporarily, not preserved after the Incarnation [ontological kenosis], or at least not preserved in action [functionalist kenosis].
In addition, one cannot assert that Jesus fully used His divine attributes a la the so-called extra calvinisticum (extra carnem, outside the flesh) [necessary for Heb 1:13 and Col 1:17] yet constrained the use of His divine attributes in the flesh without seemingly bifurcating the Word who then would be using His divine attributes in one sense yet simultaneously restricting the use of His divine attributes in another thereby creating a logical contradiction.
Martin [8:10am],
I concede that it is difficult to systematize what appears to be a Holy Spirit empowered Jesus Christ in the Gospel of Luke compared with the clear teachings elsewhere that Jesus utilized His divine attributes via His divine nature. To fully adopt Gill’s view would violate the hypostatic union as Oliver Crisp states (and quoted the first part of the article on Kenosis, Christology and Bill Johnson):
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.”
The theory of nature-perichoresis (see hyperlink above) I believe does a good job in potentially explaining the mystery of the Incarnation with respect to the hypostatic union. It’s not an easy read requiring one to really study/think about what is written but I think it quite rewarding.
You pose a good question (though again, I disagree with Gill as Scripture contradicts his view) and one that I’ve been considering myself; however, I don’t wish to sidetrack this discussion here in this article. You could continue your line of thought on the other thread if you like.
Okay, I really need to chew this over. Appreciate the time you take here to answer these questions. I’m now looking at a totally new concept here regarding this logical contradiction, regarding the divine/human nature. It’s not easy to get your head around!
I appreciate that you are really digging into this. I think it very important to really know who Jesus Christ was and is.
Yes, don’t know if you can move these post onto that.
Martin,
If you just continue your line of thought over there I’ll know where we left off.
Craig, I have been following the discussion and am really enjoying it,I commented a few months ago on you site about this very issue and still believe that the concept of the “Christ Anointing ” is CENTRAL to not only the healing issue but ALL aspects of the New Apostolic Reformation (or more accurately…Latter Rain Manifest sons of God take two ) I think you are right on target and want to commend you for the quality of your research…some folks may not grasp its immediate significance and even find it un-Christlike to engage in such detailed and exhaustive analysis of something that seems so needed, good and beneficial, but a year or two from now when this “Christ Anointing” morphs into it next logical “manifestation”, hopefully then they will be grateful that at least a few of us have that annoying tendency to always want to “test the waters” and not just jump in the “river” and “go with the flow” of the “spirit” assuming God will always somehow mystically fix it if we end up in the undertow . “Papa God” would never … oh yes he would, will, and does allow His children to be tested, sifted, tried, persecuted etc. We need to be as “intimately” familiar with the “more sure word of prophecy ” as we are with the Holy Spirit, then perhaps we would have our senses exercised properly to truly discern His “voice” and ….well , then you might be out of job bro. …
Ok ,enough sarcasm, I wanted to bring a recent quote of BJ to your attention. In the March issue of Charisma mag. 2012. Bill wrote an article on healing and I believe it was on page 24 (or 26), Bill states “While Jesus is eternally God, He emptied Himself of His Divinity and became a man (see Phil. 2:7). Its vital to note that He did all His miracles as a man not as God. If He did them as God I would still be impressed,but because He did them as a man yielded to God, I am now unsatisfied with my life, being compelled to follow the example He has given us. Jesus is the only model for us to follow. ”
I’ll refrain from further comment for now except to say I found the comment on “taking things back that the enemy stole” being used to justify MIXING truth with error ( especially new age) to be dead on , I’ve heard it soooo…. many times.
Again… I want to thank you and the others who are diligently addressing these critical issues with patience and a zeal for the TRUTH. Grace to you brother.
Tim Bain,
You are absolutely correct that this “Christ anointing” is central to LR/MSoG/NAR. I’m working on a ‘bridge’ article between part I and II which should be online shortly. It will further explain the “Christ anointing” to hopefully add some clarity.
Wait…he actually said the following?:
“While Jesus is eternally God, He emptied Himself of His Divinity and became a man (see Phil. 2:7). Its 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. ”
Wow — this makes his stance clearer, or more confusing. If he actually said, “He emptied Himself of His Divinity and became a man,” then he definitely does state that Jesus gave up His Divinity/Deity. Sorry, I can no longer give him any benefit of a doubt, regardless of what he says about Him being eternally God.
He isn’t just talking about God powers, but he is actually talking about His Divinity, as was speculated — the logical conclusion of saying He gave up His God powers while on Earth.
The fact that he said “Jesus is eternally God” contradicts the rest of the sentence. It’s not compatible. Sure, maybe he wasn’t using precise language, and maybe he does just mean God powers and not Divinity itself, but he should know to word things better. He’s been confronted about this, and to see him using that wording — I have to take him at his word. He’s saying he believed that Jesus gave up His Divinity and was just human while on earth.
His comment, taken at face value is heresy. I can no longer say that he is just a false teacher. It appears as if he is teaching blatant heresy, whether or not he realizes it.
Come on, charismatics, think! This man is teaching heresy couched with some orthodox statements — and the whole thing comes off as contradictions.
Here’s the ‘bridge’ article I mentioned which shows Johnson’s redefinition of antichrist spirit as ‘anti-anointing’ which parallels his redefinition of Christ as “the anointing”.
http://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/2012/03/17/the-christ-anointing-and-the-antichrist-spirit/
I hope this will help to clarify this particular aspect of his teaching.
In addition, it shows cultic behavior in the way in which he starts explaining a term in an orthodox manner and then switches mid-stream to an unorthodox definition. This illustrates, like the Liardon library, that Johnson is definitely using deception in these subtle twists.
…He emptied Himself of His Divinity and became a man (see Phil. 2:7)…
This could very well be construed as metamorphosis, i.e. the Word literally became a man devoid of any deity/divinity as some of Johnson’s other statements could. This is not inconsistent with Word of Faith teaching of which he certainly shares some doctrinal positions, e.g. healing in the Atonement:
“…Jesus destroyed the power of sin, sickness, and poverty through His redemptive work on the cross. In Adam and Eve’s commission to subdue the earth, they were without sickness, poverty, and sin. Now that we are restored to His original purpose, should we expect anything less? After all, this is the better covenant!” [WHIE p 33]
[ED: this comment has been edited for clarification noted by { } 03/22/12]
There has been some criticism that my assertion that functional(ist) kenosis {that Jesus performed all the supernatural by the Holy Spirit and not of His inherent divine nature while Incarnate} is heresy is in error. First, let me state that I do not believe Bill Johnson teaches this anyway. However, to clarify regarding functional kenosis, from Elwel’s Evangelical Dictionary of Theology [1984 (10th prtg 1994), Baker, Grand Rapids, MI]:
…Heresy is a deliberate denial of revealed truth coupled with the acceptance of error. The creeds were considered to contain the standard of truth and correct belief, and themselves formally contradicted various false teachings…
Since John 5:21, 24-25 contradicts functional(ist) kenosis, this doctrine deliberately denies revealed truth. In addition, it violates the Chalcedonian Creed which to most theologians deems it heresy. Quoting from Oliver Crisp’s Divininty and Humanity [2007, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK; p 141]:
[I]t does not seem to me the functionalist kenotic theory is the same as the classical account of Christology, since a classical account requires that the second person of the Trinity retains and exercises all his essential divine attributes while incarnate, the very thing that functionalist kenoticism denies. Compare, for instance, the Roman Catholic Theologian Gerald O’Collins in this regard:
“In its prudent teaching about the Son of God assuming the human condition, the Council of Chalcedon declared that the properties or essential features of both the divine and human nature are preserved in the incarnation…This teaching seems to rule out even a cautious form of kenotic theory, which proposes that the divine properties were, at least, temporarily, not preserved after the incarnation, or at least not preserved in action.”
In addition, as footnoted in the article (#16), on page 25 of Crisp’s book is the following:
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, also available here] 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.
{The Chalcedonian Creed states that the divine nature is of one homoousios (substance/essence) with the Godhead and the human nature is of one homoousios (substance/essence) with the human. If we are to assume that Jesus Christ in His divinity was limited in function, then it follows that we should assume His human nature was also somehow limited in function. This, to me, then would not make Christ the same as the Godhead in His divinity nor the same as mankind in His humanity. Affirming the same nature and function would seem to best uphold divine immutability as well – with immutability considered “an important constituent of the traditional view” as per Crisp [p 146]. Affirming this also would be in line with Hebrews 13:8, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.”}
Part II of the “Bill Johnson’s Christology: A New Age Christ?” is now posted:
http://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/2012/04/02/bill-johnsons-christology-a-new-christ-part-ii/
Arwen4CJ says
‘Wait…he actually said the following? “While Jesus is eternally God…” ‘
Yup, heres the quote here too, in his “Essential Guide to Healing” book: http://goo.gl/9XJwD
Badger, yes and it’s quoted in part II, too. I don’t know how much more clear he can state this: “Jesus emptied Himself of divinity and became man.”
I don’t know if I have asked this question on this blog or not. But there is something I have wondered about from time to time and I have never gotten an answer to it from anywhere.
Does anyone know how Johnson defines the term “divinity?” In my mind I have always equated it with “deity” as I believe the rest of the folks commenting here do. However, I remember from a conversation elsewhere a couple of years ago that not all people use the term in that way. This was not a conversation with a hyper charismatic, but if I remember correctly, was with a Unitarian who definitely doesn’t believe Jesus is God. But the point was that they did not equate the term “divinity” with “deity”. It was used more as denoting attributes or something coming from deity as I recall the conversation. In other words, that person did not believe that by saying Jesus was divine it meant that He was deity/God.
I have wondered if there is a chance Johnson uses the term with the same understanding. If so, even these blunt statements of his that stand in contrast to his other remarks about Jesus being eternally God wouldn’t mean that B J is saying that Jesus emptied Himself of His deity, His actual God-hood.
Here are the definitions of “divinity” and “divine” from Dictionary.com that show the meaings of these words in the way the Unitarian seemed to use them:
di·vine /dɪˈvaɪn/ Show Spelled [dih-vahyn] Show IPA adjective, -vin·er, -vin·est, noun, verb, -vined, -vin·ing.
adjective
1. of or pertaining to a god, especially the Supreme Being.
2. addressed, appropriated, or devoted to God or a god; religious; sacred: divine worship.
3. proceeding from God or a god: divine laws.
4. godlike; characteristic of or befitting a deity: divine magnanimity.
5. heavenly; celestial: the divine kingdom.
(TThere are further meanings listed including, “The Divine, God”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/divine
di·vin·i·ty /dɪˈvɪnɪti/ Show Spelled[dih-vin-i-tee] Show IPA
noun, plural -ties.
1. the quality of being divine; divine nature.
2. deity; godhood.
3. a divine being; God.
4. the Divinity, ( sometimes lowercase ) the Deity.
5. a being having divine attributes, ranking below God but above humans: minor divinities.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/divinity
If Johnson is using the terms in this way, it would throw a somewhat different light on things then to think he is actually saying he laid his “deity” aside.
cherylu,
I’m not sure I follow you exactly as it seems these pretty much describe attributes of God. But, yes, one could, for example, describe a particular dessert as “divine” and not mean deity. But, I’m not sure how to apply that to Johnson.
Even still, Johnson also redefined “Christ” as “the anointing” and “antichrist (spirit)” as essentially ‘anti-anointing’.
http://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/2012/03/17/the-christ-anointing-and-the-antichrist-spirit/
In addition, his claim is that “The name Jesus Christ implies that Jesus is the One smeared with the Holy Spirit” which indicates that Jesus didn’t have the title of Christ prior to his ‘smearing’ by the Holy Spirit at baptism. Therefore He was merely Jesus of Nazareth and not Jesus Christ until baptism. Furthermore, Johnson states, “…The outpouring of the Spirit comes to anoint the church with the same Christ anointing that rested upon Jesus in His ministry so that we might be imitators of Him…” This exact anointing is available to all. Putting this all together, Jesus was merely a man who had the ‘Christ anointing’ descend upon Him providing the example for the rest of us.
Then, of course, we have such statements as:
He had NO supernatural capabilities whatsoever!
Jesus so emptied Himself that He was incapable of doing what was required of Him by the Father – without the Father’s help…
http://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/bill-johnsons-christology-a-new-age-christ/
As an aside, unless I’m mistaken, I do believe Unitarians believe Jesus was a man who attained divinity/deity – just like any of us can potentially.
Because Jesus was devine,He lived sinless life.He could read pharisees thouhts and knew the number of men in womans life at the well. Bill Johnson is preaching different gospel.
jorma,
I agree Johnson is preaching a different gospel as he’s preaching a different Jesus altogether.
cherylu,
Hmmm…true that some people might not equate divinity with deity. I remember talking to Jehovah’s Witnesses and other unitarians who will say that Jesus was divine, however, they deny His deity. By divine, they meant that Jesus came from heaven with God’s assignment — and that He was the first thing that God created.
So…I have heard people say that Jesus was divine, but not deity. However, I’ve never heard it reversed — that Jesus was deity but not divine — unless that is what Bill Johnson is trying to say. However, reversing it doesn’t make much sense.
I think that you are right — someone needs to ask Bill Johnson to define divinity. That would really help.
It’s hard for me to imagine someone saying “He gave up His divinity” and not have it mean “He gave up His deity.” Still, in all fairness to Bill Johnson, he should be given a chance to defend his statement.
Arwen4CJ,
Given that Johnson has stated that, “the Son can do nothing”, having “NO supernatural capabilities whatsover” because “He so emptied Himself that He was incapable”, as He “emptied Himself of divinity and became man”, it seems Johnson is talking about divine attributes – without which Jesus would not be fully God/deity.
Or, am I missing something?
And, again, that’s not taking into account my comment at 12:55 above.
Craig,
Is it any harder to think that someone, B J in this case, could think that God emptied Himself of His divine attributes but still somehow remained God, then it is to think that he believes God somehow stopped being God, morphed into a man, and then at some point morphed back into being God again??
Craig,
Yes, I do think he is talking about divine attributes. However, it may be that he doesn’t equate divine attributes with deity.
Johnson’s quote shows that he is in serious error. I still think that that quote makes him especially guilty, and his other comments that you referenced show his theology is wrong.
However, I’m not sure whether or not he thinks that having no divine attributes is equated with not having deity. The man is teaching false doctrine. There’s no doubt of that.
I would like to see him define divinity, though. I want to see what he says. I am on facebook, but I don’t want to add him as a friend. Is anyone already friends with him that could ask him that question?
I want to know what Bill Johnson thinks it means to “lay aside divinity,” and how Jesus could still be God if He lays it aside. How does Johnson think that divinity and deity differ?
Those are the things that I’d like to see. I’m surprised that his editors and those he associates with don’t ask these questions for him to clarify. Unless he’s doing this on purpose, and he doesn’t want to offer clarity. He has to know that his teaching is confusing.
The man isn’t a very good writer or speaker.
cherylu,
What you’ve just described (the latter part) is exactly the ‘kenosis’ theory of W. F. Gess from the 19th century.
Arwen,
Johnson is amazingly clear in some things, yet, he’s ‘confusing’ in his Christology. We have to wonder why. Johnson has already shown allegiance to known false teachers as he’s more interested in “the anointing” than Biblical truth. He’s redefined a number of important Christian terms. Johnson has apparently shown deception with respect to the acquisition of the Roberts Liardon library. So, would it be a surprise if Johnson were purposely confusing or ambiguous in the most important doctrine of Christianity, namely the person of Jesus Christ?
Arwen,
I am not his FB friend either and I don’t want to become his friend to ask him! But I surely would like to see his definition. Could be that it would explain a lot.
Like how he can say he laid his divinity aside and still say He was/is/always God and that never changed.
Craig,
About the library thing. Assuming that was a deliberate deception, yes it certainly makes a person suspicious that he may be lying about other things. But I think the key words here are MAY BE. Certainly doen’s prove that he is.
No, it would not be surprising if he was deliberately confusing about his Christology. I guess I’d just like him to define it so that there can be no question what he teaches on the subject.
I pretty much think he teaches that Christ gave up His deity, but I want to hear him actually say it. Otherwise, I feel like I’m not being fair to him.
cherylu,
The Roberts Liardon library issue is merely one of the ones I pointed. Do you think that deliberately redefining key Christian terms such as “Christ”, “antichrist”, and “repentance” are tantamount to lying?
Craig,
What you’ve just described (the latter part) is exactly the ‘kenosis’ theory of W. F. Gess from the 19th century.
Are you referring to the “morphing” comments? If so, I would still like to know how it would be any harder to believe that then to believe that Jesus could somehow divest Himself of His attributes and still somehow remain God. You seemed to think that maybe Johnson believes in metamorphosis but can’t seem to think that he may believe in the other idea. Why not?
You also keep speaking of the quotes by Johnson about Jesus receiving the anointing at His baptism and us receiving the same anointing. This is not new to Johnson by any means. It is a WoF/charismatic teaching. I heard it from my pastor in the church I came from. Kenneth Copeland has a teaching online about it that I just read part of. And as I have said before, the word “Christ” in charismatic circles does not seem to be a title denoting God. It is thought of as meaning “aointed one” or “anointing”. Therefore, to say that Jesus received His anointing, became Christ by experience at His baptism, is not the same thing as saying that He was not God before that. And BJ did say that He was born with the title of Christ too, did he not?
It also follows then that to say we receive the Christ anointing too does not mean that makes us God. It does mean that it makes us anointed and empowered like Christ was to do what God called us to to. And that is Johnson’s whole point, is it not? That He is our example and we can do as He did?
Ugh, having a computer war. Stupid thing just deleted my comment when I was about half way done. Some days I think this thing has it in for me!
I was trying to say that the redefining of such words as “Christ”, “antichrist”, and “repentance” are not new to Johnson. The WoF/charismatic movement is great at redifining terms and concepts. Their interpretation of the words is often quite different from the way they are used in the rest of the Christian world.
My pastor defined the word Christ as meaning “anointed” or “anointing”. Ken Copeland has an article that talks about the same thing that I just read part of. The word “antichrist” meaning “anti-anointing” is a concept that I am familiar with too. And I doubt it just came from Johsnon. Don’t know if I have heard his use of the word repentance before, but it doesn’t mean it is not out there.
What I am trying to say is simply that Johnson didn’t just twist the meaning of these words on his own to try and deceive people. They are part of the whole paradigm that he is a part of. Personal experience speaking here again!
cherylu,
You wrote, “You seemed to think that maybe Johnson believes in metamorphosis but can’t seem to think that he may believe in the other idea. Why not?
Because of his other teachings such as his quotes which look remarkably like New Age ideology and his “spiritual DNA” teachings both of which will be covered in part III
You wrote, “You also keep speaking of the quotes by Johnson about Jesus receiving the anointing at His baptism and us receiving the same anointing. This is not new to Johnson by any means. It is a WoF/charismatic teaching.”
Exactly. Just like the ‘born again’ Jesus version that Jesus died spiritually, went to hell, took on Satan’s nature and was subsequently born again is WoF. Did you want to equate that teaching with Johnson’s ‘born again’ statement? In any case, the teaching is not only not Biblical, it’s straight out of New Age (and Gnostic) teaching.
You wrote, “And BJ did say that He was born with the title of Christ too, did he not?”
No, he didn’t – at least not that I’ve seen. I’ve seen one quote in WHIE in which it may sound that way, but it’s not exactly. Just like one of Johnson’s fans states right here in a comment on this site, (paraphrase) Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem but He didn’t actually become Christ until baptism. It’s like stating “President John F. Kennedy was born on May 29, 1917″ which is an absolutely correct statement; however, Kennedy was not BORN President. Same thing with Jesus.
But, yet you still miss the point on the “Christ anointing” thing. Johnson’s explicit statement is, “The name Jesus Christ implies that Jesus is the One smeared with the Holy Spirit” When did Jesus get “smeared with the Holy Spirit” in this context? At baptism. This indicates Jesus was NOT Christ until baptism.
Moreover, it’s quite clear that Johnson has redefined “antichrist (spirit)” as ‘anti-anointing’:
http://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/2012/03/17/the-christ-anointing-and-the-antichrist-spirit/
So, given that, it logically follows that “Christ” has been redefined to “anointing”, does it not? That’s been exactly my point/analysis all along.
cherylu,
It matters little whether someone else in hyper-charismatic circles came out with a particular doctrine of which Johnson adheres. If it’s unbiblical or heretical by Copeland, it’s the same with Johnson.
So, whether Johnson himself has twisted these doctrines initially or not really doesn’t matter. He’s at the least accepting others’ doctrines which have been previously twisted. Certainly, he is literate enough to tell the difference between the orthodox meaning of these words and someone else’s redefinition. This shows intentional deceit or a lack of intelligence. Looking at all of Johnson’s works, I don’t believe we can call him unintelligent as he’s fairly articulate. As to deceit – well, that’s already been shown in the Liardon library thing.
Frankly, it really doesn’t matter Johnson’s intent or lack thereof because it’s the same demonic spirit behind this false teaching. I’ll quote from Al Dager’s Vengeance is Ours:
Many who teach these things would deny they are theosophists; they think of themselves as orthodox Christians who have received special revelations from God. But whether they adhere to theosophical doctrines consciously, or are merely pawns in the conflict of the ages, is immaterial. A child playing with matches needn’t have knowledge of thermodynamics to cause damage.
Certainly, he is literate enough to tell the difference between the orthodox meaning of these words and someone else’s redefinition. This shows intentional deceit or a lack of intelligence.
Kind if sounds like you are probably relegating a whole lot of folks in the church, leaders and followers alike,into the realms of the deceitful or not so intelligent here!
Frankly, it really doesn’t matter Johnson’s intent or lack thereof….
If that is so, why have you spent so much time with the idea that he is a deliberate deceiver??
cherylu,
No, we’re talking about Johnson here. Everyone else is not writing Johnson’s books and other materials.
The “deliberate deceiver” comes down to semantics. Is Johnson so deceived that he deliberately redefines terms, twists Scripture unknowingly? That is, is he so demonically controlled that he has no idea and it’s rather the demon controlling him who is doing this? But, the end result is the same.
Craig,
We are simply talking in circles here. If it true for Johnson, why isn’t it true for anyone else that is believing it and teaching it??
And again, you seem to have missed the whole point of my last few comments. Johnson is NOT the one that came up with these doctrines. They have been taught by others and they are being taught by others. He is the product of the whole church movement. Not the instigator, the brains behind it, the one that has heard all of this directly from demons..
If all the rest of these folks can believe it and teach it and not be deliberate deceivers or below average in intelligence, why is that the case with Johnson? Makes 0% sense to me.
And why do you think they know they are delberately redefining and twisting Scriputre? Why don’t you think it is possible that they actually believe this is what Scripture is teaching? Could it possibly be that they don’t think what you and I know as “orthodox” and believe to be right on is not the way understand and believe it at all?
I know, I know, it seems you just don’t seem to think that any one can possibly really believe this stuff. Well, let me tell you again from personal experience that a lot of people seem to believe it, hook, line and sinker. How that can be case, I don’t know. I just know that it is. Our word “orthodox” is just not the end all to theology for them.
cherylu,
You wrote, “why isn’t it true for anyone else that is believing it and teaching it?”
I’m not saying it is or isn’t. My focus has been on Johnson. Others are either deceived or deceiving deceivers.
I get your point that Johnson is not the only one teaching some of these things; but, does that make the true source any less demonic? Perverting the person of Christ is what demons do; that’s their modus operandi. Johnson’s words are his own (whether or not by a demon), they are not exact copies of another. The basic doctrine may be something he’s appropriated; but, he’s putting it into his own words. Whether or not he or any of his predecessor’s think this is orthodox this fact remains: if one is truly led of the Spirit, He will guide us into Truth – especially as regards the person of Christ. But, again, whether it’s Johnson himself by his flesh or the demons behind these evil doctrines doing it, Scripture is purposely twisted and terms redefined.
As but one example, we have Johnson’s proof-texting of a portion of John 5:19, “…The Son can do nothing…” in his claim that Jesus was wholly reliant on the Father through the spirit with “NO supernatural capabilities whatsoever”. In looking at the immediate context, it’s clear the Jews had understood Jesus as claiming to be equal with God (5:16-18). In response, Jesus states He doesn’t do anything on His own as He can only do what the Father does (5:19). The point is that He IS equal with God which is made clear when He says He can give life “to whom He is pleased to give it” just as the Father(5:21, NIV 1984). This is exactly what the Jews understood in verse 16 as the common understanding was that God rested on the Sabbath except that He gave life (babies born) and exacted judgment (death of individuals). He then states that He grants eternal life in the then present (5:24-25). This then clearly indicates that Jesus was not “powerless” as Johnson claims.
I don’t know if someone else proof-texts John 5:19 in the manner Johnson does; but, again, it doesn’t matter. It’s the spirits behind this that are providing the information.
Bottom line: if one believes that “Christ” is merely an anointing and does not refer to the exclusive person of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, then that person is either not listening to the Holy Spirit or that person does not have the Spirit in them to begin with.
The whole tangible, transferable “anointing” is not only not Scriptural it is antichrist by the Apostle John’s definition in his first epistle. John makes a clear reference to the chrisma, or anointing which is “from the Holy One” (1 John 2:20, NIV 1984) while the “liar” is the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ (2:22). In claiming, as per hyper-charismaticism, that “the anointing” is “Christ” is tantamount to denying that Jesus is the Christ, plain and simple.
So, it matters not if Johnson is the originator of this evil doctrine, the point is he adheres to a doctrine so obviously against Jesus Christ and His Word as revealed by the Holy Spirit. To adhere to such doctrine is not a mark of being led of the Spirit as it’s a clear twisting of the Scriptures. Whether it’s Johnson in and of himself or the spirits behind him does not matter; the effect is the same. He and/or the spirits behind him is/are twisting the Scriptures.
Do you agree that this doctrine is antichrist? If not, please tell me why.
Good morning Craig.
Again, I have never once said that I agree with Johnson’s doctrine. Let’s please not go down that road again.
My whole point has been to say, “Let’s be careful that we don’t accuse him of more then he is actually guilty of.” Good grief, he is guilty of enough as it is!
And for the last time, (I hope!), I have been trying to say here that because Johnson believes and teaches these things does not prove he is a delberate deceiver. Or make him someone that is not too intelligent either one. I really could hardly believe my eyes that you laid those two things out as the only options available for him at this point.
It simply does not work to lay those parameters on him and say he has to be one or the other and then to say it is not the same for the rest of the world out there believing and teaching the same things. He is not a person that is totally different then the rest of humanity or the rest of the movement that he is a part of.
You are only a deliberate deceiver if you know that what you are presenting as truth is indeed a lie. If he indeed believes these things as many others seem to do completely, then he is deceived himself.
I know you can see no other interpretation for certain areas of Scripture. Including the John verses above. I have done a lot of reading on various blogs in the last years however, and I know that is not the only way people see those verses. I think they are quite wrong in their understanding of things, but that doesn’t mean they believe they are teaching or believing a lie.
My reason for this question: “Do you agree that this doctrine is antichrist?” is to get a specific response from you. It’s a general question about the doctrine, not specifically pertaining to Johnson. I would really like your answer on this. Yes, you’ve made it clear that you disagree with Johnson’s doctrine, but that’s not what I’m after here.
But, I still think you fail to see my point. Whether one is deceived and propounding a doctrine ‘innocently’, or whether one is doing it defiantly does not matter. The intent of the spirit behind this is the same. Again, it matters not if Johnson heard these doctrines from someone else, or whether he dreamed it up in his own mind having no idea someone else already taught these, or if he is so influenced by evil spirits that he has no idea what he’s saying. He, either of himself and/or the spirits behind him, is/are deliberately deceiving others with these twisted doctrines. Is he so deceived he doesn’t know the difference? That may well be.
You wrote, “You are only a deliberate deceiver if you know that what you are presenting as truth is indeed a lie. If he indeed believes these things as many others seem to do completely, then he is deceived himself.” Yes, but you nor I know that for sure as I point out in part II. In fact, let’s move this discussion to part II as that’s where it’s most applicable.
I’ll have to do some more thinking or rereading on the specifics of your antichrist question.
And you are right, we don’t know for sure if B J is deceived or a deliberate deceiver. That is my whole point. While you have said that on one hand, on the other you have spent untold hours trying to prove that he is a deliberate wolf and you have stated that you believe he is.
And now in a comment above, you have given him only the option of being a deliberate deceiver or really quite stupid, to put your thoughts in somewhat blunter terms. And you have said you didn’t think it was lack of intelligence so that leaves only one other option, right?? And that is deliberate deceiver.
While you say we can’t know for sure, your loud and clear accusation stands.
cherylu,
Let’s see what Scripture says (Matthew 7:15-23, NIV):
15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
Looking at the last two verses we see these “false prophets”, “ferocious wolves” (7:15) will stand at the White Throne Judgment and plead their case. Are they so deceived as to tell Jesus they’re at the wrong judgment? Or, are they defiantly pleading their cases? This passage makes my point regarding the deliberate deceiver and that is that they are deliberately deceiving whether in and of themselves or as the unwilling vessel of the enemy.
Do you think Jesus will say instead something like, “It’s OK, I understand. The enemy is really powerful; so, I will allow you passage to the Heavenly Gates. You were merely deceived and in your own deception deceiving others.”?
Let’s try this from another angle: For example, let’s use a Satanist. This Satanist spits (metamorphically) in the face of Jesus Christ. There’s no doubt he’s willingly doing this. Yet, s/he is also deceived by the enemy; certainly, if s/he understood the Biblical reality of the lake of fire, s/he would not make such a foolish choice.
Does that help make my point?
Please answer on part II: http://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/2012/04/02/bill-johnsons-christology-a-new-christ-part-ii/
Part II is the most applicable place to discuss this.
Craig,
I’m not taking the discussion anywhere at this point. It is going nowhere fast. Just in one big, huge circle. So I’m calling it quits.
If a person can believe they are telling the truth even if they are quite wrong and still be accused of being a “deliberate” deceiver, (B J we are discussing here), then the word “deliberate” has been redefined to mean something else completely from any definition I know of it.
No more of this convo from me at this time. I see no point in it at all.
If you want this comment in the Part II thread, please feel free to move it there.
I would still like your reply to my question below at 8:34am re: antichrist doctrine as, in my mind, it’s central to this discussion.
I do find it curious that I’m not afforded any latitude in your eyes with respect to what I write yet you give Johnson so much more. I have to wonder why that is. I’m not the one leading the flock astray as I’m doing my best to expose the evil doctrines that Johnson propounds and promotes – which itself exposes the evil doctrines of the hyper-charismatic movement in general. Even if you think I’m wrong in part of what I say, why continue to defend a person who is so obviously leading many astray? You’ve even admitted that BSSM is spiritual poison. I don’t get it.
I can’t think of anyone other then maybe Rob Bell that has been warned,confronted, exhorted, entreated, challenged,rebuked, etc. as much as Bill Johnson has over the last 5 years regarding his errant doctrine and practices, for him to demonstrate the cavalier,even arragent demeanor towards the “Church” (including its many denominations-God bless them All!), the HOLY Scripture (the more SURE WORD of “prophecy”),the faithful shepherds whose flocks he has helped to scatter,confuse and wound, and our Lord…Jesus the” true Christ” who alone has merited that “office” which we the church honor Him in. Finally…the Holy Spirit whose “voice” has been trampled under foot by the flood of false “words” shouted at itching ears. I for one, cannot and do not believe Gods Word allows us to continue to patiently tolerate one who has persisted THIS LONG in assaulting everything Gods Word calls Holy in His Sight. I’m afraid Bill is only one of many who are turning on the Truth and fully embrace the” Lie ” Judging those within the house is the toughest job we will face especially in this post -modern pragmatic ,aquarian age we have entered but we have been warned and equipped , we must love the truth even when it divides and stand on it in the spirit.
I’ve just come across this blog in my ongoing research on Bill Johnson’s church specifically the Sozo phenomenon. Several friends are caught up in this. Of most interest to me in this discussion are Cherylu’s responses. As an “outside observer,” as it were, I would ask her Who she says Jesus Christ is? That’s all. But the upside is that Craig, you have taken the challenge to exquisitely expand on your analysis of Johnson’s “theology,” which has been tremendously enlightening for me.
pnissila,
I’m thankful that you’ve been helped by the work done here on CrossWise. May you be able to help your friends who are caught up in the Sozo teachings.
pnissila,
I would say Jesus Christ was on this earth fully God and fully man. Does that answer your question?
It’s a start.
Pingback: Bill Johnson’s Christology: A New Age Christ?, part IV (Conclusion) « CrossWise
New Age? Devil’s doctrine? If Jesus gave up his write as God to become man, that still made/ makes him God. How does giving up the right as God make a difference? Aren’t we splitting hairs? Aren’t we putting words into their mouth claiming that they don’t believe Jesus to be God? I’m imagine if you asked them, their mouths would drop in horror at such an accusation.
I find the tone here consistent with an accusing and divisive spirit, and not consistent with Paul’s tone in uniting the church. Shouldn’t we be using a different tone here? One eating meat, and the other one not eating meat should still be able to dine in unity.
The mysteries of the theology of the trinity have never been convincingly understood from where I sit. Maybe I’m just ignorant. I’ve heard long dissertations, and many sincere break downs, and they lacked the ‘confidence’ I see coming from here.
I’m not from nor do I support the Jesus Culture ministry. I was curious to check on their theology and found your site. If this is the best you’ve got against them, I feel comfortable that this isn’t satanic or anything like that. You are welcome to make other cases though.
Bless you. May you point to Christ with unity as the focus. May the world see Jesus and not quarreling religious men flexing theology instead of love.
Jason,
You seem to have missed the point/s. You say we shouldn’t ‘flex theology’ but instead ‘love’. First of all, to speak of Jesus is to be speaking theology (theos = God; ology = study of). In addition, to warn others about dangerous doctrine I submit IS love.
Can you point to a specific instance in the article that exemplifies the ‘accusing and divisive spirit’ you accuse me of [you're not being 'accusing and divisive', are you?] so that I can understand your point of view?
You wrote, “If Jesus gave up his write as God to become man, that still made/ makes him God. How does giving up the right as God make a difference?” The article shows Johnson claiming Jesus gave up “divinity” which means Jesus was no longer God. [Unless you can somehow show me how a non-divine person can be divine simultaneously.] If Jesus is no longer God having no divine attributes, how can He reacquire His divine attributes? If Jesus can somehow do this, can we also become divine without having any divine attributes? I’m trying here to illustrate the absurdity of such theology.
And, I’m not accusing – I’m pointing specific quotes which indicate exactly what they say. I don’t have to ‘put words in their mouth’ as you state.
Your comment RE the Trinity. The Trinity IS a divine mystery! Just like the Incarnation. Yet, we don’t try to explain the Incarnation in such a way that humanizes Jesus Christ at the expense of His divinity.
You wrote, “May you point to Christ with unity as the focus.” That is exactly what I’m doing here. Christians ARE to unify around Christ – the Christ as He is revealed in the Bible. Not the one Bill Johnson and some others are proclaiming – one with “NO supernatural powers whatsoever!”
I watched the Youtube testimony (there are many of them) again of Kim Walker, Bethel’s worship leader. Her testimony is disturbing and really weird, as is her trance inducing music (always starts soft, then mesmerizes, building into an emotional climax, what I like to call a “spiritual orgasm”). Kim is an example of an “adept” if you will. She is a spiritual leader showing others how to worship, how to get close to God. Or, at least, like her mentor Bill Johnson, so she thinks.
I personally do not believe that Kim actually saw God the Father face to face, nor that “he” created her by tearing out a piece of his heart, nor that she saw him jump arouind like an over excited crazed teenager whenever he watched her sing and dance…but that’s all in her own testimony. To put it bluntly, I do not think the “Jesus” Kim Walker and Bill Johnson worship is the same Jesus I worship. I do not believe that Kim had an encounter with God, but more likely with the devil himself. But that’s just my opinion.
Watch Kim’s testimony here:
Watch a typical Jesus Culture (Kim Walker) worship here:
Bethel’s gold dust and feathers that supposedly fall upon the congregation during services is a far cry from the power of God. For people who claim to be living life in partnership with God Himself, fits of laughter, squirming on the floor speaking in tongues, and a few unverifiable so-called “divine” healings etc. are pretty weak stuff. They are most likely counterfeits and not true manifestations of God’s Holy Spirit at work. But there is no denying that the crowds Bethel is garnering are huge. Are people just stupid, like the theosophists claim? Or is there a powerful delusion taking hold over the multitudes?
I came across a rather lengthy 1909 Theosophist article…which seems to apply to what’s going on at Bethel. I pulled out a couple excerpts:
‘In other words, we must realize that which is spiritual and divine within ourselves and in every other thing, before the portals of profound occult knowledge can be opened for us and we become initiated into the divine mysteries of nature. We must be able to raise our consciousness to a higher plane, before we can be able to perceive and actually know that which belongs to that plane and to avoid the snares and pitfalls which await those who walk with closed eyes in the dangerous precincts of the astral plane’.
“Every great movement, when it becomes popular, oversteps its boundaries and devastation begins. The tree of occultism, overflowing with life, produced many excrescences; hypnotism and mental suggestion appeared upon the scene and their miracles worked both ways; for, the best kind of medicine for effecting a cure may, if misapplied, also become a poison that kills, and the two, great enemies of mankind, stupidity and selfishness, are always ready to misapply the gifts which they receive. There are not a few who are willing to pledge their souls to the demons of hell, if they thereby could come into possession of infernal powers.”
“Some of these societies, being based upon a financial scheme for making money, pretending to be able to employ divine powers in their service and to have the will of God at their command for the purpose of procuring for their adherents physical health and worldly benefits, met with great success; for the multitudes will always rush to that camp, where they think that a mine of gold has been discovered and where they are expecting a share; and the holding out promises of making salvation easy has always been the fundamental power of every clerical institution. However, we will not quarrel with these sects; however mistaken their theories and however deplorable the entire want of intelligence among some of their leaders, they too were the outgrowth of our times, the products of the law of necessity, and they had to fill a certain place in the progress of human evolution, and to certain of their guides the testimony may be given, that in spite of their ignorance and self conceit, they after all believed themselves in what they taught, and that they consequently “meant well.””
http://www.theosophical.org/publications/quest-magazine/1251
So, as far as the theosophists are concerned, Bethel Church is just fulfilling a certain place in human evolution. Bill Johnson and Kim Walker probably really do believe in what they are doing. They are probably very sincere and mean well. Is that all that is required? Is that “good”? Is that acceptable?
No, I think not.
Steve,
Thanks for posting this. I confess I’ve not ever looked into Bethel’s “Jesus Culture” worship music.
You wrote, “I personally do not believe that Kim actually saw God the Father face to face, nor that “he” created her by tearing out a piece of his heart, nor that she saw him jump arouind like an over excited crazed teenager whenever he watched her sing and dance…”
I suppose the question we must ask ourselves is can ANYONE see the Father (and live)? Scripture says no. And, of course, I don’t think we see evidence anywhere in Scripture which would suggest Jesus would run around like an overly excited crazed teenager. This is very disturbing stuff.
It’s so very sad as Walker seems like a very nice and sincere individual – as so many do – but she is so very sincerely deceived.
I also appreciate the posting. My friends involved in Bethel think this is a “new” move of God. The buzz word, at least from listening to them, seems to be “thrive,” now. Everybody they reference who is involved in Sozo is “thriving.” In addition, they are adamant about how God uses Sozo to heal “instantly.” All this in the face of another friend they took to Bethel last year for healing from breast cancer. They were sure she was healed. This summer, the cancer is back with a vengeance. In fact, our dear friend may be dying. But with cults, there is no logic. Undoubtedly they have some excuse related to her faith level or something else. Very sad. Thank you for continuing to expose this.
Misunderstanding, misapplying, or misinterpreting the mystery of the wedding feast of the Lamb, the bride and bridegroom, a divine marriage where the two shall become one flesh, etc. is at the heart of Bethel’s errant theology.
Bethel Church/Bill Johnson teach that God imparts His divinity to us, (mankind), if we but worship Him. In other words, our worship opens the door to becoming part of God, like God, or acting with the power of God right here on this earth. It’s a give and take kind of thing, with the results wholly dependent on our level of faith, our intensity of worship. “Ask and you shall receive”, so why not ask for it all. This is what I believe Bill Johnson means when he refers to being “partners with God”. This is what Kim Walker is singing about when she moans “I will pursue you” over and over. They are in effect saying, “See how much I worship you? Now give me your glory, I won’t stop moaning, begging, pestering you about it until I have it all!”
The simple fact is the marriage feast of the lamb has not taken place yet, and it certainly does not take place here on this earth while man is still in his fleshly state. It is a heavenly marriage, and it is still in the future, is it not?
The “ministers” at Bethel act like they are already married to God. This is a different gospel from proclaiming our salvation, a different gospel from being saved by grace. If, by marriage, the two shall become one flesh, and if we are already married right now to God through the death of Christ, then we would have every right to expect to be able to exercise ALL the power and authority of God. After all, if the two shall become one, and we are really already one with God right now, then why should we not expect to be able to exercise God’s full authority?
Isn’t this what Bill Johnson is really teaching when he says “we” will do greater things than Jesus?
I just can’t wait to see what these greater things are. Not.
Steve,
Yes, you’re right; it’s about a ‘union’ with god. Whether it’s the Platonic/Neoplatonic concept of the the preexistence of the soul in which the soul is essentially a literal part of god, or the ‘divine spark’ concept, we must, through contemplation, “intimacy”, etc. ‘unite’ ourselves with god in order the fully actualize ourselves and simultaneously be rid of the inferior physical existence. It comes down to this dualistic concept of spirit=good and matter=evil. This union, though, comes in stages thereby necessitating this continual ‘seeking his presence’ in order to fully become ‘one’ with him. It’s just like the Eastern Transcendental Meditation.
Once we redeem ourselves in this way, then we can redeem creation, i.e. free the individual souls/sparks within creation and thereby enable us to unite with all these sparks/souls in order for god to be completely whole again. That’s the ‘marriage supper of the lamb’ according to the occult. After this, the shells around all of creation, including the human shell, will need to be destroyed.
Now, THERE’s a greater work than Jesus as He never did anything like that.
No, He just created and continually sustains all of creation (Heb 1:3; Col 1:17; Gen 1:1; John 1:1).
Note at about 2:55 of the 2nd video Walker-Smith sings “I will not be denied”. It’s her right apparently to seek and have this ‘presence’ of/with God.
28 Let the prophet who has a dream recount the dream, but let the one who has my word speak it faithfully. For what has straw to do with grain?” declares the LORD. 29 “Is not my word like fire,” declares the LORD, “and like a hammer that breaks a rock in pieces?
Listening to this video creates in me a most impatient response…like I’ve heard these kinds of stories too many times…and will you please get through it? I’m bored already….
Way back in the dark ages when Paula White was starting out and came as the speaker to our Women’s Retreat…she was sharing similar outrageous details of her encounters with this “other Jesus”. Since then the crowds and the gullibility have increased, or the delusion, for what else could it be?
It reminds me of a time in Israel’s history when God promised them a famine:
Amos 8:11 (New International Version)
11 “The days are coming,” declares the Sovereign LORD,
“when I will send a famine through the land—
not a famine of food or a thirst for water,
but a famine of hearing the words of the LORD.
People have become so distracted and enamoured by these demonic spiritual encounters that they haven’t noticed that the Word of the Lord has been stolen from them and they are eating “straw”………and Pnissila, how can they possibly “thrive” on straw?
Craig, you, Carolyn, and I are on the same page when it comes to Bethel. Let’s hope the work that you have done here Craig, and our comments, is of benefit to the readers who come here looking for answers about Bill Johnson’s ministry. If even one is helped to get back on the narrow path, it’s all worth it.
Are sinners being saved through the ministries at Bethel? Or, are those who think they are already saved being led back into bondage? The draw at Bethel is not salvation through the shed blood of Jesus Christ, but in acquiring power.
“Dream Culture” promises the power to fulfill one’s dreams, make dreams real, from cars, to careers, to acquiring that perfect marriage partner.
“Sozo” promises the power to heal one’s self physically or psychologically, to get rid of that which hinders so a person can “fulfill one’s destiny”.
“The School of Supernatural Ministry”, “School of the Prophets”, “Jesus Culture Worship Team”, etc. all promise the attendee supernatural abilities and powers.
God does certainly give gifts, but not for our own glory, not for our own satisfaction, and not so we can have everything we want right here on this earth. God’s gifts are not for sale.
Bethel’s ministry list is right out of the shaman’s playbook. The only difference is they have slathered everything with Christian terminology, a veneer of godliness, on what otherwise is simply a mix of new age/pagan practices.
But let it be said, there is no greater display of supernatural power on earth than when one sinner repents and turns to our Lord Jesus.
Amen?
Steve,
I will wholeheartedly “AMEN” your comment. I don’t know if you’ve seen this particular post just yet which echoes your last statement:
http://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/2011/12/17/greater-works-shall-you-do/
Within that post is a quote from 19th century expositor J.C. Ryle:
In short, ‘greater works’ mean more conversions. There is no greater work possible than the conversion of a soul.
Take a look at this (16 min.) trailer for “Wide is the Gate Vol. 2″. It appears to be a very well put together synopsis of what we are talking about. The entire film is over 3 hrs. long.
Steve,
I’d say that generally it’s a good overview. However, one of the inherent problems in these sorts of things is the tendency to make broad sweeps. And sometimes in doing so, one person is mischaracterized as a bit worse than what they are while another is not seen to be perhaps as dangerous as they really are.
The idea to ‘reappropriate’ “what the devil stole”, i.e. ‘Christianize’ occult practices goes back to Biblcal times. An example is in the Book of Colossians and Clinton Arnold makes a good study of this in his book The Colossian Syncretism. Bill Johnson exemplifies this idea in the following statement:
Many prominent authors and conference speakers add fuel to the fire of fear assuming that because the new age movement promotes it, its origins must be from the devil…
I note that the video places a book by D.A. Carson exposing the Emergent/Emerging church movement amongst others who are promoting it [at 1:57] – an obvious error that I’m certain Carson would not appreciate. Carson is a scholar whose work I generally appreciate. I may have to buy the book as I wasn’t aware of it till just now:
http://www.amazon.com/Becoming-Conversant-Emerging-Church-Understanding/dp/0310259479/ref=cm_cr_pr_pb_t
Also, I note that the video says that it was Schuller who first used the term New Reformation. While Warren was no doubt influenced by his mentor Schuller, the idea was previously used by New Ager Jeremy Rifkin in his book The Emerging Order: God in the Age of Scarcity [w/ Ted Howard, 1979, G.P. Putnam's Sons, NY] :
If to be revolutionary is to challenge the existing authority with a new vision, then to be revolutionary today is to challenge the authority of science and technology; these are the principle assumptions upon which modern industrial society rests. The Charismatics are doing just that. Their challenge to the existing order is profound and could well end up turning the world upside down, just as the Reformation theologians did a half millenium ago… [p 224]
The hyper-charismatic wing has run parallel with the Emerging/Emergent church for a while but is now converging.
Craig,
Since the origins for all this stuff go back to Genesis 3, who said what first lately really doesn’t matter much, just confuses the broader issue, which is the diminishing ability of Christians to recognize (hear) heresy in the church.
Schuller is notable because of his high public profile and his general acceptability, and also for his many White House visits during the Clinton years. Hillary was reportedly a big fan. Sad how a lot of Christian folks did, and still do, consider Schuller mainstream. The center always seems to be moving left doesn’t it! All the rest of these emerging turkeys are just birds of a feather.
There’s been heretics preaching falsehoods in the church for two thousand years, so what’s new?
What’s new is that there aren’t just a few heretics preaching in a few churches, but that the heresy is so widespread as to be almost “mainstream” today. I think (hope) that is the most important point of the film, but without seeing the whole thing, can’t say for sure.
As for the groundwork for this modern flood of heresy, many of the (sand) bricks were laid at least a hundred years ago by the theosophist Rudolf Steiner. Of course one can’t “Christianize” theosophy per se, that would be impossible, but Steiner did take the darkest evil and re-package it into recognizable and familiar church lingo and terminology. Steiner reinterpreted the scriptures to fit theosophical concepts, and by doing so set the pattern that so many of these modern heretics follow, which is reading into the scriptures things that simply aren’t there and ignoring the things that are there but don’t fit their worldview.
Here’s a little taste of Steiner …(believe me, I can’t stomach too much!)
“The revelation of the spiritual worlds from the Heights and its answering reflection from the hearts of men brings peace to all whose purpose upon the evolving Earth is to unfold good will.”
[ From : “Christianity and World Religions” - “According to Luke” - Rudolf Steiner (1909)]
http://www.rudolfsteinerpress.com/pages/religion.php
Rick Warren says much the same things in almost the same ways as Steiner. Coincidence? Surely not.
Steiner also wrote extensively about Christ’s humanity, as well as the divine nature, which he called the “Christ force”:
“Among the many spiritual riches in this work are Steiner’s explanations of the nature of true Christian initiation and the mission of Christ Jesus as the bringer of “I” consciousness. Steiner’s insights also lead us to understand the miracles Christ performed, significant events such as the Transfiguration, and how the Christ force lived among the disciples.”
[From the description of “According to Matthew"- "The Gospel of Christ’s Humanity” by Rudolf Steiner]
It would be interesting to do a comparison of Steiner’s words/concepts/teachings with those of Bill Johnson. I bet there are a lot of parallels.
I didn’t mean to sound overly critical of the trailer; but, I may have come across that way. I think this sort of thing is good for those who have absolutely no idea of just what’s going on in ‘the church’ today. These sorts of things are also usually good primers for those interested to do further research.
Schuller certainly was very popular in his day and Warren is even more high profile. Yes, the ‘center’ has been steadily moving leftward by the Hegelian dialectic process. And, it’s STILL going that way.
I don’t think you’re off the mark at all with the thought that heresy is now mainstream. (Some would argue that heresy must by definition be a teaching that was specifically anathematized by an ecumenical Council. I think that places too high a burden on these unorthodox teachings and practices.)
I’ve not read any of Steiner’s material. I may have to some time to get his point of reference. I’d not be surprised to see parallels to hyper-charismatic (and Emergent/ing) teachings.
You are deceived brother.
1 John 4: (KJV)
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world
Note that the spirit of the anti-Christ, is not anti Jesus, but anti Christ.
1. The New Age teachers are of the spirit of the Antichrist, because the “redefine” the word Christ, which means the annointed Messiah, to mean an individual’s own consciousness. Therefore they make themselves out to be Christ, and not Jesus to be the Christ. Therefore they are opposing that Christ, the annointed Messiah is come, by redefining the definition, and replacing the annointed Messiah with themselves.
2. The Religious crowd of today, even within church circles, also operate from the spirit of the anti-Christ, because they are blinded to the revelation that Paul brought, of Christ in us the hope of glory, and therefore dismiss signs and miracles for today. They do not believe that he IS COME through His bride.
Bill Johnson does not operate from the spirit of the anti-Christ, Christ the anointed Messiah, is manifesting His glory through him, Christ is come through him.
But you are opposing him, so from which spirit are you operating from?
Selah…
Yessy,
Thanks so much for your comment as you so very well illustrate a number of problems with Bill Johnson’s (and other hyper-charismatic’s) teachings. I hope you will come back and read here and not prove to be another of the many ‘drive-by’ commentators as this is very important to your own spiritual welfare.
First of all, by your statement, “Note that the spirit of the anti-Christ, is not anti Jesus, but anti Christ” you, like Bill Johnson, violate the very thing the Apostle John warns of in separating “Jesus” from “Christ”. (See 1 John 2:22 and this article which shows explicitly how Johnson does this while also explaining in detail what it means to be antichrist according to Scripture.) By this I mean that by the Apostle’s very definition, even thinking along the lines of “anti-Jesus” as opposed to “anti-Christ” is to have fallen into antichrist ideology. Biblically, to be antichrist is to separate the Person of Jesus [Christ] from Christ. “Christ” (the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew “Messiah”) means Anointed One, thus denoting exclusivity, that is, there is and can only be one Christ/Messiah. And, that One is Jesus the Christ/Messiah, or as He is commonly referred to in the NT: “Jesus Christ” or “Christ Jesus”.
One of the points John is making in his first epistle in 4:2-3 is that to understand “Christ” as separate from the person of Jesus – as in understanding Jesus came in the flesh but that “Christ” is distinct from Jesus and thus did not come ‘with’ Jesus (separating the two) who/which instead ‘anointed’ Jesus at a later time (at baptism) – is antichrist. You illustrate the separation of “Christ” from the physical body of Jesus especially in your point 2 above. If you understand that the Church ‘body’ is now Christ’s body, rather than Jesus’ own body in which He “became flesh” [John 1:14] at His 1st coming being His body exclusively, you are adhering to an antichrist doctrine. [The Apostle John’s other point is that those who could not conceive of Jesus as the Christ because of a belief in Dualism (all spirit is good while all matter is evil) – a prevailing Hellenistic belief of the time – is to be antichrist. This is known as Docetism, from the Greek word “to seem”, as in Christ only ‘seemed’ to have a physical body.]
In addition, you do not fully comprehend how “Christ” is used in New Age circles as there’s more than one aspect. One of these is exactly what you claim is correct within Christianity in your point 2 above. “Christ in you, the hope of glory” is the fact that each true Holy Spirit indwelt Christian has “Christ” in a sense, yes; however – and this is very important – we are not individual ‘Christs’ and, therefore, Jesus is not “COME through His bride” as you state. Jesus “COMES” / returns for His bride at His Second Coming which will then culminate in the Marriage Supper of the Lamb occurring in heaven (with all the other dead in Christ, the children of God who’ve preceded the generation of Christ’s return), not in our temporal realm and not at any point before His bodily return. You really should read part II of this series as it specifically compares a Bob Jones and a similar Earl Paulk quote regarding Christ “coming IN My people” to New Age teachings on this very thing.
Your understanding of “Christ in you, the hope of glory” IS the same as the “Christ consciousness” teaching (your point 1 above). In this New Age teaching, each person is “anointed” (“Christed”), and with this “Christing” the doorway is opened to continue ‘going within’ to expand the “Christ within” (the “Christ consciousness”) until one achieves total ‘one-ness’ (or complete “intimacy”) with “god”. [In point of fact, this is actually demonic possession (see part IIIb, last quote in “The Word Becoming Spirit” section).] When enough individuals have achieved this level, known as ‘critical mass’, the 100th monkey, etc., then “Christ” (actually the antichrist) “reappears” (the teaching is that he never left which means it’s not a ‘second coming’ but a “reappearance”).
You wrote, “Bill Johnson does not operate from the spirit of the anti-Christ, Christ the anointed Messiah, is manifesting His glory through him, Christ is come through him.
But you are opposing him, so from which spirit are you operating from?”
Since, as illustrated above, Bill Johnson’s doctrine is antichrist by definition, then opposing his teachings is to be contending for the faith [Jude 3-4] and helping others to not be led astray [1 John 2:26] by testing the spirit of these antichrist teachings [1 John 2:22, 4:1-3].