April 16, 2008

Copyright Infringement & Plagiarism: Jim Johnson’s Series, “Destroying Free Grace Theology”

The men and I that have cooperated in the research of the current series by Mr. Jim Johnson are not pleased to be issuing a series with such disconcerting findings. However, Johnson’s series was produced to discredit men like Pastor Tom Stegall because of his series, The Tragedy of the Crossless Gospel published at the Grace Family Journal. Furthermore, and in reality, Mr. Johnson’s series discredits the Gospel! He did these things we are about to examine publicly and he promoted his series as if it would be a theological breakthrough.

I intended to open this new multi-part series addressing the already well-publicized case of Mr. Jim Johnson violating federal copyright law and extreme example of plagiarism. That incident occurred in Part 5 of his series Destroying Free Grace Theology. That article has been reschedule because a new example of copyright infringement and blatant plagiarism has been uncovered in Mr. Johnson’s series.

Once the mass plagiarism was discovered in Part 5 of his series it seemed to me that there may likely be more examples of plagiarism to be found in other installments of his series, and there were. In this article I will drawing your attention to *Part 2 of Johnson’s series, which is where this new episode of plagiarism is found.

With the revelation of the latest ethical lapse about to unfold below Mr. Johnson is now compelled to delete Part 2 from his blog series for copyright infringement and plagarism, just like he had to pull Part 5. He must do so not only for this blatant, pre-meditated plagiarism, but because it is the second violation of federal copyright law in his series.

Unlike the way Mr. Johnson has been trying to deflect scrutiny away from the plagiarism in Part 5, in this case he will not be able to appeal to any organzation or author for permisson to reprint. There is a significant difference between this episode of plagiarism and the previous with Part 5. What is that difference?

In Part 5 he buried a very obscure reference to the 1946 Bibliotheca Sacra article he edited and plagiarized. In this episode, from Part 2 of his series, Mr. Johnson never references the author, article or source that he plagiarized at any point in the body of his article or in the footnotes. He found an article, lifted a major section and then began his process of editing various portions through revision, deletions and additions. Mr. Johnson knew he was methodically editing another man’s work and did so for the sole purpose of presenting it as his own to bolster his Crossless interpretation of the Gospel. In academic circles there is no more reprehensible act than plagiarism. In the series Destroying Free Grace Theology, we are reporting a second irrefutable example of plagiarism by Mr. Johnson.

For future verification of Mr. Johnson’s plagiarism I (and three other men) have archived Johnson’s Part 2 with date and time stamp from his blog of April 15, 2008. The examples of plagiarism that follow were taken from his article as it appeared at his blog on April 15, 2008. Why did we archive this article? Because if Johnson follows his pattern from the plagiarism of Ralph R. Hawthorne’s 1946 Bibliotheca Sacra article in Part 5 of his series, he will be deleting Part 2 of his series. In our opinion, if he ever has the nerve to repost it, it will be sanitzied to remove any trace of his unethical behavior.

With the Introduction complete let’s begin the review of Jim Johnson’s copyright infringement and blatant plagiarism.

The location from which Mr. Johnson found the article that he plagiarized is Bible.org At Bible.org Mario Cerda wrote and published an 11 part series titled, Subject Determination Involving Proper Articuler Nouns in Equative Clauses.

Article 11 by Cerda is titled, Appendix 6: Exegesis of John 20:31. It is from this article that Mr. Johnson plagiarized Mario Cerda's work.

If you go to Mario Cerda’s Appendix 6 (see link above) you can find the place at which Johnson’s plagiarism begins. Under the header EXEGESIS, Cerda writes,
“Up to this point in the gospel, John has highlighted that believing upon hearing is better than believing because of seeing. Now in…”
Following that statement above Johnson begins his plagiarism of Cerda. Cerda’s paragraph continues with,

“Now in John 20:30-31 he effectively says, Now on the one hand there are many signs which the apostles witnessed and, for some, these led to their belief; but on the other hand only some of those signs are told here so that by hearing of them you may believe the truth about Jesus and truly live.’ The first half (v. 30) of the concluding remark sets up a ‘on the one hand A, but on the other hand B’ relationship which provides a nice transition from the example of Thomas to the purpose statement in v. 31.”
When you view Part 2 of Johnson’s series you will find the plagiarism in the section titled, The Doctrine of Progressive Revelation. Scroll down to paragraph 22, which follows the paragraph that begins and then ends this way,
“Finally, since publishing this and the other articles… here is an extended exegetical discussion of John 20:30-31.”
At varying degrees Johnson revised virtually every paragraph from Cerda’s material. Following I will provide selected examples from Cerda’s plagiarzed article to demonstrate how Johnson manipulated the author’s article to disguise his (Johnson’s) plagiarism and disarm it of anything that would be be counter productive to his own theological position. Please note that I will post examples Johnson’s revisions of Cerda’s plagiarized work in red. Cerda’s original work will remain in blue. I will insert comments about what Johnson did in these plagiarism examples.

To reiterate- the blue portions are authentic Cerda material. The red portions are how Johnson tweaked and manipulated Cerda’s writing to disguise the plagiarism.

Ταῦτα, a nominative neuter plural demonstrative pronoun rendered “these things” is standard. There is nothing special about γέγραπται. It is a very common word but that is no reason to ignore it. First, it is singular while the demonstrative pronoun is plural. This might suggest that the subject is “this book” and that the pronoun is actually the direct object. However, the passive voice of the verb suggests a breach of grammatical concord where a singular verb uses a plural subject. This is not uncommon. Second, many translations (ASV, ESV, KJV, NCV, NIV, NKJV, NLT, RSV) choose to translate the verb as a present rather than as a perfect (ISV, NASB). The intensive perfect makes better sense of the context because it emphasizes result or present state. In Scripture the use of the perfect for “written” is often found.
This last sentence is actually a Johnson rephrase of a Craig Keener quote at this point in Cerda’s article.

Johnson’s plagiarism, “In summary, the external evidence lines up pretty evenly and the internal evidence is equally inconclusive. Consequently, Metzger and Committee assign the text a C rating.[68] The significance of the text critical question is that an aorist subjunctive allows for a translation of “might come to believe,” which implies John addresses an unbelieving audience.”

Cerda wrote, “In summary, the external evidence lines up pretty evenly and the internal evidence is equally inconclusive. Consequently, Metzger and Committee assign the text a C rating.3 The significance of the TC question is that an aorist subjunctive allows for a translation of ‘might come to believe,’ which implies John addresses an unbelieving audience. On the other hand, the present normally means ‘might continue to…,’ implying John addresses a believing audience. However, Carson contends that John uses theseἵνα-clause combinations interchangeably for both senses.4 Admittedly, this interchangeability renders the TC question immaterial to the debate regarding purpose of the Gospel.”
Why is Johnson’s version shorter than Cerda’s original? It is plain see that Johnson deleted the final three sentences from Cerda’s paragraph. Why did Johnson delete this section? The reason is that the deleted sentences claim support for the Lordship/perseverance of the saints view.

In the next section of the sentence we read ἵνα πιστεύοντες ζωὴν ἔχητε. The second ἵνα introduces what Wallace’s grammar calls a ἵνα + subjunctive purpose/result clause.[72] The translation would be, “in order that…so that…”[73]
While Johson references Wallace’s grammar for this point, it is Certa’s point that Johnson is rephrasing and then referring to Wallace to avoid the connection to Certa!

“Wallace says that this stems from the writers theology based on rather than from grammar, though the grammar allows it.”
Johnson omits at this point the following quote from Certa, “It attempts to convey that John’s gospel closely associates true believing, that is sustained belief, with divine activity.” Another Lordship/perseverance omission.
The argument from Wallace’s grammar attempts to convey that John’s gospel closely associates true believing, that is saving belief, with divine activity. Wallace says, “what God purposes is what happens, so a ἵνα + subjunctive can be used to express both divine purpose and result”.[74] I find this incredible to say that John had a fully developed Biblical Theology. In addition, to draw this conclusion from Moule’s Idioms is a short reading of his reasoning of the section on the ἵνα, Moule goes on to state that, “…whatever is done about the ἵνα; and personally I find the radical view which interprets the who phrase…as strictly final, so that parables are told to prevent any who are not predestined for salvation from hearing, to incongruous with any part of the N.T. period to be plausible. It is far more reasonable to take both the ἵνα and …[a subjunctive] as instances of Semitic blurring if purpose and result,…”[75]
The term ζωήν is in the accusative case which indicates that it is the direct object of the subjunctive. It occurs 135 times in the New Testament. BDAG classifies them within two broad categories, physical life and transcendent life, which are broken down into seven sub-categories. John uses it 49 times, 35 in the gospel. Context clearly suggests that John has life as a primary theme of his gospel.[77] Given the association to belief as a saving faith, he has eternal life in view (which may explain the textual variant, αἰώνιον). For John, this includes more than life after death.
Johnson inserted “saving,” but Cerda has here the word, “persevering.

The complete phrase occurs once in the Johannine writings. It occurs 12 times without αὐτοῦ and only in the gospel. He uses a similar prepositional phrase, εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, two times (John 1:12 and 2:23) and two more times without αὐτοῦ (John 3:18 and 1 John 5:13). The expression is more often used of the Son’s name (13 times) than of the Father’s (3 times; John 5:43; 10:25; 17:11-12). This makes an incredible statement about Jesus. John essentially claims that the Person of Jesus shares the same character and power as the person of Father. Looking at the text…
In the continuation of this sentence, the original Cerda article cites Raymond Brown’s commentary for the thought that follows on John 5:43, but Johnson makes it look like his own, and then changes the footnote from Brown’s comment to Gregory’s thesis to make it look like Johnson found this on his own!
...of John 5:43 suggests that when Jesus Christ uses it of himself, he probably had the famous instances of Jesus and the phrase “I Am” in mind.[79] The assertion fits especially well with John 17:11-12.

Just prior to his plagiarism he posted this sentence, I would like to share an example of what I am looking for; here is an extended exegetical discussion of John 20:30-31.” This line is deliberately and cleverly placed at the beginning of his plagiarism. Be assured he will attepmt to use it as an escape mechanism to claim he did not intentionally plagiarize Cerda. This is absurd, but we fully expect him to use this mechanism, claim he is being slandered and then make some ridiculous claim that his plagiarism was just another happenstance “human error.”

What was done here was no adaptation. Any interested person can cross-check and verify Johnson’s blantant plagiarism by reviewing Article 11 by Cerda is titled, Appendix 6: Exegesis of John 20:31. It is from this article that Mr. Johnson plagiarized Mario Cerda's work.

Twice now you have been caught red-handed violating federal copyright law and plagiarizing another man’s work. Your blame shifting and excuses do not resonate with any objective reader of your tainted articles.

If you want to be right with God, have peace in your heart you need to confess and repent of this sin. You can’t escape this sin. You fell into sin as we all sometimes do. How we handle our sin and shortcomings can lead to resortation and future blessing, or to further unpleasant consequences.

None of who us reject the teachings of the Crossless gospel and ReDefined Free Grace Theology are delighted to confront and expose your plagiarism. You have blatantly committed this act twice with no remorse or sense of humility. Instead you react with anger, a combative spirit, vitriol and accusations. Frankly, it would be inappropriate to discover the level of plagiarism such as yours, coupled with an arrogant, unrepentant attitude behind it, and not report the issue.

When I read your response to having been caught plagiarizing Hawthorne my thoughts turned to King David. When having sinned against God, and trying to hide what he had done, the weight of conviction and the wheels of God’s judgment were grinding on him. It was that time in his life, which is what you are going through now, that David reflected on when he wrote, When I kept silence, my bones waxed old through my roaring all the day long,” (Psalm 32:3). You have been “roaring,” but I am hopeful you will be sensitive to the Spirit of God, as He does His conviciting work, and that you will respond to Him in true biblical repentance.

One day like David, from you I hope to read some along these lines, “For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me. Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest,” (Psalm 51:3-4). And when you do the Bible promises, “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness,” (1 John 1:9).

You can recover your reputation. This is difficult and we understand the inner turmoil you must be going through. If you will die to self, tighten your belt and make the decision to admit what you have done and repent of it, believers will forgive you. However, as long as you continue to dodge and try to deceive others about this blatant plagiarism your credibility and trustworthiness continues to decline exponentially. Is this what you want your testimony and legacy to be?

For several weeks prior to Mr. Johnson posting his series he often mentioned that his paper had been undergoing a “peer review” by various (un-named) “theologians.” I have some questions:
1) Why do these alleged reviewers not come forward either critically or in support of these articles?

2) Did Mr. Johnson receive any warning from these reviewers and decide not to heed their warning? Or did the reviewers note it and decide not to tell him that he would pay a price if he went ahead with these plagiarized articles?

3) Is it possible that one or more of his reviewers guided him to use the work of other men?

4) Did his paper ever actually get into the hands of a genuine theologian for review? I find it hard to believe that an astute theologian did not detect the obvious and drastic changes in writing style that permeate Johnson’s articles. These were signs that lead to the proof that he plagiarized several authors.

Young people, college students: It is not worth it! Rely on the brains God gave you. He delights to use the simple, the humble, those who have a keen sense of their need of Divine aid to do anything that will count for eternity and glorify Him.

I implore Mr. Johnson to settle with the Lord and receive His forgiveness. I kindly implore any man who might have some influence with Mr. Johnson: Encourage him to confess this plagiarism and biblically repent of it.


This series will be continued. The act of plagiarism we have reviewed today is not the only example from Johnson’s series, Destroying Free Grace Theology. As noted above, in the near future I will be posting the example from Part 5 of his series.

Please proceed to the second installment of Jim Johnson’s Copyright Infringement & Plagiarism, Part 2.

A third episode of plagiarism has been confirmed in Mr. Johnson’s series. That example will be posted in a subsequent article shortly. Frankly, I am still hopeful Mr. Johnson will respond, not to what has been revealed here, but instead to the Holy Spirit


  1. This is unfortunate for Johnson because he is a professor at a seminary. He should be setting the example for his students.

  2. Liam:

    If the Rocky Mountain Bible College, where Johnson is listed as an "Instructor," follows their published standards for Christian Life & Conduct I think RMBC has to seriously question whether retaining him as an "Instructor" is in the school's best interest.

    I am sure we all know what would happen to a RMBC student if he/she had submitted a paper like Johnson's with this level of plagiarism.


  3. Just thought of this: If JJ left the FGA because he didn't want to be hindered by their doctrinal position, I'm thinkin' he could use that same line of reasoning to justify moving to another country where he would be unhindered by copyright law as well -- that would really open up some possibilities for him.

    Tongue in cheek,

  4. Stephen:

    Although most countries still do take a very dim view of this kind of deception, whether or not it is on the books.


  5. Dear Guests:

    The act of plagiarism we have reviewed today is not the only example from Johnson’s series, Destroying Free Grace Theology. As noted above, in the near future I will be posting the example from Part 5 of his series.

    A third episode of plagiarism that has been confirmed in Mr. Johnson’s series. That example will be posted in a subsequent article shortly.

    Frankly, I am still hopeful Mr. Johnson will respond, not to what has been revealed here, but instead to the Holy Spirit.


  6. Stephen, that was very funny.

    Lou, I agree the issue is plagiarism. Johnson tries to portrary it as an issue of copyright infringement which he can rectify by contacting the copyright holders and ask for permission to reprint their articles (probably without fully explaining how he used/plans to use them). However, plagiarism is different than simple copyright infringement in that the author deceptively passes of the work as his own. That is deception. That cannot be rectified.

    -- Greg

  7. Greg:

    There is no questiion that Mr. Johnson was manipulatuing Cerda's work to deceive readers into believing this was his own work.

    As a courtesy I did alert GES that Johnson has indicated he may respond to the call to submit papers for the 2009 GES conference.

    I alerted them to this plagiarism issue and suggested they may want to carefully scrutinze any papers Johnson might submit.

    An official at GES replied to thank me for the heads-up, and said they will be looking for any submissions from Johnson.


  8. Greg/All,

    When Johnson admitted error and pulled part 5, I couldn't figure out what exactly he was apologizing for/admitting. The charge was that he had deliberately used high-school tactics of plagiarism, i.e. intentionally and deliberately changing a word or two here and there in someone else's work and then claiming the whole thing as original. He seemed to be apologizing for not realizing that was wrong. If that's what Johnson was apologizing for, then he is either extraordinarily out-of-touch, lacks intelligence, or is simply being deceptive. I can't think of any adults, let alone college "instructors", who wouldn't realize that changing a few words here and there and then claiming the work as original is plagiarism.

    Johnson indicated that he had written DTS to ask if what he was doing with the article was okay. As soon as I read that, I knew Johnson wasn't planning to send them copies of what he had done. Sure enough, the response from Zuck that he posted on his blog has Zuck saying, "feel free to adapt it". Let me guess: Johnson wrote and asked if he could "adapt" an article, w/o explaining how little "adapting" he was actually doing!

    Johnson mentions that he has an editor. Either that person is a very poor editor, or the editor didn't review these articles (at least not very well).

    Then Johnson says that he's "not a writer", that instead his job is "thinking and communicating ideas". So, does Johnson spend all day talking then? The most common form of "communicating ideas" professionally is writing. Surely if he is constantly "communicating ideas" for both his job and ministry, he would be relatively decent at writing.

    I also note that Johnson can't seem to post an article without mentioning some grand accomplishment of his, such as his engineering degree, or that he used to fly, or be in the armed forces, or is trained in logic, or knows Robert's Rules, or is an instructor at a college, or is/was a ministry leader, etc. He's stated his accomplishments so often we could probably list them for him... but we don't need to because he does it for himself.

    This whole thing is just sad.


    At Free Grace, Free Speech blog another new revelation of Jim Johnson plagiarizing Mario Cerda has just been posted.

    I strongly encourage my guests to read Johnson Plagiarized on GES Website by Jon Perreault.


  10. I have written the following to Rocky Mountain Bible College. We will see how they respond to these incidents. If others would like to express their concern with a Bible College employing such a person to teach the Word of God to its students, you may reach them at:


    E-mail: bible@rmbc.edu

    Rocky Mountain Bible College
    3190 South Grant Street
    Englewood, CO 80113-2605
    Office Phone: 303.657.5636
    Fax: 303.657.5660

    Rocky Mountain Seminary
    3190 South Grant Street
    Englewood, CO 80113-2605
    Office Phone: 303.657.5636
    Fax: 303.657.5660



    I am concerned with the shame brought to the name of Christ by Rocky Mountain Bible College instructor and seminary student Mr. Jim Johnson. It gives me no satisfaction to express this concern, but I ask you to note the revelations of Mr. Johnson's plagiarism in each of these exposés:


    The aforementioned articles deal with two separate instances of plagiarism from the work of Mario Cerda.

    On an internet posting, I have also briefly summarized Mr. Johnson's plagiarism from the work of Ralph R. Hawthorne (see below).

    According to Mr. Lou Martuneac who runs the "In Defense of the Gospel" website, more revelations of Johnson's plagiarism are forthcoming.

    This plagiarism undeniably reflects the general lack of character displayed by Mr. Johnson in his interactions with and defense of the teaching that has come to be known as "the crossless gospel".

    Will Rocky Mountain Bible College continue to retain such a person as a graduate student of its seminary and even employ him as an instructor?

    Thank you,

    Greg Schliesmann

  11. Rachel:

    For all the reasons you cite above plus:

    1) Having first been deceived and now aggressively propagating a false, non-saving, reductionist interpretation of the Gospel...

    2) Defending his theology through highly unethical means, i.e., plagiarism on a grand scale...

    3) His hostile reaction to being confronted with multiple incidences of undeniable plagiarism...

    Mr. Johnson, IMO has a seared conscience.

    That is unfortunate, but appears to be the case.

    I prayed for Jim this afternoon. He needs to die to self, and let the Lord have His way with him.


  12. Greg:

    What RMBC's administration will do is anybody's guess.

    I think its possible that some of the faculty and staff at RMBC are the alleged "peer reviewers" of his paper Jim has been writing about for weeks.


  13. I've noticed in Johnson's blog posts that he is upset we're not responding to his arguments.

    If there were any coherent arguments, I, for one, would be happy to see them and consider responding. If anyone on the crossless gospel side has gained any insight from Johnson's articles, they could certainly articulate the arguments. So far, no one on the crossless gospel side has publicly supported or articulated any arguments from Johnson's articles.

    A large percentage of Johnson's articles have been plagiarized--much from authors who don't even support his view point. So are we supposed to pretend these parts of the articles are written by Johnson and that the arguments support his conclusion?

    Secondly, the parts that are written by Johnson are basically incoherent rambling, whining, and self-flattery. I've already demonstrated this in a previous post.

    Mr. Johnson self-promoted his series for weeks as if was going to be some astounding breakthrough on the issue of the crossless gospel. If anybody--on either side of the issue--found any new/good arguments in Johnson's writings, feel free to let me know what they are.

    Aside from all that, I would say it is extremely prideful to criticize us for not responding to his arguments when he should rather express heartfelt shame for the massive amount of deception and plagiarism which has been undeniably revealed.

    -- Greg

  14. Lou,

    I agree with you in that it appears Mr. Johnson has a seared conscience. From what I understand, he has only further hardened his heart to the truth. When I first read you expose earlier today words could not express the sense of betrayal and violation I felt when I realized Mr. Johnson has plagerized the same work of Cerda's months ago on the GES blog in a discussion with myself. I quickly compared Mr. Johnson's comments from his debate with myself to Cerda's work and was disheartened to find that Mr. Johnson had indeed plagerized on numerous occassions. I have documented my finding in my latest post. Thanks for linking to it. And thank you Greg for your fine letter template that people can send to RMBC.


  15. greg: "I've noticed in Johnson's blog posts that he is upset we're not responding to his arguments."

    Not responding? Uh, I'm pretty sure JP responded there and JJ deleted him. So, uhm, I'm not sure what to make of his complaint as it seems to actually work against JJ, not us.

    Besides, I recall JJ being invited to respond to you in 'The Fatal Flaws of “Crossless” Gospel Advocate Jim Johnson’s Criticism' thread and he refused to do so.

    If Jim can't think of a good way to explain his double-standard maybe he could find something appropriate written by someone else and "adapt" it.

    Aye aye aye,

  16. Stephen, you are very funny.

    Yes, almost every accusation Johnson makes about our behavior or willingness to interact clearly applies to himself. He has just written a post about how we're blind.

    Here is part of his defense for the plagiarism:

    I actually laughed when I read these peoples blog posts almost a year ago. In addition, in a desperate attempt they are viewing a blog post as a copyright protected book for sale - which it isn’t. But I’m not peddling my theological opinion at amazon though am I!? Oh, and why footnote and do a bibliography if I am going to plagiarize? Funny I did a word search for the word, I don’t find it in the Hebrew, Greek, or English bible. It doesn’t make sense, in fact a lot of the noise that is coming from them doesn’t make any sense.

    Unless you can’t face the truth.

    So in Johnson's twisted mind, the fact that we've revealed or criticized his plagiarism and deception is proof that we "can't face the truth".

    Furthermore, Johnson argues that since he is not peddling his theological opinion on Amazon (thank God for that), it is okay to plagiarize the writings of others. That argument would not work in 8th grade---and it certainly shouldn't work for a Christian! It is purely deceptive to take someone else's writing and represent it as your own--whether or not you sell it on Amazon. Do we really have to explain that to a Christian, much less a seminary student, much less an instructor at a Bible college?

    Next, Johnson argues his plagiarism is okay because the word "plagiarism" is not in Scripture. Thus, he implies we are legalistic for employing an extra-Biblical standard. Maybe he should try a search for this word: "deception".

    -- Greg

  17. Stephen,

    You can be sure he deleted my comment. His silence is a witness in my defense.


  18. Greg,

    I found another absurd remark on Johnson's latest post (I didn't have to look very long). He said: "That they can’t answer the core issues is very telling". Umm, if memory serves me correctly it was Mr. Johnson who closed his eyes to the Biblical evidence in the debate when I tried to present it to him on his blog! I seriously think Mr. Johnson needs his head examined. But unfortunately it goes deeper than that: "But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron" (1 Tim. 4:1-2).


  19. To All:

    I appreciate each of your comments above. I will have more tomorrow.

    For now, and I’m not sure how to word this diplomatically, but I’ll state an opinion.

    I may have a simple explanation for why Johnson is reacting with combativeness and refuses to acknowledge what is so painfully obvious to any objective reader, which is he has plagiarized several writers. IMO, he has such an inflated opinion of himself and self-proclaimed pedigree he cannot bring himself to acknowledge he had an ethical failure.

    I think it is just too painful for Jim at this time to acknowledge his sin, even to God, and be forgiven. Rather than swallowing his pride and getting right with God he would rather maintain the facade of innocence and that he is a persecuted martyr than risk having the aura he has enveloped himself with burst.

    I do know this much, God loves Jim and wants to forgive and restore fellowship with him. In my article I mention David’s issues after the events with Bathsheba. David was miserable, but “roaring,” while he hung on to his sin, just like Jim is “roaring” now, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. One commentator wrote, “He (David) learned that unconfessed sin is a festering sore.” (Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 5, p. 273.)

    I believe God loved David so much that He sent Nathan to David to help him break free of the pride that had enslaved him, and kept him from confessing his sin. I am hopeful that a Nathan will visit Jim in the near future and help him to confess, repent, be forgiven and restored to a sweet fellowship with God.


  20. This the most egregious example of plagiarism I have ever seen. For many Bible schools and seminaries, this would be grounds for dismissal.

    When Antonia da Rosa was confronted for doing this with Zane Hodges, he confessed. I hope that Johnson does the same.

  21. Liam:

    Until I saw such massive amounts of plagiarism as Johnson attempted I would never have imagined a man would try to get away with it.

    Did he actually think he could get away with plagiarism of that magnitude undetected? He must have.

    As for Antonio's plagiarism (2007): He only confessed and apologized after trying to lie and deceive his way out of it. Once the blog administrator publicly challenged him, he finally, begrudgingly apologized.


    PS: Antonio still won't confess that he posted here under the Sock Puppet- fg me.

  22. lou:"I do know this much, God loves Jim and wants to forgive and restore fellowship with him."

    Amen. Grace is a beautiful thing. I don't approve of JJ's actions, and rightly criticize them, but I join you in desiring for JJ the man to be restored to rightness of mind, spirit, and relationship. We all slip at times, we need only turn to God in humility and accept the forgiveness He freely gives.

    Touched by grace,

  23. Lou,

    I have never said anything until now, but since the topic continues to be an issue I feel compelled to address it. Antonio and I disagree on alot of things, as you are well aware. I do not belive however, that he is "fg me". Last year he sent Liam and I the following email:

    "fg me‏
    From: Antonio da Rosa (agdarosa@cox.net)
    Sent: Fri 9/21/07 10:06 PM
    To: Liam Moran (liammoran@hotmail.com); Jonathan Perreault (jonperreault@hotmail.com)


    I adjure you in the name of Christ our Savior, are you fg me?"

    Why would Antonio implore me concerning this if he was fg me?


  24. JP, the instance of "fg me" that we are referring to is much more recent than that. Without going into a lot of detail here, the evidence that the instance Lou is referring to was Antonio is pretty compelling.

    It's been suggest that we're "immature" for making an issue of it but sock puppetry, "the act of [using] a fake online identity to praise, defend, or create the illusion of support for one's self,", is seen as highly unethical by even unbelievers.


  25. Hi Jon:

    I appreciate your concern.

    Look at the date of Antonio’s e-mail to you- September of 2007. The incident I had with da Rosa posting under the fg me sock puppet took place in February of this year.

    Go to this installment of Evaluation & Response to “Crossless” Theology, Part 4.

    It is there you will find Antonio’s Sock Puppet: fg me.

    I can with 100% certainty assure you that Antonio da Rosa is the Sock Puppet: fg me in that thread.

    It is documented and was verified by a professional in the IT field that Antonio was posting as fg me in that thread.

    Ask him, point blank if he posted any comments at my blog in that thread under the handle, fg me.


  26. Lou,

    Yesterday I sent an email to Antonio asking him point blank if he was or ever had been "fg me".

    I think it is telling that to date I have received no reply.

    I do not appreciate Antonio's lack of candor and unless I receive a reply from Antonio indicating otherwise, I will consider him to be "fg me".


  27. Jon:

    I'm glad you made the attempt. He is NOT going to answer.

    Knowing for a fact it was him as fg me in that thread, I posted this question to him.

    FG Me:

    I am asking you point blank, are you Antonio da Rosa, or has Antonio been posting any of the comments under the handle FG Me?

    Yes or No?


    Here was da Rosa's reply, still posing as fg me:

    I don't believe this is going anywhere. I have been cordial and straightforward.

    In all reality, it really doesn't seem like Lou is very concerned about fairly representing the remarks of da Rosa. I think in all fairness, as brothers in Christ, that we should all strive to fairly characterize each other's positions.

    This is me bowing out and leaving it into the hands of the Savior.

    Anyway, it was Antonio, whether or not he will admit to being Sock Puppet fg me or not.