Copyright Infringement & Plagiarism, Part 3: Jim Johnson’s Series, “Destroying Free Grace Theology”

Dear Guests:

This is the third in our continuing series on the egregious acts of blatant plagiarism that has come to characterize the series by Mr. Jim Johnson titled, Destroying Free Grace Theology.

PREFACE
Thus far we have had two installments in this series. They are:

Copyright Infringement & Plagiarism, Part 1

Copyright Infringement & Plagiarism, Part 2

In these previous installments we saw how Mr. Johnson plagiarized two works. They were:

1) Ralph Rogers Hawthorne’s, The Significance of the Name of Christ, Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 103, Number 410 April 1946; Number 411, July 1946; Number 412, October 1946.

2) Mario Cerda’s, Subject Determination Involving Proper Articuler Nouns in Equative Clauses, Appendix 6: John 20:30-31, Bible.org

Mr. Johnson’s plagiarism was not limited to simply copying and pasting select portions of the works by Hawthorne and Cerda. Johnson’s abuse of these articles was on a massive scale, with his plagiarizing anywhere from four to over 20 pages at a time. Furthermore, through revisions, additions and deletions Johnson manipulated the writing of these men to make the plagiarized material conform more closely to his own theological views.

INTRODUCTION: WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF JOHNSON’S PLAGIARISM?
The example we are going to review today has more of the same manipulations. This time another *Bibliotheca Sacra (Bib Sac) article was Mr. Johnson’s target.

This time Mr. Johnson chose to plagiarize the very well known commentator: **W. H. Griffith Thomas. Mr. Johnson chose to plagiarize Griffith Thomas’s The Purpose of the Fourth Gospel, Part 1. (Bibliotheca Sacra, 125:499, July 1968) The portion that Johnson plagiarized begins with the sub-section, Seven Key Words in the Purpose and continues through the end of Griffith Thomas’s Bib Sac article.


THE MAGNITUDE OF JOHNSON’S PLAGIARISM
The article in which Mr. Johnson’s newest example of plagiarism appears is once again found in his series, but this time, Destroying Free Grace Theology, Part 3. The point in Johnson’s Part 3 in which he inserts what he plagiarized from Griffith Thomas begins under a sub-heading, Proper Handling of John’s Purpose Statement in the Gospel - John 20:30-31. You will find this section appears about two-thirds of the way down his article and continues through the conclusion.

The magnitude of this plagiarism is almost unimaginable. I want to illustrate just how much of Griffith Thomas was plagiarized by Johnson and how much of Johnson’s Destroying Free Grace Theology, Part 3 is made up of the stolen material.

The word count from Griffith Thomas’s Bib Sac article is approximately 3,700 words. Johnson plagiarized over 1,800 words from Griffith Thomas’s document. That equates to 48% of the Bib Sac article being plagiarized by Mr. Johnson. Now, we find that Destroying, Part 3 by Johnson is approximately 9,000 words. Taking the 1,800 words Johnson plagiarized and dividing that by the 9,000 words in his article we learn that 20% of Johnson’s Destroying, Part 3 is plagiarized material from W. H. Griffith Thomas’s The Purpose of the Fourth Gospel, Part 1..

Think of it: Nearly 50% of an article was plagiarized, and the stolen material made up 20% of the discredited article(s) by Mr. Johnson.

There is no way an honest man can excuse these staggering amounts of plagiarism as innocent mistakes. This is not from a man, “that does not write well.” This level of plagiarism cannot be dismissed as mere, “errors” or “raw thoughts.” Vast amounts of other men’s writing was literally copied, large portions manipulated, and then pasted into his series to make it appear as if it is his own work. With one minor and obscure exception Mr. Johnson did not, in any way, credit or reference the various authors he plagiarized.

Let’s begin Part 3 of Jim Johnson’s Copyright Infringement and Plagiarism:

The plagiarism of Destroying Free Grace Theology, Part 3 begins about two-thirds of the way into the article and continues through the end. The exact point of the plagiarism begins under the sub-heading Proper Handling of John’s Purpose Statement in the Gospel - John 20:30-31.

I am going to follow the same format that I used when detailing how Mr. Johnson plagiarized Mario Cerda’s document. To varying degrees Johnson revised and manipulated every paragraph. The manipulation of Griffith Thomas’s document is not as extensive as what Johnson did to Cerda’s. He largely kept to plagiarizing it verbatim. Following I will provide selected examples from Griffith Thomas’s plagiarized article. Please note that I will post examples of Johnson’s revisions of Griffith Thomas’s plagiarized work in red. Griffith Thomas’s original work will remain in blue. I will insert comments detailing samples of how Johnson manipulated Griffith Thomas’s document. Because some of the plagiarized paragraphs are quite large I will post minimized versions to focus on where Johnson manipulated them.

To reiterate- the blue portions are authentic Griffith Thomas material that was plagiarized. The red portions are how Johnson tweaked and manipulated Griffith Thomas’s writing to disguise the plagiarism.


EXAMPLE #1
In relation to articles use of the purpose statement of John in the 20th chapter of his gospel, we need to find as precise meaning to the purpose of John 20:30-31 as possible. It must now be considered in detail text critically and exegetically first. A few observations up front: 1) its definiteness is evident. “These things…in order that.” It is a record (“written”) with a clear object (denoted by the ἵνα structural marker). 2) Its twofold character-first, to lead to personal belief in the historic Jesus as the Christ and Son of God; second, to lead, by believing, to the possession of “life in his name.”… This element of the personal, human life of Jesus Christ is one of the threads running through John’s Gospel.


EXAMPLE #2
To show that Jesus is the Son of God is another element of the purpose of the writer. The distinction between this title and that of the Messiah seems to be that the former is wider and includes more than is involved in Messiahship… It is found over seventy times and frequently with a moral meaning. The two aspects of Messiahship and Sonship are found combined in 1:49 and 4:42. (Two sentences by Griffith Thomas [GT] omitted here by Johnson. See below.) A very prominent part of the purpose of the writer is shown in the element of believe. He wrote in order to lead his readers to faith in the historical Jesus as Messiah and Son of God, and it is perfectly clear that every section of the Gospel bears on this definite aim of eliciting faith and illustrates it.

Following are the two sentences Johnson deleted from the paragraph above.

“As Messiah, Jesus unites Christianity with Judaism while as Son of God He transcends Judaism. These two aspects interpret practically every section of the Gospel.”

EXAMPLE #3
When it is remembered that the verb pisteuw occurs only eleven times in Matthew, fifteen times in Mark, and nine times in Luke, it can at once be seen how prominent the thought is in the fourth Gospel. This key is seen (GT has “struck”) as early as 1:7, 12. In chapter 1 also we have the record of the first members of the apostolic group (GT has “band”) who were led to faith, among whom was Nathaniel who at once confessed his belief in Jesus as the Messiah and the Son of God (1:49). (Johnson deleted four sentences here from GT’s article) All this indicates what faith is according to John and what stress he lays on it in relation to Christ. Belief is the only and adequate response of any man or woman or child to this divine revelation. (Two more sentences from GT omitted here [see below], which describe belief in John as wholehearted surrender. This does not fit Johnson’s point so he replaced it with this sentence the following sentence) Theologically we tend to come up with content, but the author of the Gospel stresses belief.

Following are the two sentences Johnson deleted from GT’s paragraph above.

“It is based on testimony (1:7 ); it is elicited by experience (1:50 ); it rests on words spoken (10:38 ) or written (2:22 ); and it involves the wholehearted surrender of the moral being (eis). When these statements are successively understood, we come to the knowledge of what is meant by faith in Christ.”

EXAMPLE #4
It may seem almost impossible to think of the ordinary verb have as at all characteristic of a work like the fourth Gospel. Yet it seems clear that its use is noteworthy and significant. In relation to things spiritual as distinct from mere temporal usage, it occurs at least thirty-five times, more especially in connection with such expressions as “having life,” or “having eternal life.” It implied not only possession, but conscious possession; possession with retention. The idea of having, knowing, and holding appear to be included. (At this point two sentences from GT have been omitted by Johnson.)

There are additional samples, but the key to this plagiarism is the sheer size of what was taken by Johnson inserted into his own document with no credit or even a mention of W. H. Griffith Thomas.

Mr. Johnson refuses to confess, repent and seek God’s forgiveness. Instead he is combative and he scoffs at the irrefutable evidence presented. He argues with an elitist, martyr complex, self-glorifying attitude.

CLOSING
Research has confirmed there are no less than four sources Mr. Johnson plagiarized. Two articles from Bib Sac (Hawthorne & Griffith-Thomas), Cerda’s from Bible.org, and a fourth that was discovered over the weekend. That may not be the final count, but after 30+ pages of stolen material IMO it hardly matters any more.

If I were to continue posting more of the plagiarism examples that have been uncovered this series would last through the rest of the month. I am, however, looking at wrapping it up with just one more to bring closure.

It is the hope and prayer of the men who have had to deal with this mass plagiarism that Mr. Johnson will admit what he did and repent of it. Thus far public and private attempts to encourage this have been met with hostility from Johnson.

By his own hand, Destroying Free Grace Theology, the part that is his own work, is utterly discredited. More examples of Johnson’s plagiarism, and there are many, can’t discredit his series any further.


LM

*First edition of Bibliotheca Sacra, 1934.

**This is the heading and editor’s note from the original article at Bib Sac.
W. H. Griffith Thomas, Noted Anglican scholar, One of the founders of Dallas Theological Seminary, Now deceased. [Editor’s note: This article is a hitherto unpublished work of the noted Anglican scholar, Dr. W. H. Griffith Thomas, who was one of the founders of Dallas Theological Seminary. The article was submitted to us by his daughter, Mrs. Winifred G. T. Gillespie. A second installment on the Gospel of John will appear in the next issue of Bibliotheca Sacra.]

Staggering Amount of Plagiarism & Still Growing

Dear Guests:

On Tuesday morning I will be posting a third example of massive plagiarism in Jim Johnson’s series, Destroying Free Grace Theology. This third example does not rival the amount of material Johnson plagiarized from Hawthorne or Cerda, but the name of the author he stole from is far more impressive.

I would like to have said the third example is the final, but this afternoon one researcher uncovered three new examples of blatant plagiarism in Johnson’s series.

There is no way an honest man can excuse these staggering amounts of plagiarism as innocent mistakes. This is not from a man, “that does not write well.” This level of plagiarism cannot be dismissed as mere, “errors” or “raw thoughts.” Vast amounts of other men’s writing was literally copied, some of it manipulated, and then pasted into his series to make it appear as if it is his own work. With one minor and obscure exception Mr. Johnson did not, in any way, credit or reference the author’s he plagiarized.

Any peer or editor who would only suggest his, “paper needs some refinement” is either unashamedly political or woefully incompetent to evaluate and/or understand the level of willful plagiarism committed by Johnson in these papers. Any responsible editor would rebuke him, and advise the immediate removal of this fraudulent paper from the public arena.

Mr. Johnson has suggested, “…making corrections for possible journal publishing.” If he attempts to, or this paper is actually published in any journal, I will immediately contact the publisher and forward all of the documentation surrounding his plagiarism. I don’t think any honest, reputable publisher would want to have Johnson’s plagiarized paper, in any revised form, on their hands. It would frustrate and disgrace them, and they’d have huge PR problem to contend with once it became public. If I were a publisher I would want to be forewarned about this plagiarist.

As for Mr. Johnson’s reaction, he remains defiant. Why Mr. Johnson did this, only he knows. How he thought he could get away with it is unfathomable. His combativeness, blame-shifting and scoffing reaction is disconcerting, but I hope and pray he will eventually respond rightly by confessing and repent of this plagiarism. IMO, he owes this at least to RMBC whose reputation he has done irreparable harm.

I hope and pray Mr. Johnson will one day soon respond rightly by confessing and repent of this plagiarism.


LM

Is Johnson Defending or Denying His Plagiarism? Yes!

Dear Guests:

Before I post the third example of Mr. Johnson’s blatant plagiarism I want to review his reaction. In the thread under Jim Johnson’s Plagiarism, Part 2 several men and I have been discussing Mr. Johnson’s plagiarism, his combativeness, denials and scoffing, and what the Rocky Mountain Bible College reaction might be to their Instructor’s mass plagiarism.

Greg Schliesmann posted a pretty good and concise summation that I am reproducing here.

Another thought that comes to mind is that online, in the public, you have a man who not only committed plagiarism but also continues to defend it. In fact, it is glaringly obvious to everyone I’ve interacted with that Mr. Johnson is in denial. Even when he got caught and “apologized” for his first instance of plagiarism, he did not even admit to or take down the other articles he plagiarized in the same series. His so-called apology went only as far as he thought you revealed.

Now, keep in mind, Mr. Johnson is in a position where Rocky Mountain Bible College is asking Bible students to submit to him as a Bible instructor. How can any Bible college administration ask their students to submit to a teacher-

1) who is delusional,

2) who has a martyr complex,

3) who displays a lack of ability to understand an article he critiques,

4) who is promoting the crossless gospel,

5) who displays elitist and self-glorifying behavior, and

6) who is defending his own plagiarism with a combative attitude?

Mr. Johnson should be an outstanding example for his students. Instead, he is a plagiarizer.

Recently, Mr. Johnson called us “terrorists.” Now surely this is absurd. And I would never imply the same thing about Mr. Johnson. But, ironically, a funny comparison comes to mind...

If you pay attention to current events, you’ll often hear Iranian President and terrorist vacillate between denying the Holocaust and admitting it happened (but claiming Israel still shouldn’t exist). Recently, he questioned whether the terrorist attacks of September 11th really happened. Well, that reminded me of how Jim Johnson simultaneously denied and defended his plagiarism. Right in the same paragraph, he denies it (as though it did not happen) and defends it (as though he admits it happened but should not be blamed since he is not financially profiting from it). These men just cannot face reality.

How can a Bible college ask its students to submit to such as a man as their instructor in the Word of God?

So that the magnitude of Johnson’s plagiarism is not missed, in the upcoming example, I will demonstrate from that third example, just how much of it is made up of plagiarized/stolen material. If you are under the impression we are getting worked-up over small sound bytes having been lifted by Johnson, you will be stunned by the level and magnitude of plagiarzed material Johnson inserted in the next example from his series Destroying Free Grace Theology.


LM

Copyright Infringement & Plagiarism, Part 2: Jim Johnson’s series, “Destroying Free Grace Theology”

This is the second installment in the continuing series that exposes the blatant plagiarism of Mr. Jim Johnson (“Instructor”: * Rocky Mountain Bible College). It was our intention to open this series with a review of Johnson’s plagiarism found in his currently **deleted Part 5 of Destroying Free Grace Theology.

PREFACE
In the thread under the first in this series, Jim Johnson’s Plagiarism, Part 1 Greg Schliesmann included this important observation in regard to Johnson’s plagiarism and deleting of the Part 5 article from his series. Greg noted,

“Johnson tries to portray his plagiarism (of Bib Sac) as an issue of copyright infringement, which he can rectify by contacting the copyright holders and asking 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.”

Following the posting of the first in this series Jim Johnson’s Plagiarism, Part 1 I had hoped and prayed for Mr. Johnson to confess, repent and seek God’s forgiveness, but his reaction was quite different. Instead he became combative. Johnson’s reaction became absurd including arguing that his plagiarism is acceptable because the word “plagiarism” is not in Scripture. Thus, he implies we are legalistic for employing an extra-Biblical standard.

Let’s begin Part 2 of Jim Johnson’s copyright infringement and blatant plagiarism.

Those of us who reject the teachings of Zane Hodges on the Gospel commonly known as the Crossless gospel (ReDefined Free Grace Theology) initially paid little attention to the series by Jim Johnson, Destroying Free Grace Theology. Ironically virtually no one in the Crossless camp has paid any attention to that series either.

Upon release of Johnson’s Part 5 in his series it was detected that he had plagairized an article from Bibliotheca Sacra (Bib Sac) in its entirety, without proper permission. Furthermore, at various points Mr. Johnson manipulated the Bib Sac article. I made a brief mention of this copyright infringement in previous thread discussions.

While not at first concerned, Greg Schliesmann later took a careful look at Johnson’s article while it was still available to be read at his (Johnson’s) blog. What follows is Greg’s review of Destroying Free Grace Theology, Part 5.

Lou, in regards to the copyright issue, I did not fully realize what you were talking about when you made that comment. Now that I have a copy of Hawthorne’s article that Johnson plagiarized, I now understand the egregious and illicit nature of what Mr. Johnson did. Aside from the issue of Federal copyright law, it is undeniably deceptive.

For others, I will summarize what I see:

1. The original Hawthorne articles at issue were published in a two-part series in Bibliotheca Sacra (Bib Sac) (24 pages total).

2. Johnson copied and pasted ALL of the first Hawthorne article (14 pages) and a section from the second Hawthorne article.

3. Johnson incorporated these articles into his own article in such a way that gave the distinct impression that they were written by Mr. Johnson.

4. The only credit given to Hawthorne was buried in a footnote:
“Much of this section is adapted from the following articles, Ralph Rogers Hawthorne, The Significance of the Name of Christ, Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 103, Number 410 April 1946; Number 411, July 1946; Number 412, October 1946.”

5. There is no clear break in Johnson’s article where Hawthorne’s articles begin or end.

6. In the section where Johnson copied and pasted Hawthorne’s article, right in the middle of Hawthorne’s own writing, Johnson injects this line: “Hawthorne quoting Walvoord shows that Christ is the Angel of LORD by the use of four lines of evidence.”

This is blatantly and purposely deceptive because he injected that line right into Hawthorne’s own article! He therefore gives the distinct impression that the section (i.e., the words surrounding Hawthorne’s “quote”) is written by Johnson! In actuality, the ENTIRE section is copied from Hawthorne VERBATIM, and so it is extremely misleading to pretend he is quoting him in a particular part of the section, when in actuality, the WHOLE section is directly taken from Hawthorne.

7. Mr. Johnson periodically changes a word written by Hawthorne, apparently in order to “make it his own” and evade copyright infringement. Apparently, this way, Mr. Johnson thought he could say he “adapted” Hawthorne’s articles rather than simply admitting he copied almost 20 pages of Hawthorne’s articles verbatim. To give you an example of how egregious this is:

HAWTHORNE:
It is of utmost importance to see that the name of Christ is not revealed in the New Testament alone. There are numerous Messianic passages in the Old Testament—vastly more than it is generally realized. Indeed, one guarantee of the Lord’s Messiahship rests on the unmistakable fact that a considerable amount of prophecy concerning Him has been fulfilled literally in minute detail. Herein lies the proof that further events prophesied also shall yet be brought to pass in their predestined time and order.

JOHNSON:
It is of paramount importance to see that the name of Christ is not only revealed in the New Testament alone. There are numerous Messianic passages in the Old Testament— very much more than it is generally realized. Indeed, one guarantee of the Lord’s Messiahship rests on the unmistakable fact that a considerable amount of prophecy concerning Him has been fulfilled literally in minute detail. Herein lies the proof that further events prophesied also shall yet be brought to pass in their predestined time and order.

Notice that Johnson changed “utmost importance” to “paramount importance.” The ENTIRE 20 pages are like this where Johnson randomly changes a word here and there to constitute his “adaptation.”

8. Now Johnson issued an apology on his website in which he:

a) characterizes this as a “human” oversight

b) indicates that his apology was prompted by a person who read Lou’s comment

c) indicates he was unaware that this violated Federal copyright law (apparently he thought changing a word in every paragraph made it okay)

d) criticizes Lou for mentioning this issue publicly

e) criticizes all free grace people who oppose the crossless gospel for being unwilling to listen to his arguments (ironically, he is the most unwilling to consider or interact with any arguments that contradict his view! In fact, I quoted him in an earlier post where he directly stated he would not interact with us because we would contradict his doctrinal view).

f) hurls unsubstantiated insults at everybody on our side of the debate as if to shift the blame and placate his own conscience

g) tries to play the issue down by indicating that he called Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS) after his plagiarism was exposed by Lou, and the staff person at DTS/Bib Sac did not sound as concerned as Lou!

9. The general character of his apology is anger geared toward us rather than humility for, or even an acknowledgment of his purposeful deception.

Lou, I apologize for suggesting giving him the “benefit of the doubt” without having asked for more information first.


Greg Schliesmann


SUMMATION
In the three articles Johnson has posted since withdrawing Part 5 of his series, he has not shown any sign of genuine humility, regret or repentance for his plagiarizing other men’s work. Instead he is combative, and angry that he was caught.

Mr. Jim Johnson is identified as an “Instructor” at the Rocky Mountain Bible College (RMBC). What follows is taken from a tab at the RMBC website labeled: Student Life: Christian Life & Conduct. The exact same wording is contained on page 21 of their 2006-2008 Catalog (viewable on-line) under the heading, “Student Life” on page 21.

CHRISTIAN LIFE
Students at Rocky Mountain Bible College & Rocky Mountain Seminary will be involved in a number of activities, including evangelism, Christian service projects, and ministry. Students are expected to work closely with their local churches. Additionally, a faculty member will mentor each full-time student to give guidance in Christian growth and ministry involvement.

CONDUCT
We live in a world whose standards are determined by our culture. As believers, our standard is to live in a manner worthy of our calling (Eph. 4:1) as put forward in the Word of God. We believe that eternal life is a free gift to everyone who believes (John 3:16). We also believe that a close personal relationship with God is offered only to those who abide in God's love by obeying His commandments (John 15:10,14). We call this free grace and full responsibility.

Some of the responsibilities God commands of those who abide in Christ are to put off the works of the flesh, to be an example of the believer, to be holy even as God is holy, to put on the new man, to walk by the power of the Holy Spirit, and to evidence the fruit of the Spirit.

Believers are called to a life of separation from all worldly and sinful practices. Students who demonstrate an ungodly lifestyle will be subject to discipline and dismissal.

Rocky Mountain Bible College & Rocky Mountain Seminary are committed to the same godly standards for its board, faculty, staff, and students.

The RMBC standards for Christian Life & Conduct are applicable to “its board, faculty, staff and students.” In light of RMBC’s standards above what would RMBC’s response be to a student who might have submitted a paper the same way Johnson published a work that is not his own?

Should RMBC retain an Instructor who has run roughshod over the standards sets for RMBC students?

Closing note to Mr. Johnson
Jim, the 8th Commandment, “Thou shalt not steal,” is still in the Bible.


LM

*RMBC is a small Bible College that is staunchly dedicated to the Crossless interpretation of the Gospel, the teachings of Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin and the Grace Evangelical Society.

**Once the copyright infringement and plagiarism of Hawthorne’s Bib Sac article was uncovered Mr. Johnson removed the article from his blog. Johnson said he would be reposting it in the near future. We will at that time review and compare it against the original he published, which we have archived. We will look to see just how much of the original has been altered. Once the review is complete, if we find that it is strikingly different than the original, we will forward it to the editors at Dallas Theological Seminary’s Bib Sac to assist them in protecting Bib Sac from Johnson’s misuse of their articles.