In Reply to: P.S. to Ray posted by Bible Student on November 12, 2002 at 17:52:09:
i did not say his theology , practices, prophecies , and flakier ramblings were orthodox. who would? i doubt he'd even want to be described as that. but that his "christology" was relatively orthodox. of course i realize he threw out some very weird and demonic stuff. but sometimes i believe he did it just to be provocative, or to try things on for size, or was just drunk and rambling on. but if you really asked him what he really believed about who Jesus was in relation to the Father, and what his sacrifice on the cross was all about, i think most evangelicals, if they did not know who was speaking, would probably agree more w/ mo than w/ many socially acceptable liberal theologians, priests, etc. This is not a value judgement, ..just a personal opinion after reading his stuff for so long, and observing his erratic behavior, of a STRICTLY technical and somewhat narrow theological term. re: the divinity of Christ,the atonement, bodily resurrection,his physical return, etc. and even than , i qualified it. (compare it to the teahings of mormon on christ, or the jw's, or unity school, or moon etc....that is what i mean.)i believe that there are some widely accepted evang. churches and min.s whose statements of faith he could have agreed w/ ..if he were sober and had his pants on.
i knew i was in for it when i said that. but i do believe there are many of his teachings on these core beliefs that could lead one into a saving faith in the Lord Jesus. it would be like walking a minefield, and i wouldn't recommend it. but still, that is my purely technical amateur theological, and totally nongrammatical personal opinion. and it was in application to a passage lydia raised about a specific false teaching being refuted in a specific passage of scripture.
ok?