Martin Luther King wasn't a christian.

[Sammy-San]

Note-this thread is not in any way, an attempt to criticize MLK as a person. He was a person with a good heart, who helped achieve equal rights. I'm only trying to argue, why I believe he wasn't a Christian. Most people believe that he was a christian, because he was a reverend/minister.

I've done some research about him and his religious beliefs, and despite the common belief that he was a christian, his own quotes imply that he wasn't born again and saved. I will post his quotes here. If anybody disagrees with my argument or thinks I'm taking his quotes out of context, please explain why.

From King's "A View of the Cross Possessing Biblical and Spiritual Justification":
"Any doctrine which finds the meaning of atonement in the triumph of Christ over such cosmic powers as sin, death and Satan is inadequate.... If Christ by his life and death paid the full penalty of sin, there is no valid ground for repentance or moral obedience as a condition of forgiveness. The debt is paid; the penalty exacted, and there is, consequently, nothing to forgive."

King's "The Influence of Mystery Religions on Christianity":

"The staggering question that now arises is, what will be the next stage of man's religious progress? Is Christianity the crowning achievement in the development of religious thought or will there be another religion more advanced?"

From King's paper "The Humanity and Divinity of Jesus":

To say that the Christ, whose example of living we are bid to follow, is divine in an ontological sense is actually harmful and detrimental. So that the orthodox view of the divinity of Christ is in my mind quite readily denied. The significance of the divinity of Christ lies in the fact that his achievement is prophetic and promissory for every other true son of man who is willing to submit his will to the will and spirit of God. Christ was to be only the prototype of one among many brothers. The appearance of such a person, more divine and more human than any other, and in closest unity at once with God and man, is the most significant and hopeful event in human history. This divine quality or this unity with God was not something thrust upon Jesus from above, but it was a definite achievement through the process of moral struggle and self-abnegation."

Another quote from that same paper.

In reality I know nothing about heaven ... personally I don't believe in hell in the conventional sense.

 

[pescador]

Note-this thread is not in any way, an attempt to criticize MLK as a person. He was a person with a good heart, who helped achieve equal rights. I'm only trying to argue, why I believe he wasn't a Christian. Most people believe that he was a christian, because he was a reverend/minister.

I've done some research about him and his religious beliefs, and despite the common belief that he was a christian, his own quotes imply that he wasn't born again and saved. I will post his quotes here. If anybody disagrees with my argument or thinks I'm taking his quotes out of context, please explain why.



King's "The Influence of Mystery Religions on Christianity":


From King's paper "The Humanity and Divinity of Jesus":


Another quote from that same paper.

These are brief quotes taken out of context which makes them suspect to me. I would have to read the complete cited works to have an opinion about this. Regardless, Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. was an ordained minister of the Baptist church. How can you say that he was a Christian? On the basis of a few out-of-context quotes? Sorry, but the evidence is against you.

 

[Sammy-San]

These are brief quotes taken out of context which makes them suspect to me. I would have to read the complete cited works to have an opinion about this. Regardless, Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. was an ordained minister of the Baptist church. How can you say that he was a Christian? On the basis of a few out-of-context quotes? Sorry, but the evidence is against you.

Explain how those quotes are taken out of context. MLK said that he didn't believe that Jesus was divine. He even denied the virgin birth of Christ. He was definitley a religious man, but he wasn't born again. He wasn't even sure if heaven existed or not.

 

[Tallguy88]

King did hold heterodox beliefs. He was good friends with Vietnamese Buddhist Monk Tich Nact Hahn (sp?) and he tended toward universalism. I believe he may have had doubts about the Trinity (but don't quote me on it).

Are these failings enough to say he wasn't Christian? I'm not willing to go that far. He certainly lived a visibly Christian life, but had his personal failings, too (as do we all.)

Ultimately, I'll leave his Judgment up to God.

 

[Tallguy88]

Superhero Sam, are you Catholic? I ask because the Catholic understanding of "born again" is quite different from the Protestant (specifically Evangelical) understanding. As such, your saying you don't think King was born again might not have the same meaning to Catholics as it does to you.

 

[Tallguy88]

Oops!!!!

I'm in the Non-Denom Forum!! I thought I was in OBOB!

Sorry! :shrug:

Feel free to ignore my posts!

 

[StassiT]

Superhero Sam, are you Catholic? I ask because the Catholic understanding of "born again" is quite different from the Protestant (specifically Evangelical) understanding. As such, your saying you don't think King was born again might not have the same meaning to Catholics as it does to you.

What is the catholic interpretation of being born again?

 

[Tallguy88]

What is the catholic interpretation of being born again?

I don't think I should get into that here. It would probably violate safe haven rules. Feel free to ask in OBOB, there are people more knowledgable than me over there.

Edit: I went ahead and started a thread on the topic of being born again in OBOB. Feel free to drop in.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7819633/

 

[tremble]

From King's "A View of the Cross Possessing Biblical and Spiritual Justification":
"Any doctrine which finds the meaning of atonement in the triumph of Christ over such cosmic powers as sin, death and Satan is inadequate.... If Christ by his life and death paid the full penalty of sin, there is no valid ground for repentance or moral obedience as a condition of forgiveness. The debt is paid; the penalty exacted, and there is, consequently, nothing to forgive."

Sounds to me like he's saying Christians shouldn't use Jesus' death on the cross (and the grace offered as a result) to justify continuing to sin. Some people also refer to this as "false grace" where Christians who are challenged on their sinfulness will say, "Jesus did it all on the cross".

"The staggering question that now arises is, what will be the next stage of man's religious progress? Is Christianity the crowning achievement in the development of religious thought or will there be another religion more advanced?"

You ask people to explain why they would disagree with your assessment that this is proof of King's non-Christianity, but you yourself do not give an explanation on why you feel this is sufficient evidence to support your claim.

Anyway, he's not making a statement of faith, here. He's asking a question. So what? Also, what is the surrounding context to the question? It really does sound like you are tempting us to make assumption by not providing sufficient information to make a reasoned judgment.

To say that the Christ, whose example of living we are bid to follow, is divine in an ontological sense is actually harmful and detrimental. So that the orthodox view of the divinity of Christ is in my mind quite readily denied. The significance of the divinity of Christ lies in the fact that his achievement is prophetic and promissory for every other true son of man who is willing to submit his will to the will and spirit of God. Christ was to be only the prototype of one among many brothers. The appearance of such a person, more divine and more human than any other, and in closest unity at once with God and man, is the most significant and hopeful event in human history. This divine quality or this unity with God was not something thrust upon Jesus from above, but it was a definite achievement through the process of moral struggle and self-abnegation."

Once again, you assume that others will assume what you've assumed. Why else would you ask for explanation but give none yourself? Why do you believe this disproves King's Christianity?

In reality I know nothing about heaven ... personally I don't believe in hell in the conventional sense.

Can you tell us what King's idea of "conventional hell" was? What is your idea of "conventional hell"? What was Jesus' idea of "conventional hell"? Why that ellipses in the middle of the sentence, as though there is a huge chunk of information missing between the two thoughts. Is there other surrounding context to further clarify these statements? Can you see how you've given us only part of the story? Why would you ask us to make a judgment on King's Christianity and then provide only partial evidence with no apparent explanation of your own as to why you see it that way?

Also, can you tell us where Jesus commanded people that they must believe in "conventional hell" in order to be his follower?

 

[tremble]

King did hold heterodox beliefs. He was good friends with Vietnamese Buddhist Monk Tich Nact Hahn (sp?) and he tended toward universalism. I believe he may have had doubts about the Trinity (but don't quote me on it).

Are these failings enough to say he wasn't Christian? I'm not willing to go that far. He certainly lived a visibly Christian life, but had his personal failings, too (as do we all.)

Ultimately, I'll leave his Judgment up to God.

I know tallguy seemed to think he was in the wrong section so I don't know if he'll respond to this, but I wanted to address something he said anyway.

I think it's a bad idea to assume these things are failings. Why should they be?

Is it wrong to be friends with Buddhist monks? Did Jesus teach against that?

There are indications that Jesus was both a universalists and and exclusivist depending on the context. It is a failing to suggest that people outside of the "Christian label" may also have access to God's grace.

And finally, doubts about the trinity? What does that even mean? Is it a failing to doubt our understanding of how God can be three and one at the same time? where did Jesus tell us that we'll be lost unless we have no doubts about the trinity?

 

[Alithis]

whether he was...or not..
who follows him?

not I

 

[pescador]

Explain how those quotes are taken out of context. MLK said that he didn't believe that Jesus was divine. He even denied the virgin birth of Christ. He was definitley a religious man, but he wasn't born again. He wasn't even sure if heaven existed or not.

If they're not out of context then post the entire speech/paper in which they were said. You are making broad statements about a very complex man who, as a Christian, furthered the kingdom of God by combating hatred and prejudice.

 

[Tallguy88]

I know tallguy seemed to think he was in the wrong section so I don't know if he'll respond to this, but I wanted to address something he said anyway.

I think it's a bad idea to assume these things are failings. Why should they be?

Is it wrong to be friends with Buddhist monks? Did Jesus teach against that?

Not at all, so long as we don't compromise our faith. I've read Hahn's book Living Buddha, Living Christ and in it, Hahn says that King's beliefs encouraged him in a sort of gnostic understanding of Jesus. While I don't fault Hahn for being misinformed about who Jesus is, I certainly can fault King in encouraging this false understanding. And don't think I am specifically ragging on King for this. The book also states a Catholic Priest basically told Hahn that Modalism was a correct understanding of God.

There are indications that Jesus was both a universalists and and exclusivist depending on the context. It is a failing to suggest that people outside of the "Christian label" may also have access to God's grace.

And finally, doubts about the trinity? What does that even mean? Is it a failing to doubt our understanding of how God can be three and one at the same time? where did Jesus tell us that we'll be lost unless we have no doubts about the trinity?

God will save who He will save, and I make no judgments about who is lost or not. I'm too busy "working out my own salvation with fear and trembling." Philippians 2:12

 

[Kayeliz]

Seriously, what is the point in judging people from the past who are not alive anymore? Whom does that do any good? I hate it when Christians think they know enough to judge a person who died decades ago. We do not have the right to do that! Let's leave it to God!

 

[Sammy-San]

Sounds to me like he's saying Christians shouldn't use Jesus' death on the cross (and the grace offered as a result) to justify continuing to sin. Some people also refer to this as "false grace" where Christians who are challenged on their sinfulness will say, "Jesus did it all on the cross".



You ask people to explain why they would disagree with your assessment that this is proof of King's non-Christianity, but you yourself do not give an explanation on why you feel this is sufficient evidence to support your claim.

Anyway, he's not making a statement of faith, here. He's asking a question. So what? Also, what is the surrounding context to the question? It really does sound like you are tempting us to make assumption by not providing sufficient information to make a reasoned judgment.




Once again, you assume that others will assume what you've assumed. Why else would you ask for explanation but give none yourself? Why do you believe this disproves King's Christianity?



Can you tell us what King's idea of "conventional hell" was? What is your idea of "conventional hell"? What was Jesus' idea of "conventional hell"? Why that ellipses in the middle of the sentence, as though there is a huge chunk of information missing between the two thoughts. Is there other surrounding context to further clarify these statements? Can you see how you've given us only part of the story? Why would you ask us to make a judgment on King's Christianity and then provide only partial evidence with no apparent explanation of your own as to why you see it that way?

Also, can you tell us where Jesus commanded people that they must believe in "conventional hell" in order to be his follower?

I believe that this disproves King's Christianity because he claimed that Christ wasn't divine.

The main issue is not King's comment about a conventional hell. He claimed that he didn't believe in Heaven. Believing in heaven does not determine one's salvation-after all many people of non christian religions believe in heaven yet still aren't saved, however, anybody who is saved/born again would know that the Bible says that there is a heaven.

 

[Alithis]

whether he was...or not..
who follows him?

not I

Seriously, what is the point in judging people from the past who are not alive anymore? Whom does that do any good? I hate it when Christians think they know enough to judge a person who died decades ago. We do not have the right to do that! Let's leave it to God!

snap... same point

 

[tremble]

I believe that this disproves King's Christianity because he claimed that Christ wasn't divine.

Where did he claim that? I read, again, the three paragraphs you posted as evidence and I don't see him making any denials. I think you've not read the entire paragraph properly.

The main issue is not King's comment about a conventional hell.

I'm assuming this means you are retracting the point about hell (which one wonders why you raised in the first place if you thought it wasn't an issue) from your list of evidence against King, right?

He claimed that he didn't believe in Heaven.

No he didn't. He said he doesn't know anything about it. Two different things. Can you see how you appear to be trying a bit too hard to see something which isn't there?

 

[tremble]

Not at all, so long as we don't compromise our faith. I've read Hahn's book Living Buddha, Living Christ and in it, Hahn says that King's beliefs encouraged him in a sort of gnostic understanding of Jesus. While I don't fault Hahn for being misinformed about who Jesus is, I certainly can fault King in encouraging this false understanding. And don't think I am specifically ragging on King for this. The book also states a Catholic Priest basically told Hahn that Modalism was a correct understanding of God.

Hi tallguy. Thanks for clarifying that. I suppose then we'd need to work out what "compromise our faith" means and whether that really is what MLK did.

I don't know what a "gnostic understanding of Jesus" means to the Monk. How do you see that as being inconsistent with a "normal" understanding of Jesus and why is that evidence that MLK compromised his faith? What I can see from what you've described is a situation where a person encouraged another person to think more carefully about Jesus even if it did not result in the same kind of relationship with Jesus that we think is appropriate.

God will save who He will save, and I make no judgments about who is lost or not. I'm too busy "working out my own salvation with fear and trembling." Philippians 2:12

Thanks for clarifying, this, too. I feel the same.

 

[Sammy-San]

Where did he claim that? I read, again, the three paragraphs you posted as evidence and I don't see him making any denials. I think you've not read the entire paragraph properly.



I'm assuming this means you are retracting the point about hell (which one wonders why you raised in the first place if you thought it wasn't an issue) from your list of evidence against King, right?



No he didn't. He said he doesn't know anything about it. Two different things. Can you see how you appear to be trying a bit too hard to see something which isn't there?

He said this.

"To say that the Christ, whose example of living we are bid to follow, is divine in an ontological sense is actually harmful and detrimental. So that the orthodox view of the divinity of Christ is in my mind quite readily denied."

He obviously was denying that Christ was divine.

 

[pescador]

He said this.

"To say that the Christ, whose example of living we are bid to follow, is divine in an ontological sense is actually harmful and detrimental. So that the orthodox view of the divinity of Christ is in my mind quite readily denied."

He obviously was denying that Christ was divine.

Do you know what "ontological" means? Do you know what separates the orthodox view of the divinity of Christ from other views? Have you read any of Dr. King's works in their entirety? Do you know about his faith? Did you attend the Ebenezer Baptist Church?

Why not read what Dr. King said instead of jumping to a false conclusion? Or "Superhero", are you just trying to discredit this great Christian man to make yourself look good?