Was MLK Jr. a Christian?

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

It is certainly true that a non-Christian can hold Christian view or that a Christian can hold non-Christian view. This thread deals with whether MLK Jr's views expressed to get a grade reflected his views later during his life. Unless I missed it, little or no evidence of that has been forthcoming. Yes, claims have been made but I have not seen specific support cited from his sermons or letters.

Perhaps you could share some evidence that he did not hold those views, but rather more scripturally fundamental ones?

 

[AustinC]

Perhaps you could share some evidence that he did not hold those views, but rather more scripturally fundamental ones?

Van very clearly did not read the documentation. It's not that he missed it, it's that he refused to read it.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

People are constantly posting disparaging assertions about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. We know that the FBI fabricated evidence to disparage him. Now we see the claim he did not believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Is that true? Nope.

[Paul talked]...about a spiritual body. A spiritual body. Whatever form, that isn’t important right now. The important thing is that that Resurrection did occur. Important thing is that that grave was empty. Important thing is the fact that Jesus had given himself to certain eternal truths and eternal principles that nobody could crucify and escape. So all of the nails in the world could never pierce this truth. All of the crosses of the world could never block this love. All of the graves in the world could never bury this goodness. Jesus had given himself to certain universal principles. And so today the Jesus and the God that we worship are inescapable.​

... My quote is from a published sermon.

Sounds intriguing. How about a link to this, and the title of the source?

 

[JonC]

I questioned whether MLK Jr believed what he wrote to get a grade, I did not suggest our faith must not include basic truths.
I asked for and did not get the paragraph of his letter that reaffirmed Christ's "God consciousness."

I think suggesting MLK lied about his beliefs to get a good grade is a bit off. MLK simply did not seem like that kind of person.

MLK still leaned on equating Christ's divinity to a God-consciousness when he wrote:

Isn't this like condemning Jesus because His unique God-consciousness and never-ceasing devotion to His will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion?


Today we would call MLK's pulpit sermons "double-speak".

You say MLK held orthodox views by affirming Christ' deity. BUT MLK already explained this was a "God consciousness " and not to be taken literal.

You say MLK affirmed the empty grave. BUT MLK already explained that by empty grave and resurrection he meant Christ's philosophy, this "God consciousness", did not die with Jesus but lived on.

I am not aware of MLK ever renouncing his stated beliefs, or him disagreeing with other liberal ministers from Crozer.

I will say Proctor tried to help him reconcile Christianity with the liberal form taught at Crozer.

Reading MLK's later papers (Boston University) it is clear he has some views that are unorthodox (a finite God, salvation by works- justification by faith, eternal life based on merit and usefulness to God). BUT there are also things I agree with (his atonement view, for example).

So his beliefs could have changed. But there is no evidence I can find that they did change.

 

[Van]

Perhaps you could share some evidence that he did not hold those views, but rather more scripturally fundamental ones?

First provide evidence from his sermons and letters that he did. I already provided on quote that he did not.

 

[Van]

Sounds intriguing. How about a link to this, and the title of the source?

Does anyone think this fellow is so stupid he does not know how to goggle? Neither do I...

 

[JonC]

Does anyone think this fellow is so stupid he does not know how to goggle? Neither do I...

You asked for, and was provided, references.

 

[Van]

Here is the full paragraph from MLK Jr's letter from the Birmingham Jail, 1963:

In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn’t this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn’t this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn’t this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God’s will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber. . . .
​

Here we see no support for Jesus not being God incarnate, but evidence MLK used "unique God consciousness" to refer to Christ's all in commitment to do the will of His father. I see no evidence MLK denied Jesus was God incarnate

 

[Van]

You asked for, and was provided, references.

Post 48 responds to your snippet.

 

[Van]

Does anyone deny people in college must give their dictatorial professors what they want to hear of suffer poor grades?
The letter does not say MLK Jr is equating God consciousness with Christ's divinity. That must be read into the letter.
To repeat, I do not say MLK held orthodox views, I say prove he did using something other than a paper summited for a grade.
Lets go with the concept that MLK Jr is innocent until proved guilty, rather than guilty until proven innocent.

 

[JonC]

Post 48 responds to your snippet.

No, it doesn't.

I presented what MLK wrote in college of his faith. Then I said he used the same terms in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail. Then I said that I have seen no evidence that MLK means something different after graduating from Crozer.

Then I said that MLK may have changed his beliefs, and that Proctor mentored him in reconciling Christinity with Crozer's teachings, but that I have never read anything from MLK (to include letters to friends from Crozer and to Crozer itself) that recanted his previously stated belief.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Does anyone think this fellow is so stupid he does not know how to goggle? Neither do I...

If all you have is a snippet out of context and no link, no source, then your post is next to worthless for debate or argument.

But your post did make me goggle at its utter arrogance bolstered by stupidity. Then “par for the course” came to mind.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

How do we know the snippets provided to disparage MLK Jr were not taken out of context or written to mesh with the viewpoints of those grading the paper. My quote is from a published sermon.

Your quote leaves out some important information. The following article cites the sermon and critiques that passage, labeling it heresy:

On March 29, 1959, Easter Sunday, King preached a sermon titled A Walk Through the Holy Land. This sermon calls into question King’s biblical fidelity and his commitment to essential Christian doctrines. In this sermon, King denied the importance of believing in the physical resurrection of Jesus stating that it doesn’t matter if one believes in the physical resurrection or a spiritual resurrection.

Remembering Martin Luther King Jr.'s Heresy, Denial of Christ's Deity and Physical Resurrection​

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

People are constantly posting disparaging assertions about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. We know that the FBI fabricated evidence to disparage him. Now we see the claim he did not believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Is that true? Nope.

[Paul talked]...about a spiritual body. A spiritual body. Whatever form, that isn’t important right now. The important thing is that that Resurrection did occur. Important thing is that that grave was empty. Important thing is the fact that Jesus had given himself to certain eternal truths and eternal principles that nobody could crucify and escape. So all of the nails in the world could never pierce this truth. All of the crosses of the world could never block this love. All of the graves in the world could never bury this goodness. Jesus had given himself to certain universal principles. And so today the Jesus and the God that we worship are inescapable.​

Here is a fuller quote (unedited from an article), including some seemingly damning elements.

Whatever you believe about the resurrection this morning isn’t important. The form that you believe in, that isn’t the important thing. The fact that the revelation, resurrection is something that nobody can refute, that is the important thing. Some people felt, the disciples felt, that it was a physical resurrection, that the physical body got up. The paul came on the scene, who had been trained in greek philosophy, who knew a little about greek philosophy and had read a little, probably, of plato and others who believed in the immortality of the soul, and he tried to synthesize the greek doctrine of the immortality of the soul with the jewish hebrew doctrine of resurrection. And he talked, as you remember nad you read it, about a spiritual body. Whatever form, that isn’t important right now. The important thing is that that resurrection did occur. Important thing is that that grave was empty.

Remembering Martin Luther King Jr.'s Heresy, Denial of Christ's Deity and Physical Resurrection​

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

People are constantly posting disparaging assertions about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. We know that the FBI fabricated evidence to disparage him. Now we see the claim he did not believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Is that true? Nope.

[Paul talked]...about a spiritual body. A spiritual body. Whatever form, that isn’t important right now. The important thing is that that Resurrection did occur. Important thing is that that grave was empty. Important thing is the fact that Jesus had given himself to certain eternal truths and eternal principles that nobody could crucify and escape. So all of the nails in the world could never pierce this truth. All of the crosses of the world could never block this love. All of the graves in the world could never bury this goodness. Jesus had given himself to certain universal principles. And so today the Jesus and the God that we worship are inescapable.​

A better assessment is found in this article, already mentioned above.

Remembering Martin Luther King Jr.’s Heresy, Denial of Christ’s Deity and Physical Resurrection
...
While many Evangelicals argue that King only held these views in his early years and suggest that we have no reason to believe that he still held these views in his later years, the fact remains that there is no evidence whatsoever that he ever recanted these views. In fact, King was given over to the social gospel — a false gospel that places the emphasis on Christ’s work on social, temporal issues rather than the eternal. Further, his fruits of sexual immorality place further evidence on the lack of regeneration by the Holy Spirit. Should Evangelicals be lauding Martin Luther King as a “Christian hero”?​

Remembering Martin Luther King Jr.'s Heresy, Denial of Christ's Deity and Physical Resurrection​

 

[AustinC]

Does anyone deny people in college must give their dictatorial professors what they want to hear of suffer poor grades?
The letter does not say MLK Jr is equating God consciousness with Christ's divinity. That must be read into the letter.
To repeat, I do not say MLK held orthodox views, I say prove he did using something other than a paper summited for a grade.
Lets go with the concept that MLK Jr is innocent until proved guilty, rather than guilty until proven innocent.

Again, have you refused to read the Letter from the Birmingham jail, which is a letter to white pastor's in which he openly denies the deity of Christ Jesus as being God incarnate?
Second, no one is saying that God did not use MLK for a positive change in American society or that his view on race relationships was wrong.
What has been provided is primary source documents from MLK himself where he denies the Trinity.

 

[Van]

No, it doesn't.

I presented what MLK wrote in college of his faith. Then I said he used the same terms in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail. Then I said that I have seen no evidence that MLK means something different after graduating from Crozer.

Then I said that MLK may have changed his beliefs, and that Proctor mentored him in reconciling Christinity with Crozer's teachings, but that I have never read anything from MLK (to include letters to friends from Crozer and to Crozer itself) that recanted his previously stated belief.

Here is the full paragraph from MLK Jr's letter from the Birmingham Jail, 1963:
In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn’t this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn’t this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn’t this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God’s will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber. . . .
Here we see no support for Jesus not being God incarnate, but evidence MLK used "unique God consciousness" to refer to Christ's all in commitment to do the will of His father. I see no evidence MLK denied Jesus was God incarnate

 

[Van]

If all you have is a snippet out of context and no link, no source, then your post is next to worthless for debate or argument.

But your post did make me goggle at its utter arrogance bolstered by stupidity. Then “par for the course” came to mind.

Ask yourselves why these posters address my behavior and not the topic?

 

[Van]

Your quote leaves out some important information. The following article cites the sermon and critiques that passage, labeling it heresy:

On March 29, 1959, Easter Sunday, King preached a sermon titled A Walk Through the Holy Land. This sermon calls into question King’s biblical fidelity and his commitment to essential Christian doctrines. In this sermon, King denied the importance of believing in the physical resurrection of Jesus stating that it doesn’t matter if one believes in the physical resurrection or a spiritual resurrection.

Remembering Martin Luther King Jr.'s Heresy, Denial of Christ's Deity and Physical Resurrection​

Seriously? Nothing in what MLK Jr wrote says King denied the tomb was empty, thus a bodily resurrection.

 

[Van]

Here is a fuller quote (unedited from an article), including some seemingly damning elements.

Whatever you believe about the resurrection this morning isn’t important. The form that you believe in, that isn’t the important thing. The fact that the revelation, resurrection is something that nobody can refute, that is the important thing. Some people felt, the disciples felt, that it was a physical resurrection, that the physical body got up. The paul came on the scene, who had been trained in greek philosophy, who knew a little about greek philosophy and had read a little, probably, of plato and others who believed in the immortality of the soul, and he tried to synthesize the greek doctrine of the immortality of the soul with the jewish hebrew doctrine of resurrection. And he talked, as you remember nad you read it, about a spiritual body. Whatever form, that isn’t important right now. The important thing is that that resurrection did occur. Important thing is that that grave was empty.

Remembering Martin Luther King Jr.'s Heresy, Denial of Christ's Deity and Physical Resurrection​

Whatever you believe about the resurrection this morning isn’t important. The form that you believe in, that isn’t the important thing. The fact that the revelation, resurrection is something that nobody can refute, that is the important thing. Some people felt, the disciples felt, that it was a physical resurrection, that the physical body got up. The paul came on the scene, who had been trained in greek philosophy, who knew a little about greek philosophy and had read a little, probably, of plato and others who believed in the immortality of the soul, and he tried to synthesize the greek doctrine of the immortality of the soul with the jewish hebrew doctrine of resurrection. And he talked, as you remember nad you read it, about a spiritual body. Whatever form, that isn’t important right now. The important thing is that that resurrection did occur. Important thing is that that grave was empty.