No evangelical or Bible-believing church would support their pastor if he espoused even one of the heretical teachings of Martin Luther King, Jr. And it is not sufficient to say as the film “Selma” does that King was flawed. Everyone is flawed and the film and other media are willing to admit some flaws, foibles, and failures of King without dealing with him in totality. That is not done with King because he is special; that is Black privilege.
Revealing the very crass, crude, and corrupt King would destroy the hero worship of most Americans. King is not held to the same standard of “lesser” men; therefore preachers, pundits, and politicians refuse to tell the truth about him! Is that not black privilege? Moreover, have other black leaders assumed that they too have a right not to be judged by a high standard of civility, godly living, and personal conduct–Oh, all right, how about simple honesty?
Some King defenders excused his very close association with Communist activists such as Abner W. Berry, Bayard Rustin (who spent time in jail for public homosexual acts), Hunter Pitts O’Dell, Stanley Levison (bag man for the Communist Party in the U.S.), Robert Williams, and Carl and Anne Braden (convicted of conspiring to bomb the home of a Black and place the blame on “white segregationists.”) All the above were vile Communists dedicated to the overthrow of our government, but King climbed in bed with them. He was defended by his followers and since his mission was so sacred, he was forgiven. Black privilege on steroids.
Attorney General Robert Kennedy warned King to sever connections with the Communists that surrounded him but he refused to listen. Finally, President Kennedy told King: “They’re Communists. You’ve got to get rid of them.” Even then, King discussed, delayed, and dissimulated.
King’s many grammatical errors and plagiarism were admitted by King’s family and the plagiarism was characterized by King defenders as “textual appropriation.” King was “only doing what Blacks do.” That is a slander of all black scholars. Others identified his thievery as “borrowings,” “voice merging,” “resonances,” “intertextualizations,” “blending,” “alchemizing,” and other whoppers. King stole 66% of his Ph.D. dissertation at Boston University from another author but the university did not revoke, recall, or repudiate his degree! No white student would have been treated so kindly. It all translates: Black privilege. Special rules for special people.
Had I been a member of King’s church or a preacher in his movement, I would have charged him with heresy, tried him in a religious court, and stripped him of his religious credentials. He provided evidence of his heresy and heresy is not cancelled out by Black privilege!
King’s graduate paper titled “What Experiences of Christians Living in the Early Christian Century Led to the Christian Doctrines of the Divine Sonship of Jesus, the Virgin Birth, and the Bodily Resurrection,” let the kitty out of the sack as to his heresy. King declared, “But if we delve into the deeper meaning of these doctrines, [Christ’s deity, virgin birth, and physical resurrection] and somehow strip them of their literal interpretation, we will find that they are based on a profound foundation. Although we may be able to argue with all degrees of logic that these doctrines are historically and philolophically [sic] untenable.” So the early Christians had no other reason to believe He was deity? What about His miraculous birth? What about walking on water? What about raising the dead? What about giving sight to the blind? What about rising from the dead? What about Christ’s declaration: “I and my Father are one.” No, no reason at all!
Returning to the divinity of Christ, King concluded: “So that the orthodox view of the divinity of Christ is in my mind quite readily denied. The true 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 og [sic] God. Christ was to be only the prototype of one among many brothers.” So all men have the potential of being divine! King was not a believer and any honest Bible scholar of any persuasion will admit that that statement alone would disqualify King being recognized as a Christian, let alone a leader in any Christian group.
He makes much of Mark’s Gospel not dealing with the virgin birth but a seminarian surely understands that the argument from silence is a very weak argument. No one says that all four gospels deal with the very same incidents or deal with them from the same perspective.
In a paper titled “The Sources of Fundamentalism and Liberalism Considered Historically and Psychologically” King wrote: “The fundamentalist is quite aware of the fact that scholars regard the garden [sic] of Eden and the serpent Satan and the hell of fire as myths analogous to those found in other oriental religions. He knows also that his beliefs are the center of redicule [sic] by many.”
He closes his paper with: “Others [sic] doctrines such as a supernatural plan of salvation, the Trinity, the substitutionary theory of the atonement, and the second coming of Christ are all quite prominant [sic] in fundamentalist thinking. Such are the views of the fundamentalist and they reveal that he is oppose [sic] to theological adaptation to social and cultural change. He sees a progressive scientific age as a retrogressive spiritual age. Amid change all around he is willing to preserve certain ancient ideas even though they are contrary to science.” King was saying that you are a dummy if you believe the Bible to be the very Word of God.
As to the atonement of Christ, he wrote, “First we may say that any doctrine which finds the meaning of atonement in the truimph [sic] of Christ over such cosmic powers as sin, death, and Satan is inadequate.” He added that to transfer guilt and punishment to another is “bizarre.” He goes on: “Moreover, no person can morally be punished in place of another. Such ideas as ethical and penal substitution become immoral.” Any white Baptist preacher would be drummed out the ministry for such heresy but King had special privilege.
As to the Second Coming of Christ, Day of Judgment and resurrection of the body King wrote that these teachings taken literally “are quite absurd….It is obvious that most twentieth century Christians must frankly and flatly reject any view of a physical return of Christ.”
He clearly asserted that the book of Jeremiah was not infallible. He also espoused the heretical view that non-canonical books were as good as or better than the Old Testament books! “To my mind, many of the works of this period were infinitely more valuable than those that received canonicity. The materials to justify such statements are found mainly in the Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha. These works, although presented pseudonymously, are of lasting significance to the Biblical student.” Any study of those books will easily confirm the fact that they are forgeries, foolishness, and fraudulent and did not come close to the canonical books which were inspired, infallible, and inerrant.
Throughout his writings, King scorns Bible-believing Christians and praises unbelieving liberals, but that is not surprising since he did that all his life.
A Black preacher encapsulated King’s theology and philosophy better than anyone else: “It is as though Socrates, Thoreau, Hegel, and Jesus were all dumped together into one philosophical bowl like tossed salad.” Then Gandhi was tossed in to add additional spice to the muddle!
When King received the Nobel Peace Prize, the youngest man to receive it, he said: “I am a minister of the Gospel.” He was an ordained minister but not of the Gospel of Jesus Christ! He preached “another gospel,” and his Black privilege did not guarantee him a place in Heaven.
Moreover, I cringe to hear him called a “Baptist.”
http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”
Fact, Fraud or Faith?
by Don Boys, Ph.D.
Only an uninformed fanatic says that evolution or creation can be proved scientifically. Christians believe in creationism because we believe in the veracity of the Bible but we also have scientific evidence to support our position. In every debate I’ve had with evolutionary scientists, the arrogant, asinine accusation is made, “Well, evolution is scientific while creationism is religion.” Evolution is about as scientific as a voodoo rooster plucking ceremony in Haiti. Almost.