Do you have the evidence of his infidelity? I heard that it was refuted. Just wondering.

When King's closest supporters and confidants like Ralph Abernathy say he had a "weakness for women," one is reminded of Tiger Woods. If friends and enemies alike agree about someone, it seems safe to assume the truth has been found. I haven't personally heard or seen the FBI tapes of King's hotel activities, but Abernathy claimed that one was even sent to his wife Coretta, apparently in an attempt to damage their marriage. You may have heard the refutation that he engaged white prostitutes. Abernathy made the point that women were constantly throwing themselves at King, so he had no need to pay.

Great post Randy- thanks for the link!

Hey Randy,

This is a stunning post. Thanks for digging this up and publishing it.

From the link, this bothers me as well:

"The second doctrine in our discussion posits the virgin birth. This doctrine gives the modern scientific mind much more trouble than the first, for it seems downright improbable and even impossible for anyone to be born without a human father.

First we must admit that the evidence for the tenability of this doctrine is to shallow to convince any objective thinker.Davis underlined "to" and corrected it to "too." To begin with, the earliest written documents in the New Testament make no mention of the virgin birth. Moreover, the Gospel of Mark, the most primitive and authentic of the four, gives not the slightest suggestion of the virgin birth. The effort to justify this doctrine on the grounds that it was predicted by the prophet Isaiah is immediately eliminated, for all New Testament scholars agree that the word virgin is not found in the Hebrew original, but only in the Greek text which is a mistranslation of the Hebrew word for "young woman." How then did this doctrine arise?

A clue to this inquiry may be found in a sentence from St. Justin's First Apology. Here Justin states that the birth of Jesus is quite similar to the birth of the sons of Zeus. It was believed in Greek thought that an extraordinary person could only be explained by saying that he had a father who was more than human. It is probable that this Greek idea influenced Christian thought."

As well as this:

"The last doctrine in our discussion deals with the resurrection story. This doctrine, upon which the Easter Faith rests, symbolizes the ultimate Christian conviction: that Christ conquered death. From a literary, historical, and philosophical point of view this doctrine raises many questions. In fact the external evidence for the authenticity of this doctrine is found wanting. But here again the external evidence is not the most important thing, for it in itself fails to tell us precisely the thing we most want to know: What experiences of early Christians lead to the formulation of the doctrine?

The root of our inquiry is found in the fact that the early Christians had lived with Jesus. They had been captivated by the magnetic power of his personality. This basic experience led to the faith that he could never die. And so in the pre-scientific thought pattern of the first century, this inner faith took outward form. But it must be remembered that before the doctrine was formulated or the event recorded, the early Christians had had a lasting experience with the Christ. They had come to see that the essential note in the Fourth Gospel is the ultimate force in Christianity: The living, deathless person of Christ. They expressed this in terms of the outward, but it was an inner experience that lead to its expression."

These are troubling statements to anyone who holds to Christian orthodoxy. If these documents are genuine primary sources and were not recanted, I do not see a way that your conclusion can be avoided.

I wonder sometimes if many of our seminaries will ever recover from this kind of teaching.

I wonder sometimes if many of our seminaries will ever recover from this kind of teaching.

The correct answer is, "No, most will not." A rare exception is Al Mohler's Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, which wasn't as far gone, but was extremely liberal and has been cleaned up.

>The correct answer is, "No, most will not."

...because if they had effective self-correction mechanisms, they wouldn't have gone so far in the first place. And Dave and I'd be happily out of a job with our conference outreach to struggling institutions, if not unneeded altogether as event facilitators.

I think the minute we see a lack of biblical self-correction, no matter how orthodox the motions of doctrine, we know the foundation's probably already in serious trouble, if not washed out altogether. In our experience of the last five years, mere adherence to rote doctrine is just a blanket thrown over much bigger problems. Rebuilding foundations out of the rubble is...well, it's beyond human capacity, and tiring to even think of, but in Christ, that's okay.

(Waves to the Schooleys on the way by)

Thank you Randy for helping bringing truth into the light. I too had heard of his numerous affairs but never heard anything on his position of Christ and His deity. For King to dedicate his life as a minister and not teach people about redemption found only in Christ is really a sad and wasted life.

Is this web site a parody? Am I missing something? MLK was not a Christian based on something he wrote in a seminary paper?

I realize you are not responsible for Bobbie Pearson's comment, but perhaps you inspired it on some level.

Speaking of sad and wasted lives, here is a good idea for another post...The sad and wasted lives of Mother Teresa (after all, she was a Catholic) and Bono (I heard that he used the F word). Or maybe that would be a better fit on http://larknews.com/current-issue/

Ken, I assume you know this isn't a parody and your question was rhetorical. Surely you believe that someone who denies the deity of Christ and never reverses that view can't be considered a Christian. I'm confident Pastor Gene hasn't changed his preaching that much since I left.

I believe Bobbie's view about a "wasted life" is in light of eternity. On earth, MLK did plenty of good (and bad), but someone who studies the Scriptures, gets ordained as a pastor, and denies that Jesus was God has indeed wasted their life spiritually. Just so you know, Bobbie writes from the mission field in Spain. She knows a bit about spending one's life for the kingdom.

Bono's salvation isn't based on a few poor choices. I happen to own several U2 albums and I think only a true believer could write some of those lyrics. I haven't heard him deny the deity of Christ. If he did, he wouldn't be a Christian any more than someone who claimed to be a hardcore Democrat Clinton/Kerry/Obama supporter but voted Republican in every election would be a true Democrat.

Mother Teresa, from what I've read, was an amazing person in many ways but didn't understand Christianity. She publicly denied that Jesus was the only way, refuting his own words in John 14:6. You can believe her, or believe Him, but not both.

I trust Cornerstone still holds Scripture well above pop culture, so I'd encourage you to hold belief in the deity of Yeshua up as an important standard.

Randy - You guessed right that my question was rhetorical...but I still think you are making some questionable guesses about whether or not MLK or Mother Teresa were "Christians". I thought the term originally came from the believers in the first century in Antioch and was based mostly on the fact that their lives and values seemed to others to be "like Christ". On that account, I'm sure many would say that MLK and MT were Christians.

I don't know that (although it may be true) MLK ever formally denied the deity of Christ, and I wouldn't necessarily infer it from the quote above. It looks to me like he may be questioning "the orthodox view of the divinity of Christ" and not necessarily the deity of Christ. He may have denied the deity of Christ in other places that I am not aware of ( I don't claim to be a scholar of his theology), but I would not conclude he denied the deity of Christ on the basis of that quote alone.

Either way, it seems like you and I may just have a disagreement of semantics in how we use the term "Christian". I'm guessing that you tend to use it more precisely than I would.

As far as Cornerstone is concerned, my response to this post was personal and not intended to speak for Cornerstone. Having said that, I am confident that elders of Cornerstone hold scripture above pop culture, but I am also pretty sure that you would not be so sure if you were still attending.

Hey man.... excellent observations! After all... EVERYBODY knows that Jesus was ALLLLL about the legalism and orthodoxy! That's what he meant about "more abundantly. "I came that you might have order and have it more abundantly". Good stuff.. very Christlike. Oh... Hey.. by the way... Jesus was all about showing people God's Kingdom. So tell me... How does this post in ANY way show people the Kingdom of God and the path to abundant life? Does this post serve to feed the hungry? house the homeless, clothe the poor? Does it do anything OTHER THAN beg for attention for taking advantage of the shock value of discrediting a great man? Just curious. Oh... by the way.. Christian means "Christlike." Maybe you should consider being a martyr! That would serve to give you AWESOME credibility! Let me know! I'd be more than happy to bring the wood!

Where the gospel is truly preached, there will be strife.

Martin Luther

Ken, Sevastian, I'm curious. Let's say I live an exemplary life, while at the same time I believe that Christ is an avatar of Vishnu or the spirit brother of satan. Am I Christian? Let's say I live an exemplary life, just as Christ did, although I believe he was only a man, and I intend to earn my way to heaven without his assistance. Am I a Christian? Why or why not, on both counts?

Personally, I hate the term... who wants to be pigeonholed in life? Is there some special benefit derived from being part of "the club"? I think my "salvation" is between me and my maker... and there is NO value in involving myself in judging whether or not you are acceptable to my maker.

"who wants to be pigeonholed in life?"

My pigeonholing as one loved by the Lord is the dearest thing I have in life and death, actually.

"I think my "salvation" is between me and my maker... and there is NO value in involving myself in judging whether or not you are acceptable to my maker."

I don't understand the quotation marks around the word salvation. Please explain...

"NO value"

Does the 3rd chapter of 2 Timothy have no value?

Ken,
It looks to me like he may be questioning "the orthodox view of the divinity of Christ" and not necessarily the deity of Christ.

So saying Christ is divine is harmful, although the statement may be true? That's rather strange. Why would truth be detrimental? Isn't it supposed to set us free?

Either way, it seems like you and I may just have a disagreement of semantics in how we use the term "Christian". I'm guessing that you tend to use it more precisely than I would.

Yes. To me a Christian is a follower of the God-man Jesus Christ as explained in the Bible, not merely someone with some Christian-like qualities.

I am confident that elders of Cornerstone hold scripture above pop culture, but I am also pretty sure that you would not be so sure if you were still attending.

I would have assumed the elders still believed that a divine Christ is the only way to God and that non-Christians need the salvation that comes from Him alone. Hopefully that is still what is taught. I don't really care what the elders think about pop culture as long as they hold to that.

Sevastian,
EVERYBODY knows that Jesus was ALLLLL about the legalism and orthodoxy!

Thanks for coming by, Sevastian. Jesus was very much anti-legalism and very much pro-orthodoxy (right belief). The Scriptures couldn't be much plainer on both issues.

How does this post in ANY way show people the Kingdom of God and the path to abundant life?

Not all articles are written with that specific objective. That said, it may help illustrate the point that we are not saved by our works, but only by our faith in the divine God-man, Jesus Christ.

Does this post serve to feed the hungry? house the homeless, clothe the poor?

In itself, probably no more than your wife's fine article #26 The Ex Factor. That doesn't render either of them worthless.

Does it do anything OTHER THAN beg for attention for taking advantage of the shock value of discrediting a great man? Just curious.

If that was my only goal, apparently it worked. However, I was more interested in enlightening fellow Christians who think MLK was some sort of Christian martyr or orthodox believer. He was a great man in some ways, but he was not a hero of the Christian faith. It's interesting that you wonder if I'm discrediting him when I simply quoted his own words--that's what discredits him.

Maybe you should consider being a martyr! That would serve to give you AWESOME credibility! Let me know! I'd be more than happy to bring the wood!

Okay, Sevastian, now you get to explain how that furthers the kingdom. Oh, I'd like a nice hardwood, perhaps hickory. Definitely not pine.

Personally, I hate the term... who wants to be pigeonholed in life?

Baptism did a pretty effective job for all the early Christians. Apparently they wanted to be pigeonholed as followers of Jesus even at the risk of death.

Is there some special benefit derived from being part of "the club"?

Yes. Christians are a community, the body of Christ. We have responsibilities to each other, including the teaching of sound doctrine and many other things that are impossible as lone rangers.

I think my "salvation" is between me and my maker... and there is NO value in involving myself in judging whether or not you are acceptable to my maker.

Not according to the Bible. Why are there passages about church discipline if it's all individualistic? Why are we told to submit to our elders, and to learn from others? The NT is full of group instruction. Christianity is not an individualistic faith.

Our job is not to judge whether someone is acceptable, but the Bible lays out some standards that do the work for us. For example, 1 John 2:22-23 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.

Those are not my words, but the Holy Spirit speaking through the apostle John. MLK denied that Jesus is the Christ, saying that such a belief is harmful and detrimental. Draw your own conclusions.

MS Quixote wrote:
Does the 3rd chapter of 2 Timothy have no value?

And chapter 4 very much continues the theme of a non-individualistic Christianity.

Sevastian, I truly hope you can find a good church body with sound teaching and people who love each other in community.

This morning I happened on Rev 2:18-25, which tells the church at Thyatira that their works and service are great, but they are rebuked for tolerating false teaching. They looked like Jesus, but they were wrong for lacking doctrinal purity. Orthopraxy is good and necessary, but so is orthodoxy.

Ken:

"It looks to me like he may be questioning "the orthodox view of the divinity of Christ" and not necessarily the deity of Christ."

Dude. This is some kind of parody, right? :~)

I'd be interested to see how you split hairs on that one. If filial consciousness and unique dependence upon God are all it takes, why can we not achieve deity if we attain awareness of our presence in God's family and live in dependence upon Him?

What makes this different than the New Age "Christ within"? I hope you'll share some terms and definitions to distinguish.

Sevastian:

"Personally, I hate the term"

Hate is a very strong word, and not one I've ever thought of as a marker of grace.

If it's important to do as Jesus Christ did and show people the Kingdom, why hate the term which identifies a Christ-follower?

If it's not important to be pigeonholed by the Kingdom as Jesus was, i.e. to be pigeonholed as a Christ-follower, why bother mentioning the Kingdom or Christ?

Quixote:

"My pigeonholing as one loved by the Lord is the dearest thing I have in life and death, actually."

Yeah...If we have hoped in Christ for this life only [if it's a fabricated designation], we are of all men most to be pitied. (1 Cor 15:19)

Randy:

"Orthopraxy is good and necessary, but so is orthodoxy."

I'm not sure how the praxis can occur or be evaluated to be occurring without the doxa clearly established and expressed. Therefore,

Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints. -Jude 3

Keep at 'er.

Hey Randy,

This statement is really sticking with me:

"Does it do anything OTHER THAN beg for attention for taking advantage of the shock value of discrediting a great man?"

the irony of course being that removing the divinity from Christ is the actual discrediting of a great man occurring here.

the irony of course being that removing the divinity from Christ is the actual discrediting of a great man occurring here.

Quite a bit greater, to say the least. MLK couldn't have been any clearer in denying the ontological divinity of Jesus.

To be fair, I was mocking you. I'm not a christian, though I have at least given your religion enough credence to read its defining document cover to cover DOZENS of times. It's not my charge to make believers. It's yours. My wife is not a "believer" in your religion either. I think it is LUDICROUS to believe that 1st Tim 3:16 refers to the Bible. The thing wasn't even compiled for 300 more years.

Sevastian, thanks for posting despite your lack of belief. I'm curious why you'd take the time to read the Bible dozens of times. If only most Christians were as committed to reading as you. However, it's certainly inaccurate to say that the Bible was compiled 300 years after 1 Tim. was written. While there were some disputes over the years, Paul's epistles were accepted immediately, even called Scripture by Peter:
2 Peter 3:15-16 Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

"I think it is LUDICROUS to believe that 1st Tim 3:16 refers to the Bible. The thing wasn't even compiled for 300 more years."

Sevastian, having put forth this assertion, perhaps you'd care to demonstrate your claim.

Comment on MLK, Jr: Christian Hero?