Martin Luther King Was a Crusader but Was He a Christian?

Much of America is excited about the MLK movie titled “Selma”; however, there is discussion, debate, and some say distortion, if not dishonesty, about the role Lyndon Johnson played in some of King’s activities, especially the 54-mile march from Selma to the Alabama capital of Montgomery that led to the passing of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. Let me state clearly that I have little to no respect for Johnson or King and I’ve made that judgment based on their lives, not because Johnson was a Democrat and King was a Black. One’s political party or one’s race is not an issue that concerns me. I am concerned about truth and history, and specifically whether King actually was only a crusader but not a Christian.

I resent historians and media who refuse to deal with truth whether it is about Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Clinton or Obama. Or, about preachers whether it be Billy Graham, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, Bennie Hinn–or King. It is astounding that many conservatives refuse to acknowledge the historical record but emphasize only a small but commendable portion of a hero’s life. Therefore, they don’t feel cowardly in their very selective stand.

For the record, Johnson was a thief, liar, and foul-mouthed fornicator. The best thing he did for America was not run for reelection. That is not to say that he did not accidently accomplish some good during his stint in office. Moreover, it is a fact that Blacks were often intimidated and refused voting rights in some southern states and it is good that that has been corrected. However, one should not then leap to the conclusion that it is discrimination to demand that everyone prove citizenship when voting. That is not discrimination but common sense. Nor is it wrong to reject any ploy that permits a person to vote multiple times in various districts or makes it easy to commit voter fraud. In our desire to do good, we must not do stupid.

King was a social worker who used the ministry to accomplish his mission and let me be clear that there were many wrongs that needed to be righted. Most of the young people who faced the white bullies with dogs and clubs were heroes. Some of them even lost their lives to white thugs. King was an opportunist who accomplished some good. However, because King was black and was killed by a white racist who should have been executed within a few months of his crime, most media and academia refuse to research, recognize, and report the truth about King. I do so because I don’t worship anyone and try to hold everyone to the same standard.

Many reading this, including most conservatives, will be offended at the suggestion that King might not have been a Christian. But then a person is not a Christian because he professes to be or because he belongs to a “Christian” Church or because he is baptized. According to the Bible, one becomes a Christian when he or she exercises faith in the atoning death and resurrection of Christ. King, according to his own words was not a believer!

We can know much about a person if we study what he has written, and I have spent many hours reading King. His seminary papers are very revealing as to what he believed and what his motives were. The King papers are courtesy of the King family and those papers prove that he was not only an unbeliever but far from being a scholar! Since no one else will do so, I will try to set the record straight. I can live with my motives and I hope you can live with the truth. Some of this information is from my eBook Martin Luther King, Jr.: Judged by His Character Not His Color available at amazon.com with documentation. Please note that I will not deal with King’s philandering, plagiarism, politics, or partying.

Today, my main interest is to look at the evidence for proof of King’s salvation, not whether he was an accomplished community organizer and admired civil rights leader.

King received his B.D. from Crozer Seminary then started to work on his Ph.D. at Boston University. All the following information is from that time period.

King’s seminary and university papers show his taking a scalpel to excise the core doctrine of Christ’s physical resurrection from the Bible and from history: “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.” No, it is King who is found wanting after being weighed in the balances. Of course, King was aware that all four Gospels clearly teach the physical resurrection of Christ as do many of the epistles, but that is not good enough for King: the resurrection of our Savior is “found wanting.” Furthermore, there are scores of carefully documented books that support Christ’s physical resurrection. Any scholar would know that.

Regarding the virgin birth King wrote: “it seems downright improbable and even impossible for anyone to be born without a human father.” Of course, it is improbable but improbable does not mean impossible, especially with God! King further wrote: “First we must admit that the evidence for the tenability of this doctrine is to [sic] shallow to convince any objective thinker.” King was not objective and in my opinion not a deep thinker.

In a paper at Crozer titled “The Humanity and Divinity of Jesus," his professor rebuked him suggesting that it would be good if he proofread his papers before turning them in! He was given a B+ by his professor. In this paper he misspelled “Samaria,” “learned,” “agonizing,” “omniscient,” “omniscience,” “reliance,” “orbit,” “warmest,” “intimacy,” “inadequate," and others. That was graduate work! I would have given him a D, if he rewrote the paper maybe a C.

King wrote, “They realized that if they wanted to get an objective standard of reference they would they would [sic] have to go beyond the pages of the old [sic] testament [sic] into the path that lead [sic] to that locked door.” King was favoring the position that the Old Testament is not a reliable historical record. King was like all unbelievers who jump at the opportunity to denounce, deny, and denigrate the Word of God and praise, promote, and protect paganism.

King concludes his paper dealing with archeology and the Old Testament: “If we accept the Old Testament as being ‘true’ we will find it full of errors, contradictions, and obvious impossibilities–as that the Pentateuch was written by Moses.” Surely he blushed to write about errors since his papers and books are riddled with errors or all kinds. When he purloined pages from other authors he also stole their mistakes!

In one of King’s papers at Crozer on the "Light on the Old Testament from the Ancient Near East," I discovered eight spelling, punctuation, and composition mistakes in nine consecutive lines! Maybe I will do another column on his astounding number of mistakes. No, the “contradictions” were in King’s life, not in the Scripture and he clearly denied the deity of Christ, His virgin birth, His resurrection, and the veracity of Scripture. By any objective standard King was not a Christian. Therefore, on January 15 I will be working as usual then have dinner with friends at our favorite Chinese restaurant. After all, because it is also my birthday, the dinner of steak, shrimp, and Peking duck is free. You can honor King as a crusader if you please, but not as a legitimate Christian leader. A Christian he was not.

(Next column: “Martin Luther King and Black Privilege!” 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!”

(Dr. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives, author of 15 books, frequent guest on television and radio talk shows, and wrote columns for USA Today for 8 years. His shocking books, ISLAM: America's Trojan Horse!; Christian Resistance: An Idea Whose Time Has Come–Again!; and The God Haters are all available at Amazon.com. These columns go to newspapers, magazines, television, and radio stations and may be used without change from title through the end tag. His web sites are www.cstnews.com and www.Muslimfact.com and www.thegodhaters.com. Contact Don for an interview or talk show.)

"Like" Dr. Boys on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/CSTNews?ref=hl and http://www.facebook.com/TheGodHaters?ref=hl Follow him on Twitter at https://twitter.com/CSTNews Visit his blog at http://donboys.cstnews.com/

Your post #39 acknowledges salvation by Grace, though leaves out "through faith".

Do you know what "good works" ACTUALLY refers to, and why it is said to not only be inadequate, but also detrimental to the spiritual path? Because it is refering to the EGO. It is referring to doing something "for God" with the belief that the positive effect it has is a result of your personal effort - rather than being a success that results from God's Grace flowing through whatever you do. The difference is enormous, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the idea that you don't have to make any effort. In fact, yo have to make massive, continuous effort - but offer all of it to God, and claim no success for yourself. THAT is "not" doing "good works."

Rather than saying "you have to make massive, continuous effort", however, I'd say that the Bible calls us to make such effort, that is, even turn over our very lives over to Christ. And we learn elsewhere in the Bible that true believers indeed do this. The key being, of course, that they do not do such works with any expectation of anything at all from God in recompense for what they do. They do such works because the Holy Spirit dwells within them and draws them to Christ, which induces obedience to God's Word, and, eventually, an obedience that becomes more consistently joyful, that is, even in the face of trials and tribulations; hunger, persecution, etc.

But your earlier post (I think #11) says the opposite, that because he (MLK) did some amount of works you posit are very good, that he merits salvation because of those works (specifically the second sentence of the second paragraph):

So what is being said here - that for all he did, MLK is in hell, because even though he did so much for so many people, and showed so much courage in the face of evil that he was killed for it, he wasn’t perfect and didn’t fit the generally accepted definition of Christian, and so even though he invoked Christ in his mission to give heart to people and fight evil - he’s now in hell forever, suffering like the most vile criminal?

What utter, complete rot. I reject such a conclusion with contempt. Jesus isn’t an accountant, and if MLK didn’t do enough, then no one can. He faced the murderous equivalent of nazistic hate and responded with teaching millions a response of love and nonviolence and human dignity and calling on God. There’s not one in a hundred who could do what he did.

And lumping him in with LBJ is obscene.

I don’t care how the Left had abused his legacy and name for their own purposes - it doesn’t change what he did and taught. And if what he did and taught wasn’t Christian, then Christianity is useless.

Yes, no one can do enough to merit salvation, that is, spending eternity in heaven with God. The best that anyone can ever do merits them only eternal damnation. That's the point made so strongly in the New Testament. It's impossible for anyone to be saved based on what they've done; thus in order to be saved we must appeal to Christ's perfect atoning sacrifice - his shed blood.

God simply chose his elect, those whom he would save, the operative wording being HE. God provided the sacrifice, Christ, his son, as in the archetype of how he provided the sacrifice for Abraham so Abraham did not have to sacrifice his son Isaac.

As the magnitude of the free gift of salvation increasingly is understood by the believer, as part of the process of sanctification, the believer is simply driven to do things, through which God glorifies himself, inasmuch as the believer typically does not contemporaneously appreciate or even have much knowledge or understanding of the effects of the good works they are drawn to do, let alone have the wisdom, strength, courage or even ambition to be their architect or initiator. One can realize this if one is saved - and looks back, honestly, on their life prior to their conversion. There is an "old man" that the believer "puts off"; the new man, born again in Christ, has a whole new set of concerns - primarily obedience to Christ and drawing every close to God.

When we see a person who on one hand does "good" things but on the other hand is known to continue in habitual, grave sin, it simply tells us this is an unrepentent sinner, not someone to follow and look up to.

Of course, the Bible is clear that ordained pastors are to be held to the highest standards of Biblical living - and for good reason, to avoid having charlatans deceive the members of Christ's flock. And the Bible is clear that the penalties for false teachers will be worse than for those they misled who in the end never became true believers.

Thank you back, but all I offer is a personal opinion. To each their own, I say.

However when I see millions of people square of against each other for hundreds of years over the teachings of Christ, it makes me go “hmmmm.” Each side has rock-solid points that seem to contradict the other. Yet I do not believe Jesus contradicted Himself - nor do I believe that millions of Catholics or Protestants are driven by evil.

So it’s a puzzle. One solution is that Jesus taught on multiple levels for different types of people about similar issues. He admitted as much when He told His disciples that he would speak plainly to them what he told others in parables. So two or more interpretations of the same teaching, as long as they hold deeper commonalities with, for example, what Jesus called His “greatest commandment,” seem allowable.

Another solution is to very carefully examine the meaning of words - like “good works,” for example. It often leads to deeper insights. And of course, Jesus went deep.

I believe wrongful Christian schisms have been exploited by evil to turn people against God. Any effort to heal these schisms - without sacrificing truth - is worth the time and energy.

And the Bible tells us that, if a man does not listen after a few attempts, then we should move on.

It also tells us to remove the log from our own eye, before attacking the speck in someone else's eye.

Swapping those two teachings inappropriately has led to the protection of a lot of ignorance, by letting people blame others when they should have blamed themselves.

And historically, that exact mistake has led to wars - over and over and over again.

The two teachings are in two different areas. One is spreading the true gospel message, discussing the Word of God, etc. To wit:

Titus 3

"1 Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work,

2 To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.

3 For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.

4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,

5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;

7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

8 This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.

9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself."

The other teaching is about hypocrisy - and we can note that the context does indeed instruct us to cast the mote out of our brother's eye, just AFTER we have cast the beam out of our own:

Matthew 7

"4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

This is not saying to ignore all sin and let sin continue wantonly amongst Christians, but to be on the lookout for sin and identify it when we see it - BUT before we say something to someone else we certainly should take inventory of ourselves and make sure WE don't have sins even more grave that we need to confess. And if we do - we are not to "let the other guy sin because we are". Now there are two habitual grave unrepentant sinners in the Church. No, we are to get right with God, confess to God, repent. The message is to not be a hypocrite when we rightly discern the actions and words of others, not to welcome wicked men as leaders that we look up to and model ourselves after.

As I referenced in my other post, this issue is surrounding a public figure that many people assert is a leader to be admired, looked to as an example, etc., and who publicly presented himself as an ordained pastor. In such a case the Bible instructs us to compare them to the Biblical template for such leaders:

1 Timothy 3

"1 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;

9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.

10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.

11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.

12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus."

Well we agree that the only good is the Grace of God that flows through the efforts that that same Grace guides us to make. As for how much of such surrender in someone’s life gains them heaven, versus how much failure achieves them hell, I cannot say. But I can say that you will nowhere in all of human history find perfection or even balance in the greatest of people, where “great” means surrender to God. That being the truth, why not acknowledge the success where it is found, as an inspiration, rather than focus on the inevitable failings that will also always exist as well?

God chose his elect before the foundation of the world.

Ephesians 1

"4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,"

If you're among God's elect, at some point before you die, you will be "born again", converted to Christ.

John 3

"1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:

2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again."

Note that is says nothing of how much one has to "do good" to gain heaven, or how much failure sentences one to hell.

As far as looking for inspiration, we are to not look for it in men whose words and deeds belie their Christian profession of faith, that is, those who have every appearance of being unrepentent sinners, because none of their works are acceptable to God:

Romans 14:23 "And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin."

If we confess our sins to God, God forgives:

1 John 1:9 "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

If we don't, we are unrepentant. Such a person is thus not forgiven and therefore can not be among God's elect. An unrepentant sinner is an unbeliever, whether they are an atheist, some believer in false gods, or even someone who professes faith in Christ, if that profession is false. If we see continuing wicked acts from a professing Christian and no repentance, that tells us this is person to reject as an unbeliever. While unbelievers may do many nice things, donate millions to charities, make all sorts of public proclamations, start movements, etc., the Bible tells us that if not done in faith, as a true believer in Christ, these things are actually sin - "for whatsoever is not of faith is sin."

That is why the "focus on failings"; it's the Biblically-required discernment of others. It would not be possible to know positively that a person IS a true believer by some simple indicator that's obvious - but such indicators ARE available to know that a person IS NOT a true believer. If you see their words and deeds going against Scripture in a major way. It's like if we're picking a rental car - we can't know which car WILL make a 1,000 mile trip with no problems - but if we see a car there with no tires, we can be sure that it will NOT make the trip.

The Bible tells us to separate ourselves from wicked people:

2 Corinthians 6

"14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.

18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty."

“So what is being said here - that for all he did, MLK is in hell, because even though he did so much for so many people, and showed so much courage in the face of evil that he was killed for it, he wasn’t perfect and didn’t fit the generally accepted definition of Christian, and so even though he invoked Christ in his mission to give heart to people and fight evil - he’s now in hell forever, suffering like the most vile criminal?

What utter, complete rot. I reject such a conclusion with contempt. Jesus isn’t an accountant, and if MLK didn’t do enough, then no one can. He faced the murderous equivalent of nazistic hate and responded with teaching millions a response of love and nonviolence and human dignity and calling on God. There’s not one in a hundred who could do what he did.

And lumping him in with LBJ is obscene.

I don’t care how the Left had abused his legacy and name for their own purposes - it doesn’t change what he did and taught. And if what he did and taught wasn’t Christian, then Christianity is useless.”

A Christian is one who repents of sin and trusts the Biblical Christ, (ie conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary, and who was crucified, died and is risen) SOLELY and COMPLETELY for salvation. Invoking a non-Biblical Christ is to take His name in vain.

Just one “tiny” sin is enough is enough to separate us from a holy, righteous God forever. One doesn’t have to be a vile criminal. That separation between us and God cannot be fixed by any number of good works on our part. Only God can fix that ON HIS TERMS. Even when a small child does wrong, it is not because he hasn’t been taught the difference between right and wrong. It is because his nature is inherently sinful. When a Christian does good works it is EVIDENCE of salvation, not the CAUSE of it. Even Muslims, Hindus, atheists , etc do good works but they are not salvific.

MLK’s version of Christianity is useless. Biblical Christianity is the only answer. It is Christ who done what is necessary.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.