MARTIN LUTHER KING-AN UTMOST HERETIC AND CHRIST-DENIER
In this apostate modern world, there is this almost unchallenged reverence for Martin Luther King. The left wing, humanist media love him. The secular humanist education system fawns over him for inspiration. Godless communists, Marxists and various sorts of Christ deniers see him as inspirational second to Karl Marx, Nelson Mandela and Che Guevara. But what is most tragic of all, is that many Christians without knowing the facts treat him as inspirational almost akin to a Saint or Church Father! Nothing could be further from the truth. It must be pointed out that our Lord Jesus Christ stated: “Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! For so did their fathers to the false prophets.” (Luke 6:26) What must be pointed out is that Martin Luther King from his own writings and confessions, was nothing short of a classic liberal, modernist antichrist and Christ-denier. Every cardinal doctrine that all orthodox Christians hold to was something that he openly rejected or touted as “unscientific”. This is an unavoidable truth.
3 modern antichrists that influenced each other to rebellion against God: Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela and Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
MARTIN LUTHER KING AND HIS HERETICAL TEACHERS:
Although Martin Luther King may have come from a line of God-fearing preachers, yet he was nothing like his father or his forefathers to say the least. He underwent a false “born again” experience at age 6 without understanding what he was doing due to seeing his sister respond to an “altar call” experience at a revival meeting. In fact, even when he got baptised, he admitted that he did not know what was happening to him. Little wonder therefore that at the age of 13, he expressed his denial and doubt of the physical resurrection of Christ in Sunday School. From that point onwards, he admitted: “doubts began to spring forth unrelentingly.” (King Jr., ed. Clayborne Carson. The Autobiography of Martin Luther King Jr. Warner Books. 1998 p. 6). He entered into Morehouse College in Atlanta at age 15 and was originally intent on being a doctor but instead was advised to continue his pursuit of denial of orthodox Christianity by 2 godless professors: Benjamin E Mays, the president of that college and George D Kelsey, a professor. The former was insistent on the “social gospel” and the latter was a promoter of the idea of making the Scriptures have an allegorical interpretation rather than a literal one. This would pave the way for his entry into a heretical theological college between 1948-1951: Crozer Theological Seminary. It was there that he learnt the most heretical German rationalist theologians and implemented them in his thoughts, namely, Tillich, Wieman, Neibuhr and Barth. From there he pursued a Ph. D in Boston University, another place of Christ rejection, for systematic theology. In fact, whilst he was in Boston, he and his wife, Loretta Scott King attended a number of Unitarian churches, all of which obviously denied the Deity of Christ as well as all other fundamental doctrines of the Christian Faith. Therefore, we can now see the sources of his inspiration for Christ denial.
MARTIN LUTHER KING AND HIS ANTICHRIST HERETICAL BELIEFS:
Before we begin, let us quote the basic stance that Martin Luther King took regarding Scripture and Christian doctrine, which will thus highlight the direction of his heresies: “We should delve into the deeper meaning…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 philosophically untenable, yet we can never undermine the foundation on which they are based.” ( King Jr., 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 in “The Papers of Martin Luther King Jr. Vol 1.” p. 224)
His denial of the Deity of Christ should be the first point for alarm bells for any discerning Christian in accordance with I John 2:22, 23 and 4:1-3. Consider this statement he made in his paper at college: “The orthodox attempt to explain the divinity of Jesus in terms of an inherent metaphysical substance within him seems to me quite inadequate. 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. To invest this Christ with such supernatural qualities makes the rejoinder: “Oh, well, he had a better chance for that kind of life than we can possibly have…” 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 to 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 of 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.” (King Jr., The Humanity and Divinity of Jesus in “The Papers of Martin Luther King Jr. Vol 1.” p. 150). [Emphasis mine].
If that is not enough, then please consider this vile attempt by King to accuse belief in the Deity of Christ as God the Son as a Graeco-Roman innovation: “The first doctrine of our discussion which deals with the divine sonship of Jesus went through a great process of development. It seems quite evident that the early followers of Jesus in Palestine were well aware of his genuine humanity. Even the synoptic gospels picture Jesus as a victim of human experiences. Such human experiences as growth, learning, prayer, and defeat are not at all uncommon in the life of Jesus. How then did this doctrine of divine sonship come into being?
We may find a partial clue to the actual rise of this doctrine in the spreading of Christianity into the Greco-Roman world. I need not elaborate on the fact that the Greeks were very philosophical minded people. Through philosophical thinking the Greeks came to the point of subordinating, distrusting, and even minimizing anything physical. Anything that possessed flesh was always underminded in Greek thought. And so in order to receive inspiration from Jesus the Greeks had to apotheosize him.
…As Hedley laconically states, “the church had found God in Jesus, and so it called Jesus the Christ; and later under the influence of Greek thought-forms, the only begotten Son of God.” [Emphasis mine] (Ibid.)
One is bad enough but please consider his outright rejection of the Virgin Birth of Christ, comparing it with that of the pagan demi-gods in Greek mythology:
“First we must admit that the evidence for the tenability of this doctrine is to shallow to convince any objective thinker. 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.
A more adequate explanation for the rise of this doctrine is found in the experience which the early Christians had with Jesus. The people saw within Jesus such a uniqueness of quality and spirit that to explain him in terms of ordinary background was to them quite inadequate. For his early followers this spiritual uniqueness could only by accounted for in terms of biological uniqueness. They were not unscientific in their approach because they had no knowledge of the scientific. They could only express themselves in terms of the pre-scientific thought patterns of their day.” [Emphasis mine] (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 in “The Papers of Martin Luther King Jr. Vol 1.” P229)
Based on the above, it is clear that Martin Luther King is indeed a heretic beyond doubt and a deliberate distorter of truth. He even misquotes St. Justin Martyr to prove his heretical points. Nothing could be more shameless than such a heretical distorter of truth.
Herein is another shameful rejection and denial of a core Christian doctrine: the physical, literal resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. As St. Paul stated: “And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.” (I Corinthians 15:17). Yet King is unashamed in his denial of that core tenet of Christian Faith as he was with others:
“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.” [Emphasis mine] (Ibid.)
I suppose that King never considered the fact that there were over 500 witnesses to the Resurrected Christ, and we have non-Christian historians such as Josephus (a Jew) and pagan Roman writers such as Phlegon and Pliny the Elder, attesting to this firmly held belief of Christians. What King never bothered to ask is what advantage did the Apostles and the followers of Jesus have if he was not resurrected? The Jewish and Roman authorities could simply dig up the body and thus end all argument and also perhaps he never considered that it makes no sense for people who were once cowards and in hiding to come out all of a sudden bold as a lion and willing to die for something they doubted. People can die for delusions but never something that they know is an outright deception!
King as a logical outcome of rejection of any literal belief in Christian doctrine and the Scriptures, naturally had this to say in another of his papers summarizing his unbelief:
“When the fundamentalist comes to the nature of man he finds all of his answers in the Bible. The story of man in the garden of Eden gives a conclusive answer. Man was created by a direct act of God. Moreover, he was created in the image of God, but through the workings of the devil man was lead into disobedience. Then began all human ills: hardship and labor, the agony of childbirth, hatred, sorrow, suffering, and death. The fundamentalist is quite aware of the fact that scholars regard the garden 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 centre of ridicule by many. But this does not shake his faith–rather it convinces him more of the existence of the devil…. Others 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 in fundamentalist thinking. Such are the views of the fundamentalist and they reveal that he is oppose 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.” [Emphasis mine] (King, The Sources of Liberalism and Fundamentalism, Vol. 1, p54)
So here we have it from the man himself admitting his ultimate rejection of all Christian doctrine as unscientific and mythological! There is a lot of evidence to prove the scientific nature of the Trinity, the Creation of man, etc. but since King was intent on rejection and being an antichrist, he never bothered to consider it at all.
One of his most heretical statements is that Christianity was the result of the influence of Mithraism, a Persian cult that had penetrated the Roman world, something that St. Justin Martyr soundly refuted, but is not the subject of discussion here. Read and be disgusted:
“It is not at all surprising in view of the wide and growing influence of these religions that when the disciples in Antioch and elsewhere preached a crucified and risen Jesus they should be regarded as the heralds of another mystery religion, and that Jesus himself should be taken for the divine Lord of the cult through whose death and resurrection salvation was to be had.
It is at this point that we are able to see why knowledge of these cults is important for any serious New Testament study. It is well-nigh impossible to grasp Christianity through and through without knowledge of these cults. That there were striking similarities between the developing church and these religions cannot be denied. Even Christian apologist had to admit that fact. For an instance, in the mystery-religions identification between the devotee and the Lord of the cult was supposed to be brought about by various rites of initiation; the taurobolium, or bath of blood; the eating of flesh of the sacrifical beast and the like. Now there was something of this in Paul too, for he thought of the believer as buried with Christ in baptism and as feeding upon him in the eucharist. This is only one of many examples that I could give to prove the similarity between the developing Christian Church and the Mystery Religions.
This is not to say that a Saint Paul or a Saint John sat down and copied these views verbatim. But after being in contact with these surrounding religions and hearing certain doctrines expressed, it was only natural for some of these views to become a part of their subconscious minds. When they sat down to write they were expressing consciously that which had dwelled in their subconscious minds. It is also significant to know that Roman tolerance had favoured this great syncretism of religious ideas. Borrowing was not only natural but inevitable.
One of the most interesting of these ancient cults was Mithraism, which bore so many points of resemblance to Christianity that it is a challenge to the modern student to investigate these likenesses and learn more about them.” [Emphasis mine] (A Study in Mithraism, Vol. 1, p311]
So according to King, Christianity was merely imitating other mystery religions, particularly Mithraism, yet he obviously ignored the most obvious differences due to his blindness. There is more that could be stated such as his rejection of the Flood in Genesis as a copycat of the Babylonian myths and even his outright denial of hell, which only need to be looked at briefly to show clearly what his heretical view was.
“[the Hebrew authors of Genesis] producing from Babylonian mythology an almost verbatim story.”(King Jr., The Influence of Mystery Religions on Christianity in “The Papers of Martin Luther King Jr. Vol. 1” p. 311)
“A physical heaven and a physical hell are inconceivable in a Copernican world…for us immortality will mean a spiritual existence… “ (King Jr., The Christian Pertinence of Eschatological Hope in “The Papers of Martin Luther King Jr. Vol. 1”p.271)
“…in reality I know nothing about heaven…personally I don’t’ believe in hell in the conventional sense.” (King Jr., Why Religion? in “The Papers of Martin Luther King Jr. Vol. 6” p. 83)
Finally, we must conclude this section by stating based on the above, Martin Luther King was indeed a gross heretic of the worst order and was using the pulpit to promote “social gospel” rather than the Gospel of Christ.
CONCLUSION:
It is clear therefore that Martin Luther King is an antichrist, a rejecter of Christian Faith and Doctrine and a vile heretic. He is almost akin to another Luther whom we have already discussed about previously in great length, except Martin Luther King (whose real name is Michael Luther King, since he adopted the name “Martin”) was twice the son of hell than Martin Luther the German heretic.
May Christians wake out of their slumber and stop promoting a son of Satan who looked to Greek philosophers for his inspiration rather than Christ our God. This is no slander and I will conclude with this admission from King himself regarding his expectation of who he expected to see on the day before his last day on earth on April 3, 1968:
“As you know, if I were standing at the beginning of time, with the possibility of general and panoramic view of the whole human history up to now, and the Almighty said to me, ‘Martin Luther King, which age would you like to live in?’– I would take my mental flight by Egypt through, or rather across the Red Sea, through the wilderness on toward the promised land. And in spite of its magnificence, I wouldn’t stop there. I WOULD MOVE ON BY GREECE, AND TAKE MY MIND TO MOUNT OLYMPUS. AND I WOULD SEE PLATO, ARISTOTLE, SOCRATES, EURIPIDES AND ARISTOPHANES ASSEMBLED AROUND THE PARTHENON AS THEY DISCUSSED THE GREAT AND ETERNAL ISSUES OF REALITY.” (“I See the Promised Land”, April 3, 1968)
Martin Luther King did not value Christ, the Prophets and the Apostles and Fathers, but rather esteemed the godless Greek philosophers as of greater worth! He most certainly got his eternal wish but now he has realised too late in eternity where that has led him to. May this be a wake-up call for Christians to not worship an antichrist, modernistic heretic and let God be true and every man a liar. (Romans 3:4).
God bless.
Glory be to God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Both now and unto the ages upon ages. Amen.
-- Delivered by Feed43 service
Post a Comment