"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 God. Christ was to be only the prototype of one among many brothers. "

See if you can guess correctly, then click here for the answer.

I wonder if this person held this position his whole life? Interesting.

I am sure he held it his whole academic life. He was heavily influenced by Paul Tillich (cf. his dissertation) and was neo-orthodox to the core.

Interesting. I knew he leaned liberal in some things. I didn't know he went that far.

This documentation is very helpful when dealing with those who call him a Christian. I appreciate the tip; it will be useful in that regard.

Wow!

My Grandmother who was one of the saintliest women i have ever known, always refused to call him a Christian. I always wrote that off as her being from Atlanta.

Originally posted by john_Mark
"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 God. Christ was to be only the prototype of one among many brothers. "

See if you can guess correctly...

Oh this is easy...my Dad & step family are Mormons. Joseph Smith! Joseph Smith!

Disgusted & appalled...

Wow.

Guess that confirms that. I knew he denied the literalness of Gen. 1-10....but I didn't know this.


You'd think that if he DID change his mind, somewhere in his writings, he'd have a retractation.... ?

The link isn't working, could someone U2U the answer?

I knew it!

Well its a good thing I dont celebrate his day. Amazing how much we dont know in all the things americans me one of them take for granted. I would have never known this I only knew he was a baptist9which is bad enough) jk lol had to say it

blade

How timely! A good reminder that it's not wise to follow someone just because there is a day dedicated to him.

King was extremely liberal. I don't know if I'd called him merely neo-orthodox. I respect the idea of equality, but there must be someone better to follow....hmmm...Jesus?....Paul?....

Originally posted by john_Mark
"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 God. Christ was to be only the prototype of one among many brothers. "

See if you can guess correctly, then click here for the answer.

I wonder if this person held this position his whole life? Interesting.

Holy Cow! That is absolutely unbelievable! I guess it is no big deal that liberal revisionist seek to make him a non-Christian and turn him into an ideal humanist. He really was!

I always heard he was a commie and wasn't real faithful to his wife, but this is a whole other realm

"Who do you say I am?" I think it is safe to say that this was not revealed to him.

openairboy

Originally posted by openairboy
Holy Cow! That is absolutely unbelievable!

Actually it is old news. We have ignored the elephant in the living room for a long time.

Originally posted by Draught Horse

Originally posted by openairboy
Holy Cow! That is absolutely unbelievable!

Actually it is old news. We have ignored the elephant in the living room for a long time.

Indeed old news. I read about all of this at least in the mid-80's. Haven't paid any attention to that day in January since.

While I agree that this paper is theological liberal trash, it was written in 1950 when King was a student. Does anyone know of anything later that confirms this?

And, sadly, many from that era who knew enough at least to say with their lips that Jesus is God also thought nothing of denying the right to vote, employment, or a decent school to people who happened to have a different color skin. I wonder how many of us grieve over the fact that so many professing believers engaged in blatant hatred, leaving it to the "liberal" church to work to end the injustice of segregation.

"This divine quality or 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."

Now that's just plain scary theology.

Originally posted by LauridsenL
And, sadly, many from that era who knew enough at least to say with their lips that Jesus is God also thought nothing of denying the right to vote, employment, or a decent school to people who happened to have a different color skin. I wonder how many of us grieve over the fact that so many professing believers engaged in blatant hatred, leaving it to the "liberal" church to work to end the injustice of segregation.

It was not just liberal churches. Conservative churches were there as well. Just because King was a liberal, doens't mean all the civil rights folk were liberals. There's alot of "unknown" people from that time, local leaders and laymen, who recognized the truth in Scripture that we are all one people descended from Adam and that Christ has no room for racism, who recieve no credit for their willingness to love those who hate them, and bless those who persecute them. That is one thing I do value of King. He preached that they are to win through loving their enemies, not through violence. You won't hear that from most "popular" civil rights leaders today.

I wish I knew if he'd ever retracted or should I say repented of his above writings. I can't seem to find anything on the web in the quick searches I have had time to do. Maybe the problem is that many don't know his theology, don't care so there isn't much written about it either criticizing or showing a retraction.

Originally posted by OS_X
You'd think that if he DID change his mind, somewhere in his writings, he'd have a retractation.... ?

I've got a collection of his writings. I don't think there is a lot of theological writings though. It's more polemical and political speeches. I'll take a look tonight though and see.

Originally posted by LauridsenL
And, sadly, many from that era who knew enough at least to say with their lips that Jesus is God also thought nothing of denying the right to vote, employment, or a decent school to people who happened to have a different color skin. I wonder how many of us grieve over the fact that so many professing believers engaged in blatant hatred, leaving it to the "liberal" church to work to end the injustice of segregation.

Sometimes I question the authenticity of statements thrown by the side of the road which exalt Paul's theology in Romans, but ignore or only give lip-service to his theology in Philemon. The AME Church didn't develop because people had problems with Calvinism.....

[Edited on 14-1-2005 by OS_X]

That is one thing I do value of King. He preached that they are to win through loving their enemies, not through violence. You won't hear that from most "popular" civil rights leaders today.

As much as I hate neo-orthodoxy that much is true. I do give him credit on that.

And, sadly, many from that era who knew enough at least to say with their lips that Jesus is God also thought nothing of denying the right to vote, employment, or a decent school to people who happened to have a different color skin. I wonder how many of us grieve over the fact that so many professing believers engaged in blatant hatred, leaving it to the "liberal" church to work to end the injustice of segregation.

While that might be true it doesn't justify a denial of the Deity of Christ.

Originally posted by Draught Horse

Originally posted by openairboy
Holy Cow! That is absolutely unbelievable!

Actually it is old news. We have ignored the elephant in the living room for a long time.

What Elephant?

I like the holiday. My kids and I get to play.

Originally posted by Draught Horse
[

And, sadly, many from that era who knew enough at least to say with their lips that Jesus is God also thought nothing of denying the right to vote, employment, or a decent school to people who happened to have a different color skin. I wonder how many of us grieve over the fact that so many professing believers engaged in blatant hatred, leaving it to the "liberal" church to work to end the injustice of segregation.

While that might be true it doesn't justify a denial of the Deity of Christ.

Yes, denying someone the "right to vote" is hardly a damnable heresy, but a "right" of the American system. These Christians are readily frowned upon in the church and culturally. The PCA even had a statement on reconciliation and repentance, but no matter what is done people aren't willing to forgive. Will people ever forgive those sins? No, because they are necessary politically. I can only imagine what future generations will say about us, because of our blindness to cultural sins.

openairboy

[Edited on 14-1-2005 by openairboy]

[Edited on 14-1-2005 by openairboy]

While that might be true it doesn't justify a denial of the Deity of Christ.

I agree wholeheartedly. I wasn't defending his clear denial of the Deity of Christ, and hope that God later in life granted him repentance.

Just because King was a liberal, doens't mean all the civil rights folk were liberals.

That's certainly true. But not as true as it should've been.

Jacob - it's easy to say that "While that might be true it doesn't justify a denial of the Deity of Christ.", but fact is..... a group of 'so-called Christians' calling me 3/5 of a person, spitting on me, telling me I'm under the imaginary curse of Ham and other racist nonsense that ran under the guise of Christianity it's Christological orthodoxy is a lot more real at THAT particular time than some abstract concept of the Deity of Christ and whether or not I hold to it. And having never been on the side of the oppressed or the discriminated against, you can't identify with how deeply it touches and pains the souls of them who endure it. There are still people alive today who in the 1950's would've been told 'We don't allow <the N word> in our church' at the front door of a PCA church that solidly held to the WCF. And one simply 'racial reconciliation' speech or declaration doesn't make that go away when it's been the majority of your life. (thankfully, the PCA *is* doing something more now....)

The late Walter Martin had a saying: "Cults are the unpaid bills of the church come due." Reformed theology has not been present for the most part in the African-American community due to the fact that most of the reformed folk either were indifferent to racism and discrimination and oppression or complicit in it. That's historical fact. Meanwhile, Arminian folk were more than happy to take in, defend and even to die for the freedom of African-Americans. Liberal denoms, with the whole 'social gospel' mentality, jumped even further ahead in the 30's, 40's and 50's and especially in the 60's.... and to the shame of most, did a better job of loving their brothers than their reformed counterparts did. And that 'realness' that's supposed to be the hallmark of true Christianity....came from a mixed and in some cases, heretical brand of Christianity... but it did its' job and drew more people in.....

I'm not saying these things to criticize you (because I know we've had our disagreements in the past on here), but just to give you another perspective. I hope I come across humble and non-accusatory and if I don't, I apologize and ask you to forgive me in advance.



[Edited on 14-1-2005 by OS_X]

Originally posted by OS_X
a group of 'so-called Christians' calling me 3/5 of a person, spitting on me, telling me I'm under the imaginary curse of Ham and other racist nonsense that ran under the guise of Christianity it's Christological orthodoxy is a lot more real at THAT particular time than some abstract concept of the Deity of Christ and whether or not I hold to it.

While I of course can't fully understand, and don't want to downplay, the racism you're talking about, I must take you up on this point. Personal persecution such as that, very important as it is, is never as dangerous and truly problematic as such a misconstrued concept of the deity of Christ...what is represented by King's statement is not merely some error in understanding on unconditional election or God's providence - it is a damnable heresy, and a total destruction of the very heart of Christianity. So while I do sympathize with the importance of the great extent of a problem that the racism of many of the conservative churches during that time was, earthly oppression such as that is simply never as dangerous, under any circumstance, as the eternally soul-damning heresy represented by King's words.

Kerry,
We have disagreed in the past and I am trying not to keep that in mind as I view this thread. I value what you have to say--I visited your website tonight and found it enjoyable with many valuable insights to offer. I understand what you are getting at. I realize that liberals rallied to causes that White, Southern Calvinists shunned. I have to say that with regret. That is why this is a two-front issue--I can not jusfity calling someone 3/5 of a human. On the other hand I cannot pretent that liberalism in general (forget King for a second. Let us assume he repented of intellectuall autonomy)is a Christiian perspective. It is no accident that Gresham Machen titled his book Christianity and Liberalism.

Would it interest you to know that I had waited quite a while for Anthony Carter's book to come out? I can remember the day that I saw Being Black and Reformed in the bookstore. I like what Anthony had to say and must admit it to be a challenging little book. I have also listened to his sermons from Piper's Conference.

While we will still disagree on some major historical issues, I hope this cleared up some misunderstanding and that there are no hard feelings between us.

Originally posted by Draught Horse
Would it interest you to know that I had waited quite a while for Anthony Carter's book to come out? I can remember the day that I saw Being Black and Reformed in the bookstore. I like what Anthony had to say and must admit it to be a challenging little book. I have also listened to his sermons from Piper's Conference.

I have that book, but as of yet have only read bits and pieces. Would you say that book has a thesis, or is it more of a composition of various thoughts on the subject?

It has been almost a year since I read it (and I read it in a chaotic dormitory environment) but I'll try.

Carter gives a very nice of overview of Reformed theology and presents it as THE viable alternative--my words, not his--as opposed to Liberation theology or arminianism; in fact, he is critical of Cone, etc. It is basic but good. He attempts to show that the black perspective (and struggle in history) should suit them to Reformed theology and when that has not been the case, both blacks and whites are to blame. It is a short book (and not expensive at all, maybe 8 or 9 dollars).

I'm curious - why did this come up just now? I can't think it's coincidence. What point are we trying to make here - this day is being celebrated because MLK pulled people together and reminded us what the United States is about - it's not being celebrated to honor his theology. Most people don't even know what his theology was. This is a national, not a religious, holiday. It almost seems like someone is trying to rain on someone else's parade. BTW I'm white.

(This post is not directed at anyone in particular, it just seems that the discussion is missing the point of why the holiday is celebrated. It's interesting and sad that MLK was not apparently a Christian (unless he changed).)

[Edited on 14-1-2005 by turmeric]

BTW,
I enjoy the holiday

Originally posted by turmeric
I'm curious - why did this come up just now? I can't think it's coincidence. What point are we trying to make here - this day is being celebrated because MLK pulled people together and reminded us what the United States is about - it's not being celebrated to honor his theology. Most people don't even know what his theology was. This is a national, not a religious, holiday. It almost seems like someone is trying to rain on someone else's parade. BTW I'm white.

(This post is not directed at anyone in particular, it just seems that the discussion is missing the point of why the holiday is celebrated. It's interesting and sad that MLK was not apparently a Christian (unless he changed).)

[Edited on 14-1-2005 by turmeric]

This Thread was in response to an article that Dr.MLK denies the Diety of Christ. Which is enlightening in the fact that he was suppose to be a Pastor. One who fed the flock of God. He is lifted up by many as being a defender of the faith. In reality he wasn't. This doesn't take away the fact that he was a catalyst to move the civil rights movement forward. The article wasn't about the holiday per se.

If you asked me whether "he" was a Christian, I would have said, "No idea." That clinches it though. He was an Arian at best.

so i guess this means that I should get rid of my book "Thank You, Dr Martin Luther King" that I saved for when my children get older (kiddy book)? LOL...me, trying to trash a book haha....(no, no, it's a book, you can't! I have to, but....)

Originally posted by Ivan
Indeed old news. I read about all of this at least in the mid-80's. Haven't paid any attention to that day in January since.

I do, but mostly because my birthday falls on the 17th.

(That's right, you just witnessed an irrelevant and shameless plug for Evie's 21st birthday!)

[Edited on 14-1-2005 by Ex Nihilo]