Besides being a civil rights activist who did do good things for this cause, Martin Luther King, Jr. was a pastor who received his seminary training at Crozer Theological Seminary in Upland, PA in 1948 where it is said that he “strengthened his commitment to the Christian social gospel.” Martin Luther King Jr. was the pastor of the Dexter Avenue King Memorial Baptist Church from 1954 until 1960. It is from here that he began his civil rights movement.
On March 29, 1959, Easter Sunday, King preached a sermon titled A Walk Through the Holy Land. This sermon calls into question King’s biblical fidelity and his commitment to essential Christian doctrines. In this sermon, King denied the importance of believing in the physical resurrection of Jesus stating that it doesn’t matter if one believes in the physical resurrection or a spiritual resurrection.
Whatever you believe about the resurrection this morning isn’t important. The form that you believe in, that isn’t the important thing. The fact that the revelation, resurrection is something that nobody can refute, that is the important thing. Some people felt, the disciples felt, that it was a physical resurrection, that the physical body got up. The paul came on the scene, who had been trained in greek philosophy, who knew a little about greek philosophy and had read a little, probably, of plato and others who believed in the immortality of the soul, and he tried to synthesize the greek doctrine of the immortality of the soul with the jewish hebrew doctrine of resurrection. And he talked, as you remember nad you read it, about a spiritual body. Whatever form, that isn’t important right now. The important thing is that that resurrection did occur. Important thing is that that grave was empty.
Attempting to pit the Apostle Paul against the Hebrew writers of the Old Testament, King asserts that Paul tried to “synthesize” Greek philosophy with the “Hebrew doctrine” of the physical resurrection. King’s heresy, however, is the exact Gnostic heresy that Paul is refuting in 1 Corinthians 15 calling it of “first importance.”
Join Us and Get These Perks:
✅ No Ads in Articles
✅ Access to Comments and Discussions
✅ Community Chats
✅ Full Article and Podcast Archive
✅ The Joy of Supporting Our Work 😉
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. —1 Corinthians 15:3-5
Notice that Paul doesn’t say that it “isn’t important,” instead, Paul says it is of “first importance”—that it is an essential doctrine. King denied that this was an essential doctrine placing him into the realm of heresy.
But that isn’t King’s only heresy—he also denied the orthodox view of the Divinity of Jesus. In a paper he writes in November 1929 titled The Humanity and Divinity of Jesus, he writes,
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.” in other words, one could easily use this as a means to hide behind his failures. So that the orthodox view of the divinity of Christ is in my mind quite readily denied.
While King’s civil rights activism is certainly worth remembering and appreciating, his work as a pastor is condemnable. Yet, Michael Horton, having become the “woke church” activist that he has become over the last several years, praises King for “making an important impact for the gospel.” He certainly made an important impact for the gospel, but not a praiseworthy impact. King’s tainted gospel has led so many people, especially black people, away from the true gospel and to a social gospel that denies the orthodox fundamentals of the faith.
Horton’s defense of King was to exonerate him of his heresy because he was unable to “attend an evangelical seminary.” First, nowhere in Scripture does it say one needs to attend an “evangelical seminary” in order to understand the deity of Christ and affirm his bodily resurrection as foundational to Christianity. And secondly, whether or not one attends seminary has no bearing on the culpability for one holding to such heresies. These heresies are damnable, despite any other truthful claims you may otherwise make. Here’s Horton’s praise of King:
King couldn’t go to an evangelical seminary, which would have been natural given his churchmanship. He went to a liberal, Rochester Colgate, a liberal school. And yet even then in his sermons, like one of his sermons, man’s sin and God’s grace.
It’s a great sermon. He says liberals have gone too far in getting rid of total depravity, original sin, and the need for a substitutionary atonement. Because these are the heart of Christianity. Without these doctrines, there is no Christianity.