Closed communion isn't an IFB distinctive. Many Brethren churches do the same. They might even go so far as to limit the Lord's Supper part of the service to their own membership.
In all fairness to your pastor, the “Reverend” MLK did have some skeletons in his closet, but his message was mostly good of course.
Any particular reason you are omitting this one particular piece from the pulpit and the Bible?
Exactly who is mocking? I’m just pointing out some IFB memories that I may (or may not) agree with. I also posted about dodgeball and big ball volleyball. Of course those aren’t necessarily unique to IFB youth groups, but they were good memories.
In my experience in life, the devil is often someone who appears as an angel, but in reality is something all together very different than what he portrays. The devil doesn’t usually present himself as the devil.
Yep, I grew up with that horse puckey! I started reading the Bible through comic books after that just to tick the preacher off!
"Close" communion is what most Churches I have attended have followed and I do agree for the most part. It is a time of closeness and intimacy with the Lord and with each other as we examine ourselves. It is something not to be rushed or taken flippantly.
I kind of get what you mean, but honestly, it doesn’t really matter what man does because ultimately, that’s all a preacher is, a sinful human. What God says is ultimately all that counts, and each of us are ultimately accountable for our actions.
They are speaking of silly things they remember in certain IFB Churches. There were many "Standards" that were pushed that were actually detrimental to personal holiness, They made you "look good" but actually covered up a good bit of bad behavior.
I’ve long known about King’s skeletons from information the FBI gained by bugging him. Allegedly, he had over 40 affairs, a child out of wedlock, etc.
FWIW:
That's what I've heard but I've heard it only from those with a political axe to grind against Him. Do we have this information from a more neutral source? As I said about His niece, she's currently a darling of right wing conservative evangelism because of her pro-life stance. I've not heard the criticisms of her I've heard of her uncle.
Wow. That is a great article. I've encountered SFGATE before and the SF has always been a red flag, but I have found some of their writings to be profound and useful. Go figure.
, the nuanced worthwhile aspect of the issue that you raise about this site and the problem of attacking each other while the devil dances with glee is also worthy of a little closer inspection. What should be readily evident, as you've been around and observed here a lonnnng time, is that within historical orthodox/conservative/evangelical Christianity ("biblical Christianity") there has always raged a legitimate battle (which you can also see within the text of the NT Scriptures, ie, Galatians explicitly) over the problem of legalism. Man always seems to want to add rules that bind other people's conscience and that addition is often overstating what God has explicitly given as law/command. On the other side of the coin you find that some people want to justify their immorality by exclaiming that their sin is magnifying the copious amount of God's wonderful grace (Rom 6:1). So the battle over antinomianism (sinning by railing against God's law and abusing His grace) and legalism (adding to explicit commands of God in order to earn favor with God) rages, and sometimes collateral damage occurs when we contend for those particulars of how legitimate faith plays out. Some contend in a manner that is hurtful and inconsiderate, not speaking the truth in love, and others contend sincerely with love mixed in to their conscientious sparring. So in the case at hand for this thread, some of the rules, no matter how well intended, become a vehicle to paint up a pig on the outside (or as Jesus said..."beautify the outside while inside you're white washed tombs" Matt 23:27). Summing that up, it's a false dichotomy to say that we should only be against the abortionists and T of LGNTQIA+ (and other similarly explicitly clear works of the devil). False doctrine of the kind that enslaves people to manmade rules and hypocrisy (as you noted with your example about pastoral immorality) is exactly what Jesus railed against the loudest when he walked the earth.
I have heard that many fundamental bible colleges and seminaries back in his day would never allow a black man to attend and receive an education from their institutions. Liberal institutions, however, welcomed him with open arms! I wouldn't want MLK to change anything related to his "Civil Rights" message but I cannot help but think what the world would be like today had his theology been more like that of Voddie Baucham and he actually preached the Gospel?
MLK did not reject liberal theology! The title of Alex Wright's article is completely misleading. Perhaps he rejected the full on Pelagianism that Rauschenbusch and other liberals espoused but he kept pretty much everything else! There are many preaching "Black Liberation Theology" that staunchly believe in the total depravity of the WHITE MAN and that "White man is the DEVIL!"
I know we had previously discussed the brand of Baptist that President Carter belongs to. Would you classify MLK as being in a similar vein as Carter? (I’m not talking about political views here, just theological.)
Very likely yes to both.
Short answer, yep. What interests you about their religious intersection? Do you think there are religious similarities and if so, how?