Civil disobedience and Gandhi and Martin Luther King

[JohnClay]

Apparently Gandhi and MLK were at the sixth stage of moral development:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development#Stages
This means that for them, civil disobedience (breaking laws) can be moral.

Gandi wasn't a Christian and it seems MLK may not be a full Christian either
https://www.jesus-is-lord.com/king.htm

Romans 13:1-2a

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted

It seems to say that Christians shouldn't use civil disobedience. Is that right?

 

[Serving Zion]

Apparently Gandhi and MLK were at the sixth stage of moral development:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development#StageThis means that for them, civil disobedience (breaking laws) can be moral.

Gandi wasn't a Christian and it seems MLK may not be a full Christian either
https://www.jesus-is-lord.com/king.htm

Romans 13:1-2a


It seems to say that Christians shouldn't use civil disobedience. Is that right?

Yes, that is right. Consider Philippians 2:5-11, John 16:7-11, John 18:36, 1 Corinthians 4:19-20, Romans 12:19, 2 Corinthians 6:3-7.

 

[mukk_in]

I guess we Christians have a better way of expressing discontentment, i.e., by voting (assuming, of course, that the system itself isn't rigged). Mr. Gandhi didn't have that choice until after 1947 (shortly before his assasination), and Dr. MLK was probably compelled to do what he did.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

Apparently Gandhi and MLK were at the sixth stage of moral development:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development#StageThis means that for them, civil disobedience (breaking laws) can be moral.

Gandi wasn't a Christian and it seems MLK may not be a full Christian either
https://www.jesus-is-lord.com/king.htm

Romans 13:1-2a


It seems to say that Christians shouldn't use civil disobedience. Is that right?

Didn't Jesus use civil disobedience? And, Paul penned those words you quoted, and yet Paul used civil disobedience. In Acts 16, he refused to leave the prison until the legislators who wrongly put him in prison came and personally escorted him out. Isn't that civil disobedience?

When Jesus refused to answer Pilate's question, wasn't that civil disobedience? And religiously speaking, Jesus often stood up to the religious leadership--as did Paul. Isn't that also civil disobedience?

When we refuse to obey laws, we better be real sure that we are doing it from God's heart; but there are certainly situations where "loving your neighbor as yourself" would be violated if you don't stand up for them in an unjust situation.

Gandhi declared he wasn't a Christian. He didn't believe that Jesus was who He said He was.

I am not aware of anywhere where Rev Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said he wasn't. And, he willfully put his neck on the line for African Americans when he didn't have to. He could have stayed in the confines of his safe area and let oppression go.

Politics is just ugly. He was involved in politics; but, I believe he was trying to use politics to avoid more needless bloodshed. What if he was living out of what is described in James 5:19-20 and Jude 21-23?

 

[Serving Zion]

In Acts 16, he refused to leave the prison until the legislators who wrongly put him in prison came and personally escorted him out. Isn't that civil disobedience?

Please see in Acts of the Apostles 16:37-39, that St Paul did not enact civil disobedience, but rather exercised his right to justice, by remaining in custody for trial. Notice the key points: they were jailed without a trial and the authorities wanted to sweep it under the rug. Why did they become afraid when they heard they were Roman citizens? .. because there is a law for how justice should be served upon a Roman, and the authorities had acted contrary to it's precepts - it could have been quite a scandal!

When Jesus refused to answer Pilate's question, wasn't that civil disobedience?

I think justice should entitle a person to give their argument. I don't know how much of the onus is on the one who makes his defence, to do it to his best ability, but Jesus did give enough assurance that the greater sin belonged to the Jews, and in such way Pilate was able to wash his hands of the blood when the Jews insisted the blood should come upon them and their offspring. I don't think Pilate therefore believed he had been put out by Jesus' silence (although being a strange defence strategy). Ultimately, Jesus was bringing His case to a higher authority (John 18:36, Luke 19:12, Hebrews 10:12-13).

And religiously speaking, Jesus often stood up to the religious leadership--as did Paul. Isn't that also civil disobedience?

I rather see it as the informing of the authorities that their use of law is invalid .. much as we might refuse to receive a fine that we believe is wrongly issued, forcing Police to drop it on the ground in front of us - thereby leading to dispute resolution through courts. That isn't civil disobedience, it is the prescribed way of dispute resolution. .. unless you have specific examples that look like civil disobedience (that is, the resisting of lawful authority - not merely a lawfully appointed officer who happens to be misusing law).

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

Please see in Acts of the Apostles 16:37-39, that St Paul did not enact civil disobedience, but rather exercised his right to justice, by remaining in custody for trial. Notice the key points: they were jailed without a trial and the authorities wanted to sweep it under the rug. Why did they become afraid when they heard they were Roman citizens? .. because there is a law for how justice should be served upon a Roman, and the authorities had acted contrary to it's precepts - it could have been quite a scandal!

I think justice should entitle a person to give their argument. I don't know how much of the onus is on the one who makes his defence, to do it to his best ability, but Jesus did give enough assurance that the greater sin belonged to the Jews, and in such way Pilate was able to wash his hands of the blood when the Jews insisted the blood should come upon them and their offspring. I don't think Pilate therefore believed he had been put out by Jesus' silence (although being a strange defence strategy). Ultimately, Jesus was bringing His case to a higher authority (John 18:36, Luke 19:12, Hebrews 10:12-13).

I rather see it as the informing of the authorities that their use of law is invalid .. much as we might refuse to receive a fine that we believe is wrongly issued, forcing Police to drop it on the ground in front of us - thereby leading to dispute resolution through courts. That isn't civil disobedience, it is the prescribed way of dispute resolution. .. unless you have specific examples that look like civil disobedience (that is, the resisting of lawful authority - not merely a lawfully appointed officer who happens to be misusing law).

I'm sorry, but I disagree with you. If we redefine "obeying authority" to mean different things for Scriptural heros of the faith versus post-Scriptural figures, we aren't really being fair.

I'm not African American. But, how African Americans were treated from being taken from their home country (against their will), treated like property, and then denied dignity at every turn was not justice and yet there were "Christians" in power who were fine with the status quo because it meant more money for them. How anyone can look at another human and claim to be "loving their neighbor as themselves" while treating them so indecently is beyond me. How others could look the other way was shocking to Rev Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. he referred to them as "the silent majority". Civil disobedience was to awaken the sleeping silent majority to care about something they should have cared about all along.

Paul refusing to leave until the officials came is no different than Rosa Parks refusing to get off a bus she shouldn't have been prohibited from being on, for example.

If you can't see that, that is between you and God. I'm glad He has opened my eyes.

 

[Serving Zion]

I'm sorry, but I disagree with you. If we redefine "obeying authority" to mean different things for Scriptural heros of the faith versus post-Scriptural figures, we aren't really being fair.

Well, it isn't an authority if it is breaking the law, is it? I don't believe so, anyway. People in authority are placed there to uphold the law, so the authority shifts from the officer to the accused when the officer is wrong. That is the reason we have courts.

I'm not African American. But, how African Americans were treated from being taken from their home country (against their will), treated like property, and then denied dignity at every turn was not justice and yet there were "Christians" in power who were fine with the status quo because it meant more money for them. How anyone can look at another human and claim to be "loving their neighbor as themselves" while treating them so indecently is beyond me. How others could look the other way was shocking to Rev Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. he referred to them as "the silent majority". Civil disobedience was to awaken the sleeping silent majority to care about something they should have cared about all along.

Ok, well I am not to judge, and these are different times too. Man's law sometimes contravenes God's law. I just believe that Christian power is a heavenly power, as our weapons are not carnal.

Paul refusing to leave until the officials came is no different than Rosa Parks refusing to get off a bus she shouldn't have been prohibited from being on, for example.

Yes, I agree with that assessment. It isn't civil disobedience, as I have explained. Tyrants who are in authority have a tendency to guard their status and not allow their wrongness to be exposed, even if it means breaching law to do so (they assume they are above the consequences of the law).

 

[JohnClay]

To repeat what I said earlier - it seems that MLK wasn't a full Christian e.g.
https://www.jesus-is-lord.com/king.htm

....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?....

So then he has a lot in common with Gandhi in that they aren't really Christians - and I guess that means that they deserve hell despite their "good works". (edit: I guess everyone deserves hell according to Christianity)

 

[Serving Zion]

I guess that means that they deserve hell despite their "good works". (edit: I guess everyone deserves hell according to Christianity)

.. sounds like you've been bitten by a serpent. Check out the criteria for judgement: it is love.

The Righteous Judge
31 “Now when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them from one another, just as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And He will put the sheep on His right, but the goats on His left. 34 Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger and you invited Me in; 36 I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You? Or thirsty and give You something to drink? 38 And when did we see You a stranger and invite You in? Or naked and clothe You? 39 When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’

40 “And answering, the King will say to them, ‘Amen, I tell you, whatever you did to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’ 41 Then He will also say to those on the left, ‘Go away from Me, you cursed ones, into the everlasting fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty and you gave Me nothing to drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite Me in; naked and you did not clothe Me; sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’

44 “Then they too will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not care for You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Amen, I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for Me.’ 46 These shall go off to everlasting punishment, but the righteous into everlasting life.”
Matthew 25:31-46

 

[JohnClay]

.. sounds like you've been bitten by a serpent. Check out the criteria for judgement: it is love.

The Righteous Judge
31 “Now when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them from one another, just as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And He will put the sheep on His right, but the goats on His left. 34 Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger and you invited Me in; 36 I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You? Or thirsty and give You something to drink? 38 And when did we see You a stranger and invite You in? Or naked and clothe You? 39 When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’

40 “And answering, the King will say to them, ‘Amen, I tell you, whatever you did to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’ 41 Then He will also say to those on the left, ‘Go away from Me, you cursed ones, into the everlasting fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty and you gave Me nothing to drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite Me in; naked and you did not clothe Me; sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’

44 “Then they too will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not care for You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Amen, I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for Me.’ 46 These shall go off to everlasting punishment, but the righteous into everlasting life.”
Matthew 25:31-46

Are you saying Gandhi is saved?

 

[Serving Zion]

Are you saying Gandhi is saved?

I don't personally know the guy, but I also don't know what reason Jesus might have to send him away. How about yourself? Do you know if he is the type of person that is not fit for salvation?

 

[JohnClay]

I don't personally know the guy, but I also don't know what reason Jesus might have to send him away. How about yourself? Do you know if he is the type of person that is not fit for salvation?

https://www.mkgandhi.org/religionmk.htm
Well it seems that Gandhi didn't teach that Jesus was the only way to be saved. Assuming that Jesus isn't Gandhi's Lord and Savior I thought that would mean he wasn't saved.

 

[Serving Zion]

https://www.mkgandhi.org/religionmk.htm
Well it seems that Gandhi didn't teach that Jesus was the only way to be saved. Assuming that Jesus isn't Gandhi's Lord and Savior I thought that would mean he wasn't saved.

No I think I could have had some very constructive conversation with him and we would agree on a lot. High probability too that we would find agreement that he could go forward talking the way he did but being more resolved about who Jesus is (ie: the spirit of God incarnate). It doesn't appear in his words that he has rejected Jesus Christ. It seems that he has only ever seen Christianity as another religion. I couldn't be sure of that though, from what little I have read of him.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

To repeat what I said earlier - it seems that MLK wasn't a full Christian e.g.
https://www.jesus-is-lord.com/king.htm


So then he has a lot in common with Gandhi in that they aren't really Christians - and I guess that means that they deserve hell despite their "good works". (edit: I guess everyone deserves hell according to Christianity)

I am a little confused about your stance. It seems you, who claim to be from "other religion", NOT CHRISTIAN, think you get to decide who is Christian or not based on a website? Am I understanding that correctly?

Gandhi and the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., are in different positions. As I understand from Gandhi himself, he didn't believe Jesus was who Jesus said He was. I have read no statement from the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. that says He didn't believe Jesus was who Jesus said He was. That's a big difference, not a misconception.

I would like to call to your attention, Cornelius the Centurion (Acts 10), who would have had no clue that Jesus was born of a virgin. As a result, based on your understanding, he could not have been a Christians, yet the Holy Spirit didn't wait for man's approval. The Holy Spirit fell on them leaving the then-Christians astonished that God gave the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles as well. In Acts 16, when the jailer was shocked that all the prisoners were still there, he said to Peter "What must I do to be saved?" Paul didn't say: "You gotta believe Jesus was born of the virgin!" We don't know exactly what Paul shared; but there is no reason to assume that he preached the virgin birth. In Acts 2, when Peter was preaching to his countrymen, there is no mention of him preaching the virgin birth to them, yet many gladly received his word and were baptized. Scripture reports 3000 were saved that day. Peter simply said: "Repent, and be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

There are a lot of people who give blind intellectual consent to the virgin birth who don't have the life of God in them. There are many who have the life in them who still don't haven't gotten to the fullness of Truth. The latter doesn't seem to affect God, based on the Scriptures. It appears to be more an issue with man (see Acts 11 and Acts 15).

I am not responsible for judging someone who is already dead. It would provide them no opportunity for change, so there is no benefit in it. The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., either is one of God's adopted sons or he wasn't. It won't change now. But, your idea that you have to have the Truth 100% correctly during your time here on earth would lock out 99% of Christians, catholics, orthodox and any other flavor I've inadvertantly left out, if not all of us.

 

[Albion]

Apparently Gandhi and MLK were at the sixth stage of moral development:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development#Stages
This means that for them, civil disobedience (breaking laws) can be moral.
Romans 13:1-2a
It seems to say that Christians shouldn't use civil disobedience. Is that right?

Yes, that's right, except that a law which is so obviously immoral and consequential--like one providing for the deportation of Jews to extermination camps--may be seen differently.

Unfortunately, many people who invoke civil disobedience are protesting lesser laws and, in addition, think that they should not be arrested or prosecuted for doing it, unlike the meaning of civil disobedience in MLKs time. Some today also think that the distinctive feature of civil disobedience--non-violence--is similarly optional.

 

[dysert]

I always thought of civil disobedience as peacefully breaking the law *because the law was contrary to Scripture*. For example, in Daniel we read of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refusing to kneel when the king passed by. The law said to kneel, but to the three amigos, this was tantamount to idol worship. Also in Daniel we read about Daniel praying despite the fact that the law had outlawed praying. Note that in both cases, though, the people disobeying the law were willing to accept the consequences of their actions.

If the law is within the bounds of Scripture, we should obey it (Rom. 13), and only if it goes against Scripture do we have the ok to disobey it - and be ready to take the consequences.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

Are you saying Gandhi is saved?

Based on the basic requirement to be saved, as noted in the New Testament, and based on what I have read about Gandhi--who as noted is a much different case than the other man you questioned--he would not be saved--unless he had a conversion after the last of the his published thoughts. He rejected who Jesus said He was. But, when I think of "saving," I am thinking of being in the New Jerusalem and heaven where there are no more tears, no more suffering, no more death, etc.

.. sounds like you've been bitten by a serpent. Check out the criteria for judgement: it is love.

The Righteous Judge
31 “Now when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them from one another, just as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And He will put the sheep on His right, but the goats on His left. 34 Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger and you invited Me in; 36 I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You? Or thirsty and give You something to drink? 38 And when did we see You a stranger and invite You in? Or naked and clothe You? 39 When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’

40 “And answering, the King will say to them, ‘Amen, I tell you, whatever you did to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’ 41 Then He will also say to those on the left, ‘Go away from Me, you cursed ones, into the everlasting fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty and you gave Me nothing to drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite Me in; naked and you did not clothe Me; sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’

44 “Then they too will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not care for You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Amen, I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for Me.’ 46 These shall go off to everlasting punishment, but the righteous into everlasting life.”
Matthew 25:31-46

It is always interesting to me how different people center the ultimate focus on different things. So are you saying that these two subsets are not from those who claimed to be serving Jesus, but the pool of people who rejected Jesus as their Savior, but did something good for one of His? If so, do you believe they will also be found in heaven or do you believe these are the nations of the new earth? So, that a Gandhi could deny Jesus and yet could still be saved outside of heaven and the New Jerusalem? How do you differentiate this from works righteousness--simply because they weren't trying to please God and therefore weren't trying to earn salvation? I am genuinely interested in how you resolve this.

 

[JohnClay]

I am a little confused about your stance. It seems you, who claim to be from "other religion", NOT CHRISTIAN, think you get to decide who is Christian or not based on a website? Am I understanding that correctly?

I am talking about things that it seems other posters in the thread may not be aware of:
e.g.
http://discerninghistory.com/2018/04/was-martin-luther-king-jr-a-christian/
"...Christians must not forget, in their rush to crown him their hero, that he lived a wicked life and denied the very basics of orthodox Christianity...."
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/9-things-you-should-know-about-martin-luther-king-jr-2/
"....he cast skeptical aspersions on the doctrines of divine Sonship, the Virgin Birth (”. . . the evidence for the tenability of this doctrine is too shallow to convince any objective thinker”), and the Resurrection (”. . . the external evidence for the authenticity of this doctrine is found wanting”). In the conclusion of another paper he writes,
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 prominent in fundamentalist thinking. Such are the views of the fundamentalist and they reveal that he is opposed 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....."

See also:
https://jamesattebury.wordpress.com/2017/01/21/the-theological-beliefs-of-martin-luther-king-jr/
"....though he denies the literal and bodily resurrection of Christ, he can say that he still believes in it because he redefines it as a spiritual experience..."
"...In modern times we have come to see that such eschatological thinking is by far incompatible with the modern scientific world view. A physical Heaven and a physical Hell are inconceivable in a Copernican universe..."
"...King denied that the cross of Christ was an atonement for sin..."
etc, etc

...I have read no statement from the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. that says He didn't believe Jesus was who Jesus said He was.

Well look at the links and quotes I've just given. It is more than just about the virgin birth.

I am not responsible for judging someone who is already dead. It would provide them no opportunity for change, so there is no benefit in it. The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., either is one of God's adopted sons or he wasn't. It won't change now. But, your idea that you have to have the Truth 100% correctly during your time here on earth would lock out 99% of Christians, catholics, orthodox and any other flavor I've inadvertantly left out, if not all of us.

I'm talking about fundamental Christian beliefs - which MLK seemed to be against. It is useful talking about him because there are others with similar beliefs to him around and I'd wonder if they are ok or are they in danger of hell? (according to Christianity - I hope that people aren't going to hell forever)

 

[Serving Zion]

It is always interesting to me how different people center the ultimate focus on different things.

Me too. It shows what their values are.

So are you saying that these two subsets are not from those who claimed to be serving Jesus, but the pool of people who rejected Jesus as their Savior, but did something good for one of His?

It is all people: Matthew 25:32 "All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats."

The criteria is whether the person is inclined to make the world into heaven or hell - by the way they treat others (specifically their treatment of those having Christ in them - consider John 1:4).

If so, do you believe they will also be found in heaven or do you believe these are the nations of the new earth?

I am assuming you are referring to the view of the story of the rich man and Lazarus as heaven and hell. I think that question should answer itself. There is a most common view in Christianity that Jesus will physically return and all dead people of the past will be resurrected to judgement. I believe that can happen. If that becomes the real interpretation of the prophecy in Matthew 25, then I also think the question should answer itself.

So, that a Gandhi could deny Jesus and yet could still be saved outside of heaven and the New Jerusalem?

We have to consider what salvation is: is it the welcome reception when we finally see Jesus Christ, or is it the inescapable burning indignation of His holiness according to our conscience.

How do you differentiate this from works righteousness--simply because they weren't trying to please God and therefore weren't trying to earn salvation? I am genuinely interested in how you resolve this.

Well, it is all about justice at the end of the day. God is righteous, He does not condemn the innocent. I don't think that beliefs alone are going to make a person guilty - it has to be a result of the belief that makes a person guilty (as for example, the words they speak or the actions they take that does some sort of harm, that is sinful).

I think that is pretty well shown through Matthew 7:21-23, that many who think they have Christian beliefs, because they have believed things about Jesus Christ and used His name to do good, they are turned away because ultimately they are vile and they are only doing iniquity. Likewise Matthew 8:11-12 shows that there are those of the type of John 10:16 who will displace those ones.

God is not a respecter of persons, He does not show favouritism, and He will not hold blameless the one who misuses His name. I do believe that it is highly likely that Gandhi never had a sufficient opportunity to know the truth of Jesus Christ, as it also is for Jewish people these days, because of the sheer amount of demonic teaching and non-Christian spirit that has become commonplace in Christendom.

 

[ViaCrucis]

https://www.mkgandhi.org/religionmk.htm
Well it seems that Gandhi didn't teach that Jesus was the only way to be saved. Assuming that Jesus isn't Gandhi's Lord and Savior I thought that would mean he wasn't saved.

Jesus is Lord and Savior. Of me, of you, of everyone and everything. The idea of making Jesus one's "personal Lord and Savior" is a modern turn of phrase used only in Evangelical circles.

Whether Mahatma Gandhi, or anyone else, is saved simply isn't my place to judge. But I certainly do hope for the salvation of all, and so I put my faith in Jesus Christ.

-CryptoLutheran