Luther permitted premarital sex between engaged couples.

  • Thread starter Thread starter raumzeitmc2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

raumzeitmc2

Guest
Luther permitted and justified premarital sex for engaged couples. These are his words.
  1. What about the Intercourse of the Betrothed?
Click to expand...
Secret intercourse of those who are engaged to each other can certainly not be considered fornication; for it takes place in the name and with the intention of marriage, a desire, intention, or name which fornication does not have. Thus there is a great difference indeed between fornication and secret intercourse after the promise of marriage.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
What Luther Says, Ewald M. Plass, Concordia Publishing House, 1959, 3 volumes, (1994, 3 vols. in 1), ISBN 0570042402, p. 896.

books.google.com/books?id=NQA5AAAAIAAJ&q=%22Secret+intercourse+of+those+who+are+engaged+to+each+other+%22&dq=%22Secret+intercourse+of+those+who+are+engaged+to+each+other+%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_brr=0

Primary Sources:

(W 30 III, 226f – E 23, 123 – SL 10, 781).

W= Weimar Edition of Luther’s Works. D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe (1883 ff.).
E = Erlangen Ed. Dr. Martin Luther’s Sämmtliche Werke (Erlangen: Heyder, 1826-1857)
SL = Saint Louis Ed. Dr. Martin Luthers Sämmtliche Schriften, (25 vols.), based on the earlier edition by Johann Georg Walch, (Halle: J. J. Gebauer, 1740-1753, 24 vols.).

Who agrees with this?
 
I don’t. Thats why we waited 😃
Anyone who disagrees with it better have waited themselves…
 
Oh my god! So much for his sola scriptura, where’s his biblical justification for that?
 
To use a modern day example: I don’t think Luther was* justifying *premarital sex. It sounds to me that Luther was drawing a distinction between two people who just met at a bar and decide to have sex in the parking lot… and a couple who are involved in a dedicated relationship for a significant period of time, love each other deeply and are ready to commit themselves to marriage. Both cases are sinful, but certainly not to the same degree. Does that make sense?

Or how about this stronger example:

Dr. Kevorkian commits sin by assisting suicide of the terminally ill. The abortionist commits sin by killing perfectly healthy unborn children. Both men are guilty of murder but you have to admit that there is a distinction between the two.

:cool:
 
raumzeitmc2 said:
Luther permitted and justified premarital sex for engaged couples. These are his words.

What Luther Says, Ewald M. Plass, Concordia Publishing House, 1959, 3 volumes, (1994, 3 vols. in 1), ISBN 0570042402, p. 896.

books.google.com/books?id=NQA5AAAAIAAJ&q=%22Secret+intercourse+of+those+who+are+engaged+to+each+other+%22&dq=%22Secret+intercourse+of+those+who+are+engaged+to+each+other+%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_brr=0

Primary Sources:

(W 30 III, 226f – E 23, 123 – SL 10, 781).

W= Weimar Edition of Luther’s Works. D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe (1883 ff.).
E = Erlangen Ed. Dr. Martin Luther’s Sämmtliche Werke (Erlangen: Heyder, 1826-1857)
SL = Saint Louis Ed. Dr. Martin Luthers Sämmtliche Schriften, (25 vols.), based on the earlier edition by Johann Georg Walch, (Halle: J. J. Gebauer, 1740-1753, 24 vols.).

Who agrees with this?
Click to expand...
He says there is a great difference between fornication and secret intercourse after the promise of marriage. I dont see that as saying it’s permitted, as your title claims.
 
TLM08 said:
To use a modern day example: I don’t think Luther was* justifying *premarital sex. It sounds to me that Luther was drawing a distinction between two people who just met at a bar and decide to have sex in the parking lot… and a couple who are involved in a dedicated relationship for a significant period of time, love each other deeply and are ready to commit themselves to marriage. Both cases are sinful, but certainly not to the same degree. Does that make sense?

Or how about this stronger example:

Dr. Kevorkian commits sin by assisting suicide of the terminally ill. The abortionist commits sin by killing perfectly healthy unborn children. Both men are guilty of murder but you have to admit that there is a distinction between the two.

:cool:
Click to expand...
You are so right about this. I really wish we, as Christians, would stop focusing on what seperates us and instead embrace what makes us similar.
 
raumzeitmc2 said:
Luther permitted and justified premarital sex for engaged couples. These are his words.

What Luther Says, Ewald M. Plass, Concordia Publishing House, 1959, 3 volumes, (1994, 3 vols. in 1), ISBN 0570042402, p. 896.

books.google.com/books?id=NQA5AAAAIAAJ&q=%22Secret+intercourse+of+those+who+are+engaged+to+each+other+%22&dq=%22Secret+intercourse+of+those+who+are+engaged+to+each+other+%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_brr=0

Primary Sources:

(W 30 III, 226f – E 23, 123 – SL 10, 781).

W= Weimar Edition of Luther’s Works. D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe (1883 ff.).
E = Erlangen Ed. Dr. Martin Luther’s Sämmtliche Werke (Erlangen: Heyder, 1826-1857)
SL = Saint Louis Ed. Dr. Martin Luthers Sämmtliche Schriften, (25 vols.), based on the earlier edition by Johann Georg Walch, (Halle: J. J. Gebauer, 1740-1753, 24 vols.).

Who agrees with this?
Click to expand...
Betrothal in the sixteenth century was something much more formal and solemn and public than “engagement” today. I have no problem with Luther’s position on this, as long as it’s clearly understood that engagement/betrothal plus intercourse constitutes marriage.

Furthermore, the medieval Church’s position was that “verba de presenti” (“I take you as my husband/I take you as my wife”) plus intercourse constituted marriage (even if there were no witnesses, let alone a priest or a public ceremony). This of course led to all sorts of abuses (unscrupulous and lustful young men found this teaching very convenient, because they could get their way and then deny having ever said the words). Therefore, the sixteenth-century Reformers, both Protestant and Catholic, insisted that marriage needed to be defined as a public act with the involvement of the Church and the familes of both parties. The Protestants were willing to go further on this, saying that parental consent was absolutely necessary. The Catholic Church couldn’t simply abandon its traditional position on the nature of a valid marriage, but Trent did make much stricter rules governing marriage.

You have to put Luther’s words into that context.

Edwin
 
Guyonthestreet said:
He says there is a great difference between fornication and secret intercourse after the promise of marriage. I dont see that as saying it’s permitted, as your title claims.
Click to expand...
But he said intercourse after engaged, not marriage. That is sex before marriage is it not?
 
TLM08 said:
To use a modern day example: I don’t think Luther was* justifying *premarital sex. It sounds to me that Luther was drawing a distinction between two people who just met at a bar and decide to have sex in the parking lot… and a couple who are involved in a dedicated relationship for a significant period of time, love each other deeply and are ready to commit themselves to marriage. Both cases are sinful, but certainly not to the same degree. Does that make sense?

Or how about this stronger example:

Dr. Kevorkian commits sin by assisting suicide of the terminally ill. The abortionist commits sin by killing perfectly healthy unborn children. Both men are guilty of murder but you have to admit that there is a distinction between the two.

:cool:
Click to expand...
But you just said the key word. A sin is a sin. While I agree with you that if a couple dates for ten years or ten minutes there is a difference between a relationship and no relationship at all. But the point is what is said does indeed go against the teachings of Jesus Christ. Do you not agree?

And rather you kill a sick person or a person who is perfectly healthy are you not playing God. Do you believe that God cannot cure a terminally ill person? What DR K did was wrong. He had no authority to take another life. While I agree we all hate to see anyone suffer sin causes it. And we all suffer in this world some mentally some physically. But the bottom line is you either go by the word of God or others. God said thy shall not kill. God also said he would never give us more than we can handle. Now who gave Dr K that right to trump the word of God and choose how much suffering is enough?
 
Contarini said:
Betrothal in the sixteenth century was something much more formal and solemn and public than “engagement” today. I have no problem with Luther’s position on this, as long as it’s clearly understood that engagement/betrothal plus intercourse constitutes marriage.

Furthermore, the medieval Church’s position was that “verba de presenti” (“I take you as my husband/I take you as my wife”) plus intercourse constituted marriage (even if there were no witnesses, let alone a priest or a public ceremony). This of course led to all sorts of abuses (unscrupulous and lustful young men found this teaching very convenient, because they could get their way and then deny having ever said the words). Therefore, the sixteenth-century Reformers, both Protestant and Catholic, insisted that marriage needed to be defined as a public act with the involvement of the Church and the familes of both parties. The Protestants were willing to go further on this, saying that parental consent was absolutely necessary. The Catholic Church couldn’t simply abandon its traditional position on the nature of a valid marriage, but Trent did make much stricter rules governing marriage.

You have to put Luther’s words into that context.

Edwin
Click to expand...
Beat me to the punch.

Martin Luther came before the Council of Trent when it was decided that a Priest had to officiate a wedding, thus make a marriage. When Luther was alive only the landed nobility went to a cleric, a government clerk in the modern sense, who recorded the transaction so that the political/economic deals and obligations of the royal families being sealed by the marriage could take place.

The people simply moved in together and by common law they were married. If they were church going they simply showed up at church and announced that they in fact had moved in together, thus had married.

It was only after Martin Luther died that the ceremony that the nobility had as a party warm-up event was passed down to the common folk as the Church ordered their cleric/clerks to perform that function for Average Joe that he always had for Bonny Prince.
 
Grace & Peace!

Consider the old Roman Catholic laws re: concubinage–a man may have a concubine or a wife. These laws were changed at Trent, but I would imagine that Luther could have seen the engagement as a period of concubinage leading to marriage. That would have been entirely within the law and acceptable moral practice at the time.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is grace and mercy! Deo Gratias!
 
Really, our understanding of marriage is much different than it was then. Not just for Luther, but for Catholics. It might be a good idea to look at Catholic practices before condemning what Luther said, or it could be embarrassing.
 
Dr. Kevorkian commits sin by assisting suicide of the terminally ill. The abortionist commits sin by killing perfectly healthy unborn children. Both men are guilty of murder but you have to admit that there is a distinction between the two.
**No, I don’t have to admit it.

They are both serial killers of the innocent, hence there is no distinction.

BTW–betrothal is not the same as engagement.**
 
Even in the New Testament “betrothal” was a very binding situation…sex before marriage was considered in very bad taste and a scandal…but not adultery or fornication…Joseph wanted to put Mary away…divorce her…but they weren’t married…only betrothed…a pledge of marriage…binding upon the couple…much more than an engagement…less than a recongnized marriage.

Trying to ascribe modern ideas of engagements and marriage to a time gone by that held no such distinctions as we hold today does no one’s case any service.

Luther was not an “authority” on any subject…what Luther beleived and did was in no way binding upon those who held to his premises…he is not in any way a “Protestant Pope”…nor did he speak for the Body of Christ as a whole.
 
Publisher said:
Even in the New Testament “betrothal” was a very binding situation…sex before marriage was considered in very bad taste and a scandal…but not adultery or fornication…Joseph wanted to put Mary away…divorce her…but they weren’t married…only betrothed…a pledge of marriage…binding upon the couple…much more than an engagement…less than a recongnized marriage.

Trying to ascribe modern ideas of engagements and marriage to a time gone by that held no such distinctions as we hold today does no one’s case any service.

Luther was not an “authority” on any subject…what Luther beleived and did was in no way binding upon those who held to his premises…he is not in any way a “Protestant Pope”…nor did he speak for the Body of Christ as a whole.
Click to expand...
Yes, it was quite a scandal if someone went back on a betrothal, in the middle ages, it was possible to take legal action.
 
bpbasilphx said:
Dr. Kevorkian commits sin by assisting suicide of the terminally ill. The abortionist commits sin by killing perfectly healthy unborn children. Both men are guilty of murder but you have to admit that there is a distinction between the two.
**No, I don’t have to admit it.

They are both serial killers of the innocent, hence there is no distinction.

BTW–betrothal is not the same as engagement.**
Click to expand...
How about the cases of Jewish mothers who while in hiding had to smother their crying babies or risk the entire family being discovered and shot like rats by the Nazis as they searched the Jewish neighborhoods. You’re logic says that they are as guilty as Adolph Hitler himself. We’re getting a bit off topic here my friend. My point was that there most certainly is a difference when it comes to all sins. The Catholic Church makes this distinction as well.

More related to the topic is this: A sinful moment by a couple in love is a lot different than a one night hook-up with someone you just met.
😉
 
Well folks, looking over the various comments here, it does seem that some seem would rationalize / legitimize Luther’s teaching on this question of “secret intercourse,” as he termed it.

Two questions:
  1. If there were really nothing wrong with it, why then was it called “secret intercourse?”
  2. *Where *is the Biblical justification for this business of “secret intercourse?”
“Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.”

Letter of St. Athanasius to his flock.

(Collectio selecta ss. ecclesiae patrum, Caillau and Guillou, Vol. 32, pp. 411-412)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top