Luther permitted premarital sex between engaged couples.

[Publisher]

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)

“Rationalize”…“legitimize”…are you seriously stating that the distinctions of “betrothal” and “marriage” in biblical times as well as the cultural norms of medieval society do not exist? Are you saying that our modern understandings of “engagement/marriage” are exactly the same as then?

It was a scandal to engage in sexual relations after a betrothal…not fornication…a betrothal/engagement could only be broken legally in biblical times…it wasn’t “fornication”…are you stating the two times and cultures are the same as today?

The scriptures tell us that Joseph took Mary his “espoused wife” to Bethlehem…she was his wife by betrothal…when she came up pregnant he was going to divorce her…“put her away quietly”…it would have been assumed that they engaged in sexual relations since she was pregnant…it was scandalous for a betrothed couple to have relations prior to the day of marriage…but not fornication…it was very frowned upon…but had no penalty “under the Law.”

 

[Guyonthestreet]

But he said intercourse after engaged, not marriage. That is sex before marriage is it not?

I cant do any better than point you to Edwin’s post above. Context is everything.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

“Rationalize”…“legitimize”…are you seriously stating that the distinctions of “betrothal” and “marriage” in biblical times as well as the cultural norms of medieval society do not exist? Are you saying that our modern understandings of “engagement/marriage” are exactly the same as then?

It was a scandal to engage in sexual relations after a betrothal…not fornication…a betrothal/engagement could only be broken legally in biblical times…it wasn’t “fornication”…are you stating the two times and cultures are the same as today?

The point is simply this: The Reformers boasted that they preached the “pure” word of God. Now either the “pure” word of God permits premarital sex between engaged couples or it does not. If it does, then please, just show me where it does. That’s all I’m trying to find out at the moment.

 

[Publisher]

The point is simply this: The Reformers boasted that they preached the “pure” word of God. Now either the “pure” word of God permits premarital sex between engaged couples or it does not. If it does, then please, just show me where it does. That’s all I’m trying to find out at the moment.

Are you looking for a scripture passage…a proof text of some sort to justify the cultural norms of medieval society far removed in time from the Jewish understandings and norms in which the scriptures were written? I don’t believe all the cultural norms and societal rules of 1st century Jewish society were recorded in scripture…so you believe they should have been?

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Are you looking for a scripture passage…a proof text of some sort to justify the cultural norms of medieval society far removed in time from the Jewish understandings and norms in which the scriptures were written? I don’t believe all the cultural norms and societal rules of 1st century Jewish society were recorded in scripture…so you believe they should have been?

I’m simply asking if premarital sex (Luther’s “secret intercourse”) can ever be justified by the Word of God. Yes or No?

 

[Phase4]

Of course it was permitted; and is validated in song of Solomon, amongst other passages. The church only changed it so they would be called to officiate at every marriage, it expands power and money.

 

[Publisher]

I’m simply asking if premarital sex (Luther’s “secret intercourse”) can ever be justified by the Word of God. Yes or No?

No, there are no proof texts to justify societal norms of medieval society nor first century Jewish society…nor would there be I would think.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

No, there are no proof texts to justify societal norms of medieval society nor first century Jewish society…nor would there be I would think.

So how does one determine the rightness or wrongness of Luther’s teaching in your opinion?

 

[Publisher]

So how does one determine the rightness or wrongness of Luther’s teaching in your opinion?

Luther’s teachings demand no repsonse from me. Since society of his day…which included Catholicsm in many respects, determined what they considered lawful…and Jewish society in the first century determined what was lawful and acceptable in their day as well.

Luther’s view really needs no comment from me…I am 500 years removed from that time. I am 2000 years removed from the norms of Jewish society, which allowed the same distinctions between “betrothal/marriage”…if one was betrothed it was binding…what changed it from “bethrothal” to “marriage” was the groom showed up at the bride’s house and took her to his…and…they were then married…followed by a large celebration…OR they had relations…then they were considered “married”…not our modern view of marriage…but then you realize this I think.

Luther is not an authority on the subject of marriage…religion…morals…again…he is not a “Protestant Pope” so the subjects he wrote about are Luther’s…and reflect the times in which he lived and reflect the norms and beliefs of the religious institutions of his day.

 

[Lujack]

I’m simply asking if premarital sex (Luther’s “secret intercourse”) can ever be justified by the Word of God. Yes or No?

No, it can’t, and its clear from Luther’s tone that he never tried to justify it. He merely said it was a lesser sin on the scale of sexual sins; just as premarital sex is a less severe sin than adultery, Luther’s saying that premarital sex after a couple has been betrothed is a less severe sin than random, “let’s do it” premarital sex.

 

[mardukm]

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?”

---

I don’t think there is a biblical justification for it, nor would I think the Lutherans would try to offer one. I think Luther was simply trying to justify his own illicit love affair with his future ex-nun wife. Perhaps they could not find anyone to marry them, but they couldn’t resist the heat of their passion. Basically, Luther had to justify his own sinfulness.

Still, I don’t think this can be used as a knock against Lutherans. I’m sure Lutherans only praise Luther’s theological teachings (erroneous though they may be ), not his sinful practices.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[raumzeitmc2]

O K, once again, all I’m asking for is a simple yes or no:

Can Luther’s “secret intercourse” ever be justified by the Word of God?

 

[Publisher]

O K, once again, all I’m asking for is a simple yes or no:

Can Luther’s “secret intercourse” ever be justified by the Word of God?

What do you think is the correct answer? Is your answer based on societal norms and historical context…or is it based solely on our modern understanding of “engagement” and “marriage” without taking into account the significance that “betrothal” and “marriage” had in previous societies?

 

[raumzeitmc2]

I don’t think there is a biblical justification for it, nor would I think the Lutherans would try to offer one. I think Luther was simply trying to justify his own illicit love affair with his future ex-nun wife. Perhaps they could not find anyone to marry them, but they couldn’t resist the heat of their passion. Basically, Luther had to justify his own sinfulness.

You’re absolutely right; Luther’s whole “theology” was simply a means to justify his and his fellow reformer’s immoral behavior!

Still, I don’t think this can be used as a knock against Lutherans. I’m sure Lutherans only praise Luther’s theological teachings (erroneous though they may be ), not his sinful practices.

Why should anyone praise Luther’s theological teachings when they were just a cover for his and his fellow travelers immorality???

 

[raumzeitmc2]

What do you think is the correct answer? Is your answer based on societal norms and historical context…or is it based solely on our modern understanding of “engagement” and “marriage” without taking into account the significance that “betrothal” and “marriage” had in previous societies?

You just can’t answer the question! Is Luther’s “secret intercourse” Scriptural? Forget all the societal norm this and historical context that stuff.

Just tell me: is it Scriptural?

 

[Bluegoat]

You just can’t answer the question! Is Luther’s “secret intercourse” Scriptural? Forget all the societal norm this and historical context that stuff.

Just tell me: is it Scriptural?

What you are looking for doesn’t exist. Scripture always has to be applied to a particular context. Additionally, Luther didn’t say it was, he said it was not fornication.

 

[Timbothefiveth]

O K, once again, all I’m asking for is a simple yes or no:

Can Luther’s “secret intercourse” ever be justified by the Word of God?

Absolutely not! His word does not change according to what a society thinks, and it doesn’t change because Martin Luther says it does.

1 corinthians 7:9

But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

The bible does not say “let them get engaged”, it does not say “let them get betrothed”, it says “let them marry”

What you are looking for doesn’t exist. Scripture always has to be applied to a particular context. Additionally, Luther didn’t say it was, he said it was not fornication.

It was, it was before marriage.

Betrothal in the sixteenth century was something much more formal and solemn and public than “engagement” today.

The bible does not say “let them get engaged” nor does it say “let them get betrothed”, it doesn’t even say “let them have a very formal, and solemn betrothal” it says “let them get married”. I

have no problem with Luther’s position on this, as long as it’s clearly understood that engagement/betrothal plus intercourse constitutes marriage.

But it doesn’t constitute marriage. You have to actually get, you know, married, for it to be a marriage. Do you really think St Paul would say that a solemn betrothal constitutes a marriage?

Even in the New Testament “betrothal” was a very binding situation

And St Paul still said to let them marry.

Define the difference between engagement and marriage.

Engagement means you have promised to get married.

 

[Bluegoat]

You’re absolutely right; Luther’s whole “theology” was simply a means to justify his and his fellow reformer’s immoral behavior!

Why should anyone praise Luther’s theological teachings when they were just a cover for his and his fellow travelers immorality???

Wow, it is statements like these that make people think Catholics are fools. It is too bad, since overall it isn’t true.

 

[Publisher]

You just can’t answer the question! Is Luther’s “secret intercourse” Scriptural? Forget all the societal norm this and historical context that stuff.

Just tell me: is it Scriptural?

How can scripture be separated from it’s historical context? How can Luther’s statements be separated from the times in which he lived?

Can you answer my question? What do you think the answer is? What are your views on the subject? Are you saying that society and culture have nothing to do with the context of what he said?

Just curious.

 

[Timbothefiveth]

How can scripture be separated from it’s historical context?

St. Paul said to get married. He didn’t say betrothed, or even really seriously betrothed. That applies to you even if you are in the middle ages.

How can Luther’s statements be separated from the times in which he lived?

They don’t need to be. Did the bible apply the same when he said it as it does now? Yes it does, and a marriage is still a marriage, a betrothal is still a betrothal, you don’t get to break the Lord’s laws just because your society says you can.

I can’t believe people are even trying to defend this. “Sola scriptura” indeed.

Rationalize"…“legitimize”…are you seriously stating that the distinctions of “betrothal” and “marriage” in biblical times as well as the cultural norms of medieval society do not exist? Are you saying that our modern understandings of “engagement/marriage” are exactly the same as then?

You’re right, betrothal was very serious then, and St Paul still said to get married, not betrothed or engaged.

It was a scandal to engage in sexual relations after a betrothal…not fornication

I want to see some scripture to back it up.

The scriptures tell us that Joseph took Mary his “espoused wife” to Bethlehem…she was his wife by betrothal…when she came up pregnant he was going to divorce her…“put her away quietly”…it would have been assumed that they engaged in sexual relations since she was pregnant…it was scandalous for a betrothed couple to have relations prior to the day of marriage…but not fornication…it was very frowned upon…but had no penalty “under the Law.”

If it’s before marriage I’d say it’s fornication, no matter what Jewish society thought, unless you have scripture that says otherwise

"…if one was betrothed it was binding…what changed it from “bethrothal” to “marriage” was the groom showed up at the bride’s house and took her to his…and…they were then married.

No matter what the distinction is, the bible says “married” not “betrothed”. St Paul didn’t say “leth them get betrothed if it’s sorta close to marriage, amen!” he said “let them get married”