Martin Luther supported polygamy...

  • Thread starter Thread starter why_me
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
the quote is from "fierysword post # 202

I do apologize for not providing a reference.

Sorry :o
Well, then, don’t drag me into your petty arguments. Address yourself to ‘fieryword’, and to his post, that way the parties can all follow this in a rational manner.

Are you arguing that Mary was not sinless, or that there is some hint in some early writers that they found fault with the Blessed Virgin Mary?

Maybe Mary’s sinfulness is particularly bothersome to you? Let us know, please.

peace
 
mgrfin,

Do you by any chance teach sensitivity training?

Just wondering…
 
Tell me honestly. Would you want your wife having multiple husbands? Religious teaching aside I mean.
Yeah, how come you never hear women claiming the right to have multiple husbands? Even Mormon women don’t do that, that i have ever heard of… hmmm…

Joseph smith’s wife threatened to find another husband if he kept talking about polygamy… but i don’t think she ever did…
 
mgrfin,

Do you by any chance teach sensitivity training?

Just wondering…
with (apparently) so many souls dropping into Hell every day and night… who needs sensitivity?

Frankly sensitivity training sometimes (key word) smacks of

PC - ness…
 
Luther Said: Polygamy Is Permissible
“I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter.” (De Wette II, 459, ibid., pp. 329-330.)
Are you saying Luther is incorrect?

Scripture does have one instance of forbidding polygamy. For overseers.
Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
1 Timothy 3:2
It seems Martin Luther supported polygamy or at least he was not against it. I think that he would have been in agreement with the lds prophet Joseph Smith and with plural marriage.
I think it would be correct to say that Luther could not take a moral stand against it if faced with a person who was OK with it. In the end, it is a cultural thing. Western culture is opposed to it, so we don’t have it.

For example, if a man from another culture with multiple wives comes into the Christian Church, I don’t think he should be made to divorce any of his wives. I don’t think he should even be encouraged to divorce any of his wives. However, he should not be made an overseer.
 
Are you saying Luther is incorrect?

Scripture does have one instance of forbidding polygamy. For overseers.
Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
1 Timothy 3:2

I think it would be correct to say that Luther could not take a moral stand against it if faced with a person who was OK with it. In the end, it is a cultural thing. Western culture is opposed to it, so we don’t have it.

Luther made it clear that he would allow polygamy in a special case, the special case being

For example, if a man from another culture with multiple wives comes into the Christian Church, I don’t think he should be made to divorce any of his wives. I don’t think he should even be encouraged to divorce any of his wives. However, he should not be made an overseer.
Luther did not make a moral stand against it.

He made a political stand.

"After expressing gratification at the landgrave’s last recovery, “for the poor, miserable Church of Christ is small and forlorn, and stands in need of truly devout lords and rulers”, it goes on to say that a general law that a “man may have more than one wife” could not be handed down, but that a dispensation could be granted. All knowledge of the dispensation and the marriage should be buried from the public in deadly silence. “All gossip on the subject is to be ignored, as long as we are right in conscience, and this we hold is right”, for “what is permitted in the Mosaic law, is not forbidden in the Gospel”

Luther allowed it so that his poor, miserable Church could have the support of devout lords and rulers.

The end justifies the means.

peace
 
mgrfin,

I beg your pardon, but I can’t quite follow what you are trying to say. For one thing, I can’t tell what is a quote and what is your own words. Also, you used pronouns in a way that confuses me.
 
mgrfin,

I beg your pardon, but I can’t quite follow what you are trying to say. For one thing, I can’t tell what is a quote and what is your own words. Also, you used pronouns in a way that confuses me.
I feel your pain. 😦
 
mgrfin,

I beg your pardon, but I can’t quite follow what you are trying to say. For one thing, I can’t tell what is a quote and what is your own words. Also, you used pronouns in a way that confuses me.
My apologies. We’ve been over this stuff serveral times in the last few days. The quote in 225 is from Catholic Encyc under Martin Luther. The “it” is allowing the Polygamous union.

peace
 
I feel your pain. 😦
Touche, Ginger. But you do know what we are talking about.
The idle rich do get lazy. (And I am listening to the Kings hockey game. Kings getting a bad beat).

We’re attacting Lutherans from the Missouri Synod. Maybe we can get some disputes going here.

peace
 
My apologies. We’ve been over this stuff serveral times in the last few days. The quote in 225 is from Catholic Encyc under Martin Luther.
Well then, thank you. I read the Encyc entry. It has opinionated statements mixed in with direct quotations.
All knowledge of the dispensation and the marriage should be buried from the public in deadly silence.
This is apparently the Encyc author’s commentary. “Deadly silence”. Oooo… What’s that exactly? :rolleyes:

That type of inflammatory language doesn’t quite seem appropriate for an “encyclopedia”.
 
Well then, thank you. I read the Encyc entry. It has opinionated statements mixed in with direct quotations.
All knowledge of the dispensation and the marriage should be buried from the public in deadly silence.
This is apparently the Encyc author’s commentary. “Deadly silence”. Oooo… What’s that exactly? :rolleyes:

That type of inflammatory language doesn’t quite seem appropriate for an “encyclopedia”.
Well, if you have read any of Luther’s works, you know by now what ‘inflammatory language’ really is.

Fr. Martin was foul-mouthed beyond belief. Do you find that language in the C.E.? Of course not. What kind of inflammatory language are you talking about in the C.E., and can you compare it with this Protestant preacher of the Gospels?

Of course this polygamous marriage was to be a secret. “oooo”
It was a matter of expediency, to have political favor that his new religion, church would flourish. They didn’t want anyone to know what they had done.

peace
 
Well then, thank you. I read the Encyc entry. It has opinionated statements mixed in with direct quotations.
All QUOTE]

Angainor:

As far as ‘opinionated statements’, it doesn’t mean they aren’t true I am sure YOU and I both have issued such opinions on this site. As a matter of fact, ALL of us on this site have issued ‘opinionated statements’.

Such statements are the heart of all encyclopedias, so you are not saying anything new here.

As a matter of fact, historians issue ‘opinionated statements’ all the time. And apologists, and theologians, including Luther… So where are we?

As a point of interest, when a preacher, theologian preaches that we all should sin, and that everything we do is sin, and we have no freedom of will to resist sin, I kind of wonder where he is coming from telling us about a new way to Jesus Christ.

Maybe he has been leading an immoral life, and what he says is to rationalize his own behavior.

peace
 
My apologies. We’ve been over this stuff serveral times in the last few days. The quote in 225 is from Catholic Encyc under Martin Luther. The “it” is allowing the Polygamous union.

peace
I am left wondering if the only real source of “evidence” here against Luther is The Catholic Encyclopedia?:confused:
 
QUOTE]

Are you insinuating that the Catholic Enclyclopedia is not a reputable source?

The other source for allowing this polygamy mention in this thread is:

Luther Said: Polygamy Is Permissible
“I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter.” (De Wette II, 459, ibid., pp. 329-330.)

As for other issues, we have Luther’s own writing, at least those which are readily available.

If you want evidence that he accused Catholicism of teaching that we get to heaven by good works, and by our own efforts, check out Luther’s Commentary on Galatians (Google it).

Henry Denifle did a scholarly work on Luther, proving that Luther never understood “Justification by faith”, because he didn’t under either justification or faith as found in St. Paul. There is an anti-catholic site that tries to refute Denifle’s masterful work, but all he does is say it isn’t true. Some defense.

Justification by faith is the foundation of Luther’s religion. On this alone his religion stands or falls.

As for Scriptura Sola, even Luther credits the Catholic Church determining which books are part of the Canon. Even books he despised, he still kept in his Bible, because the one, true Church said they belonged there.

Luther was a prolific writer, yet most of his works, the most notorious are not available. Coneniently not available. Most are just vulgar, obscene rantings.

Luther declares that good works are not necessary for salvation and not required in the Gospels, ref: Table Talk.

Luther said that all work is a sin (Witt. III). “Facts about Luther”, Msgr. O’Hare contains all you don’t want to know about Luther.

101, you know what we as Catholics believe. We don’t know what you believe, other than you disbelieve what the Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Christ, our Lord and Master. You prefer to have such person as Luther lead you, or Jesus Christ, as found in the Catholic Church.

peace.

Sept. 11 is the Feast of the Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary

“Credo…in unam sanctam, catholicam, apostolicam Ecclesiam”
 
I owe no one an apology for attempting to defame my blessed mother and Queen of Heaven, Mother of God Almighty.
Perhaps I was unclear in my post. I meant to say that I have never read anything in my Catholic Bible that even alludes to Mary having sinned or anything in any other writings by the Church doctors.
Basil
Basil explains that the meaning of Luke 2:34-35 is clear. Mary sinned, and she needed to be restored after Jesus’ resurrection, just as Peter was restored:

“About the words of Simeon to Mary, there is no obscurity or variety of interpretation…By a sword is meant the word which tries and judges our thoughts, which pierces even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of our thoughts. Now every soul in the hour of the Passion was subjected, as it were, to a kind of searching. According to the word of the Lord it is said, ‘All ye shall be offended because of me.’ Simeon therefore prophesies about Mary herself, that when standing by the cross, and beholding what is being done, and hearing the voices, after the witness of Gabriel, after her secret knowledge of the divine conception, after the great exhibition of miracles, she shall feel about her soul a mighty tempest. The Lord was bound to taste of death for every man–to become a propitiation for the world and to justify all men by His own blood. Even thou thyself, who hast been taught from on high the things concerning the Lord, shalt be reached by some doubt. This is the sword. ‘That the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.’ He indicates that after the offence at the Cross of Christ a certain swift healing shall come from the Lord to the disciples and to Mary herself, confirming their heart in faith in Him. In the same way we saw Peter, after he had been offended, holding more firmly to his faith in Christ. What was human in him was proved unsound, that the power of the Lord might be shewn.” - Basil (Letter 260:6, 260:9)

Origen
“While if by those ‘who were without sin’ he means such as have never at any time sinned,-for he made no distinction in his statement,-we reply that it is impossible for a man thus to be without sin. And this we say, excepting, of course, the man understood to be in Christ Jesus, who ‘did no sin.’…God has not been able to prevent even in the case of a single individual, so that one man might be found from the very beginning of things who was born into the world untainted by sin…For in the connected series of statements which appears to apply as to one particular individual, the curse pronounced upon Adam is regarded as common to all (the members of the race), and what was spoken with reference to the woman is spoken of every woman without exception.” - Origen (Against Celsus, 3:62, 4:40)
“Origen insisted that, like all human beings, she [Mary] needed redemption from her sins; in particular, he interpreted Simeon’s prophecy (Luke 2, 35) that a sword would pierce her soul as confirming that she had been invaded with doubts when she saw her Son crucified.” (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 493)

This is unsubstatiated and quite vile I think you owe Ginger an apology! PS which Catholic Bible did you read that speaks of church doctors?:eek:
 
I owe no one an apology for attempting to defame my blessed mother and Queen of Heaven, Mother of God Almighty.
Perhaps I was unclear in my post. I meant to say that I have never read anything in my Catholic Bible that even alludes to Mary having sinned or anything in any other writings by the Church doctors.
Dear Fiery,

First let me say you couldn’t have picked a better handle. It suits you well.

I did not try to defame your queen. I was speaking (mostly) with mgrfin and pointing out that some church fathers have said things that disagree with Catholic dogma.

Now that I have explained, perhaps you should turn your anger toward those who, in your opinion, “defamed” the Virgin Mary’s character.

As for an apology, I appreciate Myfavorite martian’s concern for civility in this thread.

But, I myself would rarely ask for an apology from a Catholic. AND, I would never expect to get one. It has been my experience that Catholics feel justified for anything they say or do concerning protestants.

I will leave you with just one thought:

Jhn 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. 35 **By this shall all men shall know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. **

Are you a disciple of Jesus? "Cause, I’m not feeling the love. :nope:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top