Martin Luther supported polygamy...

[Ginger2]

I don’t think anyone is questioning whether this polygamist marriage took place. It is whether or not Luther gave his approval.

ALSO, I believe someone in this thread said the Luther performed the wedding. The Catholic source cited denies that. So we have already corrected one error. That’s good.

The excerpt you gave is lacking. Where are the links to the various documents it appears to be citing?

“Evidently, in an embarrassing quandary, Luther and Melancthon filed their joint opinion (10 Dec., 1539). 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” (De Wette-Seidemann, VI, 239-244; “Corp. Ref.”, III, 856-863). The nullity and impossibility of the second marriage while the legality of the first remained untouched was not mentioned or hinted at."

I have seen Luther’s words taken out of content before. Do you notice the where the quotation marks begin and end. What is written in between could totally change the meaning. Do you notice what is not in quotation marks?

If you can find a valid copy, I can have it translated. I have a friend. Otherwise I will continue to look for the documents myself. I don’t want to rely on someone’s interpretation of Luther’s intent. I want to see what he actually said.

Once we determine whether or not Luther actually supported bigamy and polygamy, we can continue the discussion.

 

[why_me]

I had to cut the new advent source because of word limitations on this forum. There is more information on the website. I hope that you find the source. I think you will. Of course you can ask a luthern pastor but I wouldn’t be satisified with his or her answer. Lets hope we find the original source.

 

[Catholic90]

Just further proof that catholicism is the right choice

Tell me honestly. Would you want your wife having multiple husbands? Religious teaching aside I mean.

Aside from the credible source issue (Wiki is not an accepted source at my kids’ high school)…what woman wouldn’t want another wife to cook, clean, do laundry, run some errands, take the dog out at night when you are the only one he wakes up?

 

[zerinus]

It’s so easy for people to make claims. Why can’t someone tell me where to find an English translation so I can read it myself?

Luther’s endorsement of polygamy is well known. Google is your best friend. Do some searches using different search terms and see what you will find. The source of the quote is obviously in German; so unless you know German you won’t be able to recognize it. But even the Catholic Encyclopaedia talks about the subject, so unless you mistrust even the Catholic source, you have to accept that this is what Luther taught.

Luther was not the only Protestant that accepted polygamy. In the 1988 Lambeth Conference of the Anglican Church, held in Canterbury England I believe, one of the African delegates proposed that polygamous Africans who converted to Christianity with their families should be allowed to retain their multiple wives. The reasons he gave was: (1) that it was a practice approved by the Old Testament; (2) that it is not specifically forbidden in the New Testament; and (3) that from a humanitarian point of view it would be unfair and cruel for the wives and children of such relationships to suddenly be made widows and fatherless, with no one to take care of them. The conference approved his proposal. I searched the Internet and found the following on the subject. The passage on polygamy comes towards the end of the page, and is much longer than this quote. The rest of it is interesting too, if you want to read it:

The subject of polygamy is still controversial within church fraternity. Some mainstream churches, which once strongly opposed polygamous marriages, are beginning to soften. Others are hanging on in absolute disapproval of this kind of marriage. African instituted churches do not seem to have a problem with polygamists. It appears there is no general direction among Christians over the issue, reports AANA Correspondent, Osman Njuguna.

In 1988, delegates to the Anglican Lambeth Conference, while deliberating on Church and Polygamy, reiterated the Church’s stand on monogamy, stressing, “This conference upholds monogamy as God’s plan, and as the ideal relationship of love between husband and wife.”

But the delegates did not stop there. They recommended that polygamists who responded to the gospel and wished to join the Anglican Church, could be baptised and confirmed together with their believing wives and children.

However, some conditions were set. The delegates agreed that a polygamous husband would have to promise not to marry again, as long as any of his wives were still alive.

They noted that acceptance of a polygamist had the consent of the Anglican community, and that he would not be compelled to put away any of his wives, on account of social deprivation they would suffer. Source

The following is another interesting passage I found, and I thought quite amusing:

“In parts of Africa, the central missionary question is polygamy. The Bible is of course quite clear on the subject. Polygamy is fine in the Old Testament; and even in the New, it is only bishops who are required to be ‘the husband of one wife.’ But this was not how the missionaries saw it. Now some of the African bishops are restless because, they say, it is unfair to demand that converts put away their surplus wives when they become Christians. In places where the household is the basic economic unit, sending a wife back to her home is a catastrophe for her” (Andrew Brown, The Sunday Telegraph, UK, July 12, 1998).

“The Muslims have a catchy recruitment slogan: that they can have four wives and only one God whereas the Christians must have only one wife but ‘three gods.’ Kenyan bishops have therefore argued that they should be allowed to convert polygamous men without demanding that they send their wives home. This seems to them a reasonable quid pro quo for being expected to accept homosexual clergy in the USA” (Andrew Brown, The Sunday Telegraph, UK, July 12, 1998). Source

zerinus

 

[Ginger2]

Why me, Post the link(s) if you find any. I will do the same.

However, I’m beginning to think the internet will not make this one easy for us.

I am glad that the Catholic source confirmed Luther didn’t perform the wedding or even attend.

 

[why_me]

Why me, Post the link(s) if you find any. I will do the same.

However, I’m beginning to think the internet will not make this one easy for us.

I am glad that the Catholic source confirmed Luther didn’t perform the wedding or even attend.

That would have been very scandalous for that day and age. I am not sure if Luther would have survived such a ceremony. However, the quote from the original sight is an interesting one. I am sure that it is genuine quotation from Martin Luther. Context, if any, would be important.

 

[Ginger2]

“…unless you mistrust even the Catholic source,…”

It’s not a matter of mistrust. It is a matter of the Catholic Church explaining what they think a “heretic” intended.

I have seen them interpret writings according to what they believe about Luther. And when I see the entire text, I disagree with their presentation.

Luther may have done exactly what they say, but why don’t they link the original text so we can all see it.

I have a friend who can translate it for me, however, the Catholic Church is very good about translating so I wouldn’t bother.

Just show me that they are telling the story from seeing the original texts that prove it and not from someone who claims that he did this ands said that.

As we all know, some church fathers have been in error about other things. Why should we trust unless the ones writing in the C encyclopedia had access to the writings.

If not it is just gossip that may or may not be true.

 

[Contarini]

Luther did think that polygamy might be legitimate in certain circumstances. The most glaring example was his advice to Philip of Hesse that it was OK to take a second wife “on the side” because he had trouble being faithful to his first wife. Most of the other major Reformers agreed with Luther on this point, though there were some differences in the details of their respective positions.

The position taken by Lambeth 1998 is completely defensible, it seems to me. Converts were forbidden to take additional wives after converting. But Christianity should not be used as a reason to break up existing marriages, however imperfect.

Luther was right on one thing, at least–polygamy is far less clearly contrary to Christianity than divorce. Our society has that particular issue exactly backwards.

Edwin

 

[mgrfin]

Luther did think that polygamy might be legitimate in certain circumstances. The most glaring example was his advice to Philip of Hesse that it was OK to take a second wife “on the side” because he had trouble being faithful to his first wife. Most of the other major Reformers agreed with Luther on this point, though there were some differences in the details of their respective positions.

The position taken by Lambeth 1998 is completely defensible, it seems to me. Converts were forbidden to take additional wives after converting. But Christianity should not be used as a reason to break up existing marriages, however imperfect.

Luther was right on one thing, at least–polygamy is far less clearly contrary to Christianity than divorce. Our society has that particular issue exactly backwards.

Edwin

I guess fidelity to one’s vows was one of those ‘good works’ in which the ‘papists’ were immersed in that Luther felt you could dispense with if you had ‘faith alone’ to win your salvation.

 

[zerinus]

Luther was right on one thing, at least–polygamy is far less clearly contrary to Christianity than divorce.

Or homosexuality, for that matter.

zerinus

 

[mgrfin]

Or homosexuality, for that matter.

zerinus

Well, one is adultery, and one is sodomy. To Luther, neither one was worse than performing ‘good works’.

Take your own poison: adultery, bigamy, polygamy, sodomy.

Too bad Luther didn’t pounce on these sins in St. Paul, as much as he had to say about Romans 3:28.

As long as you had ‘faith’ these things were okay.

peace

 

[Calvinator]

Well, one is adultery, and one is sodomy. To Luther, neither one was worse than performing ‘good works’.

Take your own poison: adultery, bigamy, polygamy, sodomy.

Too bad Luther didn’t pounce on these sins in St. Paul, as much as he had to say about Romans 3:28.

As long as you had ‘faith’ these things were okay.

peace

You aren’t very familiar with Luther are you?

 

[mgrfin]

You aren’t very familiar with Luther are you?

You don’t know me very well. I read Martin every day. It is a cause of wonder to me where he learned his theology. He preached in his Commentary on Galatians, over and over, how the ‘papists’ believe solely in good works.

Quote:
But the papists omit faith altogether and teach self-devised traditions and works that are not commanded of God, indeed are contrary to the Word of God, and for these traditions they demand preferred attention and obedience. Unquote

What a lie.

If you too would like to debate me on Luther you are quite welcome. I assume you are a Calvinist, and even Calvin disliked Fr. Martin, and vice versa.

Just don’t engage in argumenta ad hominem, as you just did in your post. Accusing someone of ignorance is disgraceful. You had an opportunity to answer by post, preferably with Luther’s own words to prove me wrong. Instead, you just accused me of ignorance.

Luther is ripe for pruning. Go ahead, quote Fr. Martin in his defense of the Sixth Commandment. Oh, I forgot, that was part of the Law, which we did not have to observe, according to his new theology.

peace

 

[why_me]

You aren’t very familiar with Luther are you?

I see the results of luthernism all around me. I live in a society immersed in luthernism, a society that believes that a human being cannot change because the human being is basically sinful and can not do anything about such sinfulness. There is no striving to be a saint, just a sinner who, if he or she believes in Christ, will be saved. And so, why try to be holy when one can only fail. Easier to be a sinner.

Such is the unconscious attitude of the community that surrounds me, a community immersed in luthernism.

 

[mgrfin]

I see the results of luthernism all around me. I live in a society immersed in luthernism, a society that believes that a human being cannot change because the human being is basically sinful and can not do anything about such sinfulness. There is no striving to be a saint, just a sinner who, if he or she believes in Christ, will be saved. And so, why try to be holy when one can only fail. Easier to be a sinner.

Such is the unconscious attitude of the community that surrounds me, a community immersed in luthernism.

Good post, and absolutely correct.

Strange, the Lutherans seem to defend him, but so do Anglicans, Methodists, Evangelicals, Pentecostals, who say they personally dislike Martin Luther.

Luther is not someone easy to like. But he started it all. But the more you read Luther, the more you question his motives and where he was coming from. The poor German people were not in a position to judge - they trusted their priest. And their priest said that the Pope (the Antichrist to Luther) and his priests, nuns, monks, the Fathers, the Doctors of the Church, the Scholastics, etc., the multitude of Saints that had gone on before him,. had it all wrong, that they were saying ‘good works’ were the merit to get us into heaven. The big lie, as far as I am concerned.

You have to be careful when talking to Protestants about sanctity and holiness, cause, to them, it distracts from 'faith only". Too bad they too are misreading the Gospels and St. Paul.

peace

 

[Ginger2]

Funny how these threads seem to take on a life of their own.

The issue at hand is whether or not Luther actually supported polygamy or if a misinterpretation has grown into that belief.

So far we have on Catholic authority that Luther did not conduct such a marriage.

However, since that source does not give references that can be verified with the click of a mouse, we need to find those sources for ourselves.

If these documents exists, we can find them. It just takes time.

If they do not exist, then we should not accept hearsay as hard fact.

 

[zerinus]

Funny how these threads seem to take on a life of their own.

The issue at hand is whether or not Luther actually supported polygamy or if a misinterpretation has grown into that belief.

So far we have on Catholic authority that Luther did not conduct such a marriage.

However, since that source does not give references that can be verified with the click of a mouse, we need to find those sources for ourselves.

If these documents exists, we can find them. It just takes time.

If they do not exist, then we should not accept hearsay as hard fact.

Perhaps you missed my previous post.

This is a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The mother of Margaret would only entertain the proposition of her daughter becoming Philip’s “second wife” on condition that she, her brother, Philip’s wife, Luther, Melancthon, and Bucer, or at least, two prominent theologians be present at the marriage. Bucer was entrusted with the mission of securing the consent of Luther, Melancthon and the Saxon princes. In this he was eminently successful. All was to be done under the veil of the profoundest secrecy. This secrecy Bucer enjoined on the landgrave again and again, even when on his journey to Wittenberg (3 Dec., 1539) that “all might redound to the glory of God” (Lenz, op. cit., I, 119). Luther’s position on the question was fully known to him. The latter’s opportunism in turn grasped the situation at a glance. It was a question of expediency and necessity more than propriety and legality. If the simultaneous polygamy were permitted, it would prove an unprecendented act in the history of Christendom; it would, moreover, affix on Philip the brand of a most heinous crime, punishable under recent legislation with death by beheading. If refused, it threatened the defection of the landgrave, and would prove a calamity beyond reckoning to the Protestant cause. Source

Are you now convinced, or don’t you trust the Catholic Encyclopedia either?

zerinus

 

[mgrfin]

Funny how these threads seem to take on a life of their own.

The issue at hand is whether or not Luther actually supported polygamy or if a misinterpretation has grown into that belief.

So far we have on Catholic authority that Luther did not conduct such a marriage.

However, since that source does not give references that can be verified with the click of a mouse, we need to find those sources for ourselves.

If these documents exists, we can find them. It just takes time.

If they do not exist, then we should not accept hearsay as hard fact.

I agree with you. I will continue to look for the source document.
All we have at the moment is a Protestant historian on this site who says it is so.

peace

 

[Ginger2]

“I read Martin every day.” - quote

You should get professional help!

Just joking.

What on Earth possessed you to read Luther every day?

Were you doing a research paper or something?

 

[zerinus]

I agree with you. I will continue to look for the source document.
All we have at the moment is a Protestant historian on this site who says it is so.

peace

“I read Martin every day.” - quote

You should get professional help!

Just joking.

What on Earth possessed you to read Luther every day?

Were you doing a research paper or something?

Is this a good enough authoritative reference, or do you really want me to find you one written in German? Since neither of us read German, I suppose you had better ask a German speaker to do that!

zerinus