Martin Luther supported polygamy...

[Ginger2]

If anyone is interested…

De Witt II , has been out of print for over 100 years. It was never translated in English.

I did find this additional quote from Luther:
“…if anyone thereafter should practice bigamy, let the Devil give him a bath in the abyss of hell.”

Unless someone has a copy of the book, I doubt we can come to an agreement on what really happened. And even then we are depending on what someone else claims happened - not Luthers own hand writing.

We cannot prove or disprove without any documentation.

Luther’s only admission of involvement appears to have been his role in the confessional.

 

[mgrfin]

“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?

I’m a Catholic junkie. Of course, that I read Luther every day is a bit of an exaggeration, just when I get depressed. When I see how bad off someone else is (Luther), my spirits are lifted.

Seriously, I can’t imagine where Luther got this stuff about what the Catholic Church taught. He was living in this little town in Germany, and had protection for his life, so he could write what he wanted. I think he was a sick mind, frankly. Certainly, he is an easy one to ‘pick on’.

For example, on Free Will, he writes: God is the author of what is evil in us as well as of what is good, and, as He bestows happiness on those who merit it not, so also does He damn others who deserve not their fate. (De Servo Arbitrio).

Some God that is! How he got away with this stuff I never know.
And every Protestant who dislikes him, and he gave good reason to dislike, they are the first to come up to defend him.

Notice it here on this web site. All manner of believers pony up in defense of this raver.

peace.

 

[Ginger2]

“When I see how bad off someone else is (Luther), my spirits are lifted.”

You do need help!

Thanks! I needed a laugh today.

 

[mgrfin]

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

That costs 14 bucks. I don’t need it that badly to pay thru the nose for Luther stuff.

peace

 

[zerinus]

If anyone is interested…

De Witt II , has been out of print for over 100 years. It was never translated in English.

I did find this additional quote from Luther:
“…if anyone thereafter should practice bigamy, let the Devil give him a bath in the abyss of hell.”

Unless someone has a copy of the book, I doubt we can come to an agreement on what really happened. And even then we are depending on what someone else claims happened - not Luthers own hand writing.

We cannot prove or disprove without any documentation.

Luther’s only admission of involvement appears to have been his role in the confessional.

OK, here is a direct quote from De Wette, for what it is worth. It appears to be in Latin, rather than in German! I can read neither. I hope you can!

“Ego sane fateor, me non posse prohibere, siquis plures velit uxores ducere, nec repugnat sacris literis: verum tamen apud Christianos id exempli nollem primo introduci, apud quos decet etiam ea intermittere, quae licita sunt, pro vitando scandalo, et pro honestate vitae” (De Wette, ii. 459, Jan. 13, 1524).

zerinus

 

[Contarini]

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.

Not exactly, since the marriage vow is why Luther thought divorce was worse than polygamy. If one’s spouse was infertile, it was better to take another spouse than to break one’s relationship to the first spouse.

I agree with you that Christian marriage vows preclude polygamy, by the way.

Edwin

 

[zerinus]

OK, here is a direct quote from De Wette, for what it is worth. It appears to be in Latin, rather than in German! I can read neither. I hope you can!

“Ego sane fateor, me non posse prohibere, siquis plures velit uxores ducere, nec repugnat sacris literis: verum tamen apud Christianos id exempli nollem primo introduci, apud quos decet etiam ea intermittere, quae licita sunt, pro vitando scandalo, et pro honestate vitae” (De Wette, ii. 459, Jan. 13, 1524).

zerinus

Hey, how do you know that this quote is not some meaningless gibberish put together by somebody just to fool you guys? I don’t!

zerinus

 

[mgrfin]

Hey, how do you know that this quote is not some meaningless gibberish put together by somebody just to fool you guys? I don’t!

zerinus

What Luther is saying (roughly translated) is that he can’t prohibit the practice of having many wives, nor does it not seem to be against the Scriptures, and though he didn’t want to be introducing a new practice, but avoiding scandal, the practice of having more than one wife seems okay to lead a good and honest life.

The Old Testament permitted divorce, but as Christ commented, that was allowed because of the hardness of the hearts of the Jews, but Christ changed that.

The quote is purely about the liceity of polygamy, and there is no mention of divorce in this piece. There are no real reasons given by Luther for allowing the practice of having many wives. “Pro honestate vitae” hardly would seem to be such an excuse, although Luther never seemed to me to be much of a moral theologian.

I think we get the idea. I don’t know how he thinks it is okay with what Christ had to say, or St. Paul had to say, but this shows the shallowness of Luther’s thinking process, and also, his weakness of soul. Since he needed the protection of the Elector, he didn’t want to be seen as condemning the practice. And where was there no scandal, I may ask for the Elector to do this?

peace

 

[Calvinator]

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

I don’t need to know you personally to know you don’t know much about Luther. Your posts give you away. I though Edwin did a pretty good job of trying to educate you but I guess you can lead a horse to water but can’t make him drink.

While you may read Luther everyday, do you comprehend what it is you are reading? I can read snippets of any author I choose and at the end of the day I won’t have an understanding of what the author is about.

You said, and I quote “As long as you had ‘faith’ these things were okay.” Luther never said it was okay to sin. In fact, he spilled much ink on the improtance of obdience. But, I guess you choose to ignore that in favor of catholic polemics.

If you are such a Luther expert can you give us some details of the document containing the famous statement “be a sinner and sin boldly”? Details such as to whom it was written and the context of the letter. Also, how does this statement sit considering the whole of Luther’s works?

BTW, I did accuse you of ignorance but since that is based on your previous posting(s) there is nothing shameful about it…just calling a spade a spade. Nothing shameful about it at all.

While I have no particular fondness for Luther, I do indeed hate to see how some folks spread lies about the man when he is no longer around to defend himself.

 

[Calvinator]

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.

This is a complete mis-characterization of anything that the Reformers taught.

 

[Calvinator]

For example, on Free Will, he writes: God is the author of what is evil in us as well as of what is good, and, as He bestows happiness on those who merit it not, so also does He damn others who deserve not their fate. (De Servo Arbitrio).

Where exactly in “Bondage of the Will” is this text taken from?

 

[zerinus]

This is a complete mis-characterization of anything that the Reformers taught.

OK, since you know so much, what did Luther teach about faith, works, and justification?

zerinus

 

[Calvinator]

OK, since you know so much, what did Luther teach about faith, works, and justification?

zerinus

If you are really curious get on the net and do a little research for yourself.

 

[mgrfin]

I don’t need to know you personally to know you don’t know much about Luther. Your posts give you away. I though Edwin did a pretty good job of trying to educate you but I guess you can lead a horse to water but can’t make him drink.

While you may read Luther everyday, do you comprehend what it is you are reading? I can read snippets of any author I choose and at the end of the day I won’t have an understanding of what the author is about.

You said, and I quote “As long as you had ‘faith’ these things were okay.” Luther never said it was okay to sin. In fact, he spilled much ink on the improtance of obdience. But, I guess you choose to ignore that in favor of catholic polemics.

If you are such a Luther expert can you give us some details of the document containing the famous statement “be a sinner and sin boldly”? Details such as to whom it was written and the context of the letter. Also, how does this statement sit considering the whole of Luther’s works?

BTW, I did accuse you of ignorance but since that is based on your previous posting(s) there is nothing shameful about it…just calling a spade a spade. Nothing shameful about it at all.

While I have no particular fondness for Luther, I do indeed hate to see how some folks spread lies about the man when he is no longer around to defend himself.

I just don’t understand how people who claim to have no particular liking for Martin Luther are so much his supporter?

Your whole post is another attack on my knowledge and intelligence. You and your lutheran friends don’t seem to have any answer for the inconsistency and the hypocrisy of this heretic.

I answered Edwin in post #194 on Luther’s character, but he has not responded. Edwin is a smart enough man, but like you, defending Luther is a pretty monumental task. There is so much to dislike about the man, and fallacious about his teaching.

Argumenta ad hominem is the last resort of the loser in a debate. Please refrain from doing it.

peace

ps I think your attack on the other poster, Why Me, is also a personal attack. If you disagree, tell us why. You seem to want to know chapter and verse of what we say, but when you answer, you just throw out a personal attack.

 

[Calvinator]

I just don’t understand how people who claim to have no particular liking for Martin Luther are so much his supporter?

Your whole post is another attack on my knowledge and intelligence. You and your lutheran friends don’t seem to have any answer for the inconsistency and the hypocrisy of this heretic.

I answered Edwin in post #194 on Luther’s character, but he has not responded. Edwin is a smart enough man, but like you, defending Luther is a pretty monumental task. There is so much to dislike about the man, and fallacious about his teaching.

Argumenta ad hominem is the last resort of the loser in a debate. Please refrain from doing it.

peace

ps I think your attack on the other poster, Why Me, is also a personal attack. If you disagree, tell us why. You seem to want to know chapter and verse of what we say, but when you answer, you just throw out a personal attack.

Two requests of you:
a.) Please give us the context of the “sin boldly” statement and how it compares to the rest of what Luther wrote.

b.) Please give me the exact location ofthe quote you offered from Bondage of the Will.

 

[mgrfin]

If you are really curious get on the net and do a little research for yourself.

We already have done that. Why don’t you just sit down and give us an answer to the question asked.

peace

 

[Calvinator]

We already have done that. Why don’t you just sit down and give us an answer to the question asked.

peace

Two requests of you:
a.) Please give us the context of the “sin boldly” statement and how it compares to the rest of what Luther wrote.

b.) Please give me the exact location of the quote you offered from Bondage of the Will.

 

[mgrfin]

Two requests of you:
a.) Please give us the context of the “sin boldly” statement and how it compares to the rest of what Luther wrote.

b.) Please give me the exact location ofthe quote you offered from Bondage of the Will.

Sure. We’ll do the research work for you.

1. Ask Edwin. He has the infamous letter of Luther saying to sin boldly, etc.
2. “De Servio Arbitrio” in op.lat. 7, 113 seq

peace

 

[zerinus]

If you are really curious get on the net and do a little research for yourself.

That is called passing the buck. What if what I found after my “little search” on the Internet confirmed what “why me” had said?

zerinus

 

[Calvinator]

Sure. We’ll do the research work for you.

1. Ask Edwin. He has the infamous letter of Luther saying to sin boldly, etc.
2. “De Servio Arbitrio” in op.lat. 7, 113 seq

peace

1.) Since you offered up the quote I assumed that you had actually read the letter for yourself and were actually familiar with it. Have you actually taken the time to read the letter for yourself or any of the facts surrounding the letter?

2.) What the heck is “in op.lat. 7, 113 seq”? You will have to give this to me in English. I’m really curious about this one 'cuz I don’t seem to be able to find this quote using a digital search and it just doesn’t sound quite right.