Martin Luther supported polygamy...

[Chesster]

1. Your Highness sees, that he uses no sincere endeavor to redress the grievances of Christendom; that he leaves the Turk unmolested, and labors for nothing but to divide the empire, that he may raise up the house of Austria on its ruins. It is therefore very much to be wished that no Christian Prince would give into his pernicious schemes. May God preserve your Highness. We are most ready to serve your Highness. Given at Wittenberg the Wednesday after the feast of Saint Nicholas, 1539. Your Highness’s most humble, and most obedient subjects and servants,
   Martin Luther.
   Philip Melancthon.
   Martin Bucer.
   Antony Corvin.
   Adam.
   John Leningue.
   Justus Wintferte.
   Denis Melanther.

Copied from - History Of The Variations Of The Protestant Churches by Jacques-Benigne Bossuet, Volume 1, Book 6.

 

[why_me]

I think that the poor prince needed a lawyer to read this letter. However, after sifting through it, we finally get to the mustard seed:

There is no need of being much concerned for what men will say, provided all goes right with conscience. So far do we approve it, and in those circumstances only by us specified; for the Gospel hath neither recalled nor forbid what was permitted in the law of Moses with respect to marriage. Jesus Christ has not changed the external economy, but added justice only, and life everlasting, for reward. He teaches the true way of obeying God, and endeavors to repair the corruption of nature.

And so, in lawyerisk language, Martin Luther justified polygamy by citing the old and new testament.

 

[Ginger2]

I haven’t read the letter yet, but I would like to thank you for taking the time to type all that up.

 

[Ginger2]

Can you also provide the name and author of the book? Thanks.

 

[Contarini]

I could go on all day posting snippets of Luther all over the place, the point is, I don’t know of any quote that even hints that Luther believed it was okay to sin and sin boldly at that, other than the one we are discussing.

I know Edwin is much more knowledgeable on this subject than I am, maybe he can lend his opinion to this?

Luther believed that God only saved “real sinners.” He thought that admitting that you were a sinner and throwing yourself on the mercy of God was the way to salvation, and when he had to deal with people who appeared to be troubled by scruples (as he himself had been) he was willing to use paradoxical language such as that in the infamous letter. That is the only place I know of where Luther spoke in such extreme hyperbole, but the statement is in keeping with his early teaching. He was confident that anyone who believed in Christ would not want to sin, and so he wanted to stress the fact that our struggle to be holy has no direct effect on our salvation one way or the other.

However, as time went on Luther realized that people could misunderstand him, so in the Galatians commentary he defines his position more precisely. It’s paradoxical but not really that confusing: good works do nothing directly to make you pleasing to God, and sin does nothing directly to separate you from God as long as you believe–but at the same time anyone with real (saving) faith will strive to be holy and will only sin out of weakness (and will repent when they come to themselves and realize what they have done). As I have shown in the thread on “Martin Luther’s Character” (and in other, older threads), Luther explicitly says in the Galatians commentary that if someone gives into the works of the flesh they will lose faith and will eventually be damned if they do not repent.

Luther’s position was not unlike the “fundamental option” theory put forward by some post-Vatican-II Catholic theologians (and condemned as unorthodox by the Vatican, I hasten to add).

The polygamy issue is of course irrelevant to this, since Luther didn’t think that polygamy was necessarily sinful–although certainly since he took the view that we can’t live without sinning, this did lead to an openness to “lesser of two evil” approaches to ethics. There is a certain tendency toward “situational” ethics in Luther, and I think that’s a valid criticism Catholics can make, as long as we recognize that his goal was to promote traditional values such as chastity, humility, charity, and respect for authority.

Edwin

 

[Chesster]

Can you also provide the name and author of the book? Thanks.

It’s at the bottom of my last post:

Copied from - History Of The Variations Of The Protestant Churches by Jacques-Benigne Bossuet, Volume 1, Book 6.

 

[mgrfin]

QUOTE]

Ginger,

If you want to have distrust about people deceiving you are right, and you should start immediately with Martin Luther.

Luther said that the foundation of his teaching, the foundation, stood on 'justification by faith only".

For fear that he couldn’t justify his foundation doctrine, he falsified St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, by adding ‘alone’ to Romans 3:28.

Now if Catholics had done that, there would be howls heard round the world, but Martin gets a free pass from Protestants, and it is explained away.

P.S. Stop with the Augustine nonsense. You set that up as a straw man. This tread is about Luther and polygamy. Augustine never said polygamy was okay. You want us to prove a negative, but you continue to accept Luther and his false religion, which he founded.

The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ; nobody else can say that.

peace

 

[Contarini]

For fear that he couldn’t justify his foundation doctrine, he falsified St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, by adding ‘alone’ to Romans 3:28.

Of course, you and others who make this claim have repeatedly shown yourselves unable to justify this accusation by refuting the reason Luther gives (colloquial usage in early modern German, which he claims necessitates the use of “allein”). As I have said over and over, the question is not whether Luther’s translation was justified (I don’t know if it was or not, but I’m suspicious) or whether it was theologically biased (obviously it was). The question is whether we can speak of a deliberate falsification. You have never been able to provide any rational argument justifying this language.

Catholic translations have in fact frequently been influenced by theological presuppositions, and yes, Protestants have howled about it. However, insofar as Protestants claimed that these translations were deliberately dishonest, they were sinning against justice and charity.

Edwin

 

[Ginger2]

I would very much like to respond to the new posts, but I have to work for a living. I sloughed off all last week and now have to play catch up.

Again I want to thank Chesster for taking the time to type out the whole letter, I get very tired of tiny excerpts that people use.

 

[zerinus]

This has turned out to be an interesting thread. It reminded me of an interesting article I read several years ago by an LDS author about Martin Luther on the Internet. I just revisited it, and read it again, and I still think that it is interesting. He does not express the “common opinion” among LDS about Martin Luther. LDS have traditionally been favourable towards Luther. He must be one of the first to go against that norm, and is actually critical of Luther. And I have to say it is hard to find fault with his reasoning. Here it is, for what it is worth: You can read it as a Web page here or as a PDF article here, if you have a PDF reader installed on your computer. The PDF version is easier to read and to print.

zerinus

 

[PaulDupre]

That is why I brought up Augustine. My quote from Augustine is verifiable and can be read in its full context. Augustine suggested polygamy was better than monogamy.

No Ginger,
If you read the entire Augustine quote in context you will see that his topic is the evil of marital infidelity. To drive the point home, he argues that a man who in times past (when polygamy was allowed) took more than one wife and remained faithful to those wives was more righteous than one who now takes only one wife but is unfaithful to her.

The only way that argument makes sense is if Augustine saw polygamy as inherently contrary to the gospel.

God love you,
Paul

 

[mgrfin]

Of course, you and others who make this claim have repeatedly shown yourselves unable to justify this accusation by refuting the reason Luther gives (colloquial usage in early modern German, which he claims necessitates the use of “allein”). As I have said over and over, the question is not whether Luther’s translation was justified (I don’t know if it was or not, but I’m suspicious) or whether it was theologically biased (obviously it was). The question is whether we can speak of a deliberate falsification. You have never been able to provide any rational argument justifying this language.

Catholic translations have in fact frequently been influenced by theological presuppositions, and yes, Protestants have howled about it. However, insofar as Protestants claimed that these translations were deliberately dishonest, they were sinning against justice and charity.

Edwin

You actually believe that Martin Luther justified his addition by saying it was on the basis of 'colloquial usuage". ?

That was never the reason he alledged. He said he did it because he was Martin Luther.

Maybe you could quote Fr. Martin in his reasoning for this defense of ‘only’ so he fortified his foundation of ‘faith only’.

The issue on Catholics being ‘deliberately dishonest’, That’s for another day. Such accusations makes my b/p jump 20 points. But we are not talking about my blood pressure. Let’s just stay with Luther for the moment.

peace

 

[PaulDupre]

BTW, I don’t believe that Luther, in his heart of hearts, supported polygamy. I do believe that he tried to put forth an argument in favor of polygamy in this one instance for political and financial reasons. I am sure he regretted it later.

Paul

 

[Calvinator]

You actually believe that Martin Luther justified his addition by saying it was on the basis of 'colloquial usuage". ?

That was never the reason he alledged. He said he did it because he was Martin Luther.

Maybe you could quote Fr. Martin in his reasoning for this defense of ‘faith only’.

The issue on Catholics being ‘deliberately dishonest’, That’s for another day. Such accusations makes my b/p jump 20 points. But we are not talking about my blood pressure. Let’s just stay with Luther for the moment.

peace

Didn’t Chrysostom and Augustine (to name a few) also believe “alone” should be there?

 

[mgrfin]

BTW, I don’t believe that Luther, in his heart of hearts, supported polygamy. I do believe that he tried to put forth an argument in favor of polygamy in this one instance for political and financial reasons. I am sure he regretted it later.

Paul

Well, you got that right, up to a point. That he regretted it later? That I would like to see.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

Didn’t Chrysostom and Augustine (to name a few) also believe “alone” should be there?

You got some quotes there, Calvinator?

peace

 

[Contarini]

You actually believe that Martin Luther justified his addition by saying it was on the basis of 'colloquial usuage". ?

Yes, of course, because I’ve actually read the passage where he says so!

That was never the reason he alledged. He said he did it because he was Martin Luther.

He said that (i.e., that he was a better scholar than his Catholic opponents), and then he went on to give his rationale. The whole passage is quite wordy, bu the key section is this:

I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text – if the translation is to be clear and vigorous klar und gewaltiglich], it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation. But it is the nature of our language that in speaking about two things, one which is affirmed, the other denied, we use the word allein [only] along with the word nicht [not] or kein [no]. For example, we say “the farmer brings allein grain and kein money”; or “No, I really have nicht money, but allein grain”; I have allein eaten and nicht yet drunk"; “Did you write it allein and nicht read it over?” There are countless cases like this in daily usage.

Now why do Catholic apologists routinely ignore this?

The issue on Catholics being ‘deliberately dishonest’, That’s for another day. Such accusations makes my b/p jump 20 points.

Understandably. Such accusations are pointless and absurd. They are not much more relevant or effective or justified when applied to Luther. I will not claim that the two cases are identical, since Luther was using his translation to justify his personal theology over against the traditional teaching of the Church, while most of the controversial Catholic translations were supported by traditional understandings that had developed over a long period of time. But the fact remains that

1. All translations are theologically biased, and
2. Even those translations that are more blatantly biased than others, in a way that distorts the meaning of the original, are unlikely to be the result of deliberate dishonesty

Edwin

 

[Calvinator]

You got some quotes there, Calvinator?

peace

That was an actual question.

I’ve heard that Luther wasn’t the first to interpret the verse in question in the way he did and that Augustine and a few others also interpreted it with “alone”.

I’ll see what I can find.

 

[Contarini]

BTW, I don’t believe that Luther, in his heart of hearts, supported polygamy. I do believe that he tried to put forth an argument in favor of polygamy in this one instance for political and financial reasons. I am sure he regretted it later.

On what do you base this? I see no reason whatsoever to postulate this. Luther’s suggestion that polygamy might be justified in certain circumstances is entirely in keeping with his general theology and ethics.

Edwin

 

[PaulDupre]

Well, you got that right, up to a point. That he regretted it later? That I would like to see.

peace

I was referring to the firestorm that followed the leak of the letter. I’ll bet it made him wish he hadn’t been involved with it.
Paul