Martin Luther supported polygamy...

[Ginger2]

I am neither Luther’s enemy nor his supporter.

I am however, interested in being honest. If Luther’s words have been taken out of context, as I have seen before, than I object.

I have experienced this personally. And will share a story to demonstrate. (It wasn’t funny at the time, but may seem amusing now)

One Christmas I gave my neice’s boyfriend a snake light. It was when they first came out were very popular.

I am never sure what to buy for men, so I asked if it was a good gift. Someone else said something to the effect that the only thing better than a snake light is sex.

I carelessly followed that by telling her boyfriend to let me know if he’d like to exchange it.

As time went by, the incident seemed to take on a life of its own. It was awful! It sounded like I spent the whole day seducing him. And everyone who was there seemed to remember the incident the way others were telling it.

Luckily, I had video taped our celebration and had proof of what actually happened on tape. The video tape ended the stories to my relief.

 

[Calvinator]

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

Nothing personal. I am just interested in mgrfin and have no wish to dialogue with anyone else on this matter.

If you search only one side of the issue I am quite certain you will find something that will support whyme’s observations.

 

[mgrfin]

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.

Yes, I am quite familar with the letter and the facts surrounding it. This is something you could have researched yourself.

The letter was addressed from Wartburg, August 1, 1521 to his most intimate friend, Mellanchthon, to encourage him with regard to possible sins of the past, and to prepare to meet temptations in the future. If you want to see the letter, you have to get Grisar, Vol III, pg 196, which I am sure you will do.

Luther says “Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe more boldly still…We must sin as long as we are what we are…sin shall not drag us away from Him, even should we commit fornication or murder, thousands and thousands a times a day”.

Protestants always try to deny the letter and the words to his friend, but they are still there, ringing in our ears for centuries.

I am not surprised, for his theory of Justification by faith alone leds down this path. Good works are just useless, sins really. They are to be avoided. They do not lead to justification, sanctification or to heaven. There is no such thing as merit; there is no coupling of faith with cooperation with God’s gift of actual grace to us. Luther denies the efficacy of our cooperation with actual grace. It is our faith only (faith comes from where? it is an actual grace) that saves us.

peace

 

[zerinus]

Nothing personal. I am just interested in mgrfin and have no wish to dialogue with anyone else on this matter.

Why didn’t you say that to “why me”? I call that a copout!

If you search only one side of the issue I am quite certain you will find something that will support whyme’s observations.

Actually, I think I already have, and my conclusitons confirm what he has found.

zerinus

 

[Ginger2]

zerinus re: post #45

How do you know it is a direct quote. Do you have a copy of the book in Latin?

AND, even if it is a direct quote, have you also read what preceded and followed it?

I actually believe it is very possible he said exactly what is claimed. But,

…1. I don’t think De Witt was written by Luther, so it is what someone else believes he said, not necessarily what Luther actually said.

…2. Without the full text, it may take on a totally different meaning than what was actually intended.

 

[mgrfin]

I am neither Luther’s enemy nor his supporter.

I am however, interested in being honest. If Luther’s words have been taken out of context, as I have seen before, than I object.

I have experienced this personally. And will share a story to demonstrate. (It wasn’t funny at the time, but may seem amusing now)

One Christmas I gave my neice’s boyfriend a snake light. It was when they first came out were very popular.

I am never sure what to buy for men, so I asked if it was a good gift. Someone else said something to the effect that the only thing better than a snake light is sex.

I carelessly followed that by telling her boyfriend to let me know if he’d like to exchange it.

As time went by, the incident seemed to take on a life of its own. It was awful! It sounded like I spent the whole day seducing him. And everyone who was there seemed to remember the incident the way others were telling it.

Luckily, I had video taped our celebration and had proof of what actually happened on tape. The video tape ended the stories to my relief.

Sorry, but I find the story irrelevant. Maybe it was important to you, but irrelevant in our discussions.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

Nothing personal. I am just interested in mgrfin and have no wish to dialogue with anyone else on this matter.

If you search only one side of the issue I am quite certain you will find something that will support whyme’s observations.

Deal with it, Calvinator. I’m getting ready to go to the Kings game with my son, so I’m outta here in a few minutes.

peace, and good luck to the Kings.

 

[mgrfin]

Why didn’t you say that to “why me”? I call that a copout!

Actually, I think I already have, and my conclusitons confirm what he has found.

zerinus

Sounds like doubting Thomas to me: “Unless I see the wound in hands, and put my finger into his side, I won’t believe…”

peace

 

[Ginger2]

The point of my story is that someone told the TRUTH about what I said, but it was not at all what my words meant. It was a lie.

You can’t take a snippet of what someone says someone else said and then without seeing the original document (or video tape) in its entirety, assume you know the whole truth.

That was the point of my story.

I was made to sound like a slut from a snippet taken out of context.
Luther is made to sound like a polygamist from a snippet.

At the very least, the accusation is gossip. At worst it is a lie.

I have found nothing that can be verified to show Luther promoted polygamy - even if he said he can’t prove it wrong from the Bible. There are many things I can’t “prove” the Bible says are wrong. It doesn’t mean I approve of them.

You have convinced me that there is nothing to substantiate your claims. My cousin’s friend’s neighbor said, doesn’t cut it with me.

 

[mgrfin]

The point of my story is that someone told the TRUTH about what I said, but it was not at all what my words meant. It was a lie.

You can’t take a snippet of what someone says someone else said and then without seeing the original document (or video tape) in its entirety, assume you know the whole truth.

That was the point of my story.

I was made to sound like a slut from a snippet taken out of context.
Luther is made to sound like a polygamist from a snippet.

At the very least, the accusation is gossip. At worst it is a lie.

I have found nothing that can be verified to show Luther promoted polygamy - even if he said he can’t prove it wrong from the Bible. There are many things I can’t “prove” the Bible says are wrong. It doesn’t mean I approve of them.

You have convinced me that there is nothing to substantiate your claims. My cousin’s friend’s neighbor said, doesn’t cut it with me.

No, the quote makes it that Luther was supporting polygamy, not that he was a polygamist. You can be happily married and support the concept of divorce. Doesn’t mean you are divorced. Same thing with polygamy.

Luther says: “me non posse prohibere” meaning nothing prohibits me from saying it is okay.

And, if we are correct that Luther supported polygamy, then what?
You are going to become a Catholic?

peace

 

[Ginger2]

mgrfin,

I’ve discovered our problem!!! You don’t read carefully. I have never suggested anyone accused Luther of being a polygamist. I said the snippet makes him sound like a polygamist, but the next paragraph says there is nothing that shows he promoted polygamy.

 

[mark_a]

I am neither Luther’s enemy nor his supporter.

I am however, interested in being honest. If Luther’s words have been taken out of context, as I have seen before, than I object.

I have experienced this personally. And will share a story to demonstrate. (It wasn’t funny at the time, but may seem amusing now)

One Christmas I gave my neice’s boyfriend a snake light. It was when they first came out were very popular.

I am never sure what to buy for men, so I asked if it was a good gift. Someone else said something to the effect that the only thing better than a snake light is sex.

I carelessly followed that by telling her boyfriend to let me know if he’d like to exchange it.

As time went by, the incident seemed to take on a life of its own. It was awful! It sounded like I spent the whole day seducing him. And everyone who was there seemed to remember the incident the way others were telling it.

Luckily, I had video taped our celebration and had proof of what actually happened on tape. The video tape ended the stories to my relief.

That’s too good!!!

 

[mark_a]

mgrfin,

I’ve discovered our problem!!! You don’t read carefully. I have never suggested anyone accused Luther of being a polygamist. I said the snippet makes him sound like a polygamist, but the next paragraph says there is nothing that shows he promoted polygamy.

Silence and neutrality are not the same as condemnation. Luther would need to at least imply condemnation if he were allowing an exception for polygamy.

 

[Contarini]

Silence and neutrality are not the same as condemnation. Luther would need to at least imply condemnation if he were allowing an exception for polygamy.

Luther didn’t consider polygamy the norm, but he saw it as legitimate in exceptional circumstances. This is not controversial (I mean, the fact that he thought this is not controversial). In particular, he thought that if a spouse was infertile (or impotent, obviously) it would be OK to have a child by someone else.

This is taken out of context if we ignore the fact that Luther saw marriage as primarily for the purpose of procreation and insisted repeatedly on the duty of loving your spouse even if you found him or her completely unattractive. Also, like the Protestant Reformers generally, Luther promoted early marriage and favored a ban on prostitution (which had been legal in most places in the Middle Ages). He was not promoting sexual promiscuity or laxity–rather, he thought that medieval canon law had become too legalistic and had lost sight of the purpose of marriage (to beget and rear children in the fear of the Lord while providing the spouses with companionship and a legitimate outlet for sexual impulses).

Most social historians see the Reformation–in both its Protestant and Catholic versions–as a period of greater strictness with regard to sexual matters. Sixteenth-century theologians and moralists were very concerned with promoting godly, orderly households and cracking down on sexual immorality. The rather startling arguments of the Reformers were actually part of this program–they were asking questions about traditional rules in order to limit, not encourage, sexual laxity. They did by and large have a less suspicious attitude toward sexual pleasure than the medieval Church had done, but if anything they had a stronger emphasis on proper order and hierarchy, and sexual immorality was a threat to that.

Edwin

 

[Ginger2]

Mark A

You don’t think Luther implies condemnation when he said, “…if anyone thereafter should practice bigamy, let the Devil give him a bath in the abyss of hell.”?

St. Augustine doesn’t condemn polygamy either. In fact he suggests it was a better way: " who reads with careful attention what use they made of their wives, at a time when also it was allowed one man to have several, whom he had with more chastity, than any now has his one wife,"

 

[mark_a]

IObviously I unintentionally presented myself as an expert on Luther.

I’m not.

I like Luther’s stand on more than one issue. My signature shows one that I like.

St. Augustine doesn’t condemn polygamy either. In fact he suggests it was a better way: " who reads with careful attention what use they made of their wives, at a time when also it was allowed one man to have several, whom he had with more chastity, than any now has his one wife,"

St. Augustine understood that authority comes from the Catholich Church. Luther did not.

 

[mark_a]

You don’t think Luther implies condemnation when he said, “…if anyone thereafter should practice bigamy, let the Devil give him a bath in the abyss of hell.”?

Obviously I unintentionally presented myself as an expert on Luther.

I’m not.

I like Luther’s stand on more than one issue. My signature shows one that I like.

St. Augustine doesn’t condemn polygamy either. In fact he suggests it was a better way: " who reads with careful attention what use they made of their wives, at a time when also it was allowed one man to have several, whom he had with more chastity, than any now has his one wife,"

St. Augustine understood that authority comes from the Catholic Church. Luther did not.

 

[mgrfin]

mgrfin,

I’ve discovered our problem!!! You don’t read carefully. I have never suggested anyone accused Luther of being a polygamist. I said the snippet makes him sound like a polygamist, but the next paragraph says there is nothing that shows he promoted polygamy.

No, I read carefully.

Martin Luther said he didn’t see anything in the Scriptures that would condemn it. As long as there was no scandal, he said it was okay.

Luther should have condemned polygamy. Therefore he supported it.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

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

That’s juicy evidence against these heretics that their morality was politically motivated. I love the post, and the research.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

Luther allowed for polygamy, but only in a very narrow sense. Luther scholar Heinrich Boehmer points out that it was only to be in cases of “severe necessity, for instance, if the wife develops leprosy or becomes otherwise unfit to live with her husband…
But this permission is always to be restricted to such cases as severe necessity. The idea of legalizing general polygamy was far from the reformers mind. Monogamy was always to him the regular form of matrimony…” (Luther And The Reformation in Light of Modern Research, 213-214).
This wasn’t like Mormonism !

Oh, you mean “the end justifies the means” kind of thing?

We Catholics don’t have to do anything on this thread, the Protestants are indicting their own heretic.

peace