Martin Luther supported polygamy...

[Calvinator]

…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.

Some God that is!

You aren’t familiar with the text

If you were, you would realize that the section you are dealing with is in response to the “Diatribe” by Erasmus

truecovenanter.com/truelutheran/luther_bow.html#pt2
Bondage of the Will:

Sect 107 BUT let us suppose that God ought to be such an one, who should have respect unto merit in those who are to be damned. Must we not, in like manner; also require and grant, that He ought to have respect unto merit in those who are to be saved? For if we are to follow Reason, it is equally unjust, that the undeserving should be crowned, as that the undeserving should be damned. We will conclude, therefore, that God ought to justify from merit preceding, or we will declare Him to be unjust, as being one who delights in evil and wicked men, and who invites and crowns their impiety by rewards.—And then, woe unto you, sensibly miserable sinners, under that God! For who among you can be saved!

Behold, therefore, the iniquity of the human heart! When God saves the undeserving without merit, nay, justifies the impious with all their demerit, it does not accuse Him of iniquity, it does not expostulate with Him why He does it, although it is, in its own judgment, most iniquitous; but because it is to its own profit, and plausible, it considers it just and good. But when He damns the undeserving, this, because it is not to its own profit, is iniquitous; this is intolerable; here it expostulates, here it murmurs, here it blasphemes!

You see, therefore, that the Diatribe, together with its friends, do not, in this cause, judge according to equity, but according to the feeling sense of their own profit. For, if they regarded equity, they would expostulate with God when He crowned the undeserving, as they expostulate with Him when He damns the undeserving. And also, they would equally praise and proclaim God when He damns the undeserving, as they do when He saves the undeserving; for the iniquity in either instance is the same, if our own opinion be regarded[See Note]

Since, therefore, Reason praises God when He saves the undeserving, but accuses Him when He damns the undeserving; it stands convicted of not praising God as God, but as a certain one who serves its own profit; that is, it seeks, in God, itself and the things of itself, but seeks not God and the things of God. But if it be pleased with a God who crowns the undeserving, it ought not to be displeased with a God who damns the undeserving. For if He be just in the one instance, how shall He not be just in the other? seeing that, in the one instance, He pours forth grace and mercy upon the undeserving, and in the other, pours forth wrath and severity upon the undeserving?—He is, however, in both instances, monstrous and iniquitous in the sight of men; yet just and true in Himself. But, how it is just, that He should crown the undeserving, is incomprehensible now, but we shall see when we come there, where it will be no longer believed, but seen in revelation face to face. So also, how it is just, that He should damn the undeserving, is incomprehensible now, yet, we believe it, until the Son of Man shall be revealed!

Commentary Sect 107:

Note for Sect. 107:

That the Diatribe associates Damnation and Predestination to Damnation (or Reprobation) in such a way as to make the cause of the one necessarily to be the cause of the other. Thus, if Predestination to Damnation be absolute, and without a deserving as its cause, then the Diatribe will falsely allege that we speak of Damnation as being absolute and without any deserving cause. Luther does not affirm that Damnation is absolute in the sense that men will be damned who do not deserve to be damned, but shows that even permitting the Diatribe’s wicked reasoning and lying accusations, it is still confounded by its own arguments, which reveal that all of Erasmus’ concerns are really man-centered, seeing he is willing that God should call that Good which is not, although he will not have God call that Evil which is not—both which are alike wicked, and neither of which is ever done by God, albeit his Predestination to Life and Predestination to Damnation be both of them absolute and in no way based on a foreseen deserving of anything in man or angel so predestinated.
That in the refutation, Luther could have easily put off these arguments by the assertion used nowadays, that Predestination to Damnation is based on foreseen deserving of sin, however, Luther never brings in any such arguments, which, with other texts, lead one to conclude that Dr. Luther was an orthodox Supralapsarian with regard to the absoluteness and the order of the Decree.

 

[why_me]

Wow…no sinning boldy.

Originally Posted by Sermons of Martin Luther 1:21-22
“I have often said that there are two kinds of faith. First, a faith in which you indeed believe that Christ is such a man as he is described and proclaimed here and in all the Gospels, but do not believe that he is such a man for you, and are in doubt whether you have any part in him and think: Yes, he is such a man to others, to Peter, Paul, and the blessed saints; but who knows that he is such to me and that I may expect the same from him and may confide in it, as these saints did? Behold, this faith is nothing, it does not receive Christ nor enjoy him, neither can it feel any love and affection for him or from him. It is a faith about Christ and not in or of Christ, a faith which the devils also have as well as evil men…That alone can be called Christian faith, which believes without wavering that Christ is the Saviour not only to Peter and to the saints but also to you. Your salvation does not depend on the fact that you believe Christ to be the Saviour of the godly, but that he is a Saviour to you and has become your own. **Such a faith will work in you love for Christ and joy in him, and good works will naturally follow. If they do not, faith is surely not present: for where faith is, there the Holy Ghost is and must work love and good works.” **[Sermons of Martin Luther 1:21-22]

The quotation that proceeds this statement is a great recipe for guilt, especially where he states that good works will naturally follow. You must understand that having faith does not necessarily translate into good works. And the person who feels that good works may not be present in his or her daily actions will then begin to question his or her faith in Jesus. I am sure that many lutherns have questioned their faith, especially when it comes to good works. And the impulse to give up is certainly present. At least this is what I have noticed.

To strive for holiness is not easy. It does take faith but it also takes awareness of just who and what we are as humans. It can be trial and error for quite some time. But to question my faith when I err, would be a mistake on my part.

 

[why_me]

No sinning boldly here.

“Observe now from this how far those have gone out of the way who have united good works with stone, wood, clothing, eating and drinking. Of what benefit is it to your neighbor if you build a church entirely out of gold!? Of what benefit to him is the frequent ringing of great church bells? Of what benefit to him is the glitter and the ceremonies in the churches, the priests’ gowns, the sanctuary, the silver pictures and vessels? Of what benefit to him are the many candles and much incense? Of what benefit to him is the much chanting and mumbling, the singing of vigils and masses? Do you think that God will permit himself to be paid with the sound of bells, the smoke of candles, the glitter of gold and such fancies? He has commanded none of these, but if you see your neighbor going astray, sinning, or suffering in body or soul, you are to leave every thing else and at once help him in every way in your power and if you can do no more, help him with words of comfort and prayer. Thus has Christ done to you and given you an example for you to follow.”[Sermons of Martin Luther 1:147]

Here we see Luthers take on the catholic service. However luther seems to forget that it takes a whole to complete a circle. The catholics that I know go to mass, celebrate Eucharist to gain strength and to receive the body and blood of christ. Likewise for the sinner. Words, comfort and prayer are wonderful, but the opportunity to worship god and to celebrate the mass is a vital part of remembering Christ and the sacrifice that he made for all of us. It is a step on the ladder toward holiness. And we see this example in the last supper.

 

[Calvinator]

“Observe now from this how far those have gone out of the way who have united good works with stone, wood, clothing, eating and drinking. Of what benefit is it to your neighbor if you build a church entirely out of gold!? Of what benefit to him is the frequent ringing of great church bells? Of what benefit to him is the glitter and the ceremonies in the churches, the priests’ gowns, the sanctuary, the silver pictures and vessels? Of what benefit to him are the many candles and much incense? Of what benefit to him is the much chanting and mumbling, the singing of vigils and masses? Do you think that God will permit himself to be paid with the sound of bells, the smoke of candles, the glitter of gold and such fancies? He has commanded none of these, but if you see your neighbor going astray, sinning, or suffering in body or soul, you are to leave every thing else and at once help him in every way in your power and if you can do no more, help him with words of comfort and prayer. Thus has Christ done to you and given you an example for you to follow.”[Sermons of Martin Luther 1:147]

Here we see Luthers take on the catholic service. However luther seems to forget that it takes a whole to complete a circle. The catholics that I know go to mass, celebrate Eucharist to gain strength and to receive the body and blood of christ. Likewise for the sinner. Words, comfort and prayer are wonderful, but the opportunity to worship god and to celebrate the mass is a vital part of remembering Christ and the sacrifice that he made for all of us. It is a step on the ladder toward holiness. And we see this example in the last supper.

Obviously Luther wasn’t a fan of the Catholic Church, I don’t think there is any denying that. The reason I posted what I did is to illustrate the folly of assuming Luther thought Christians had a license to sin.

 

[Ginger2]

From Post # 90: "Quote: “I’ve never seen such a thing. Ginger is trying to dirty (Augustine’s) name.”

Still waiting for that apology.

This thread is becoming pointless.

You can’t win on the 1st quote so you introduce a 2nd quote. Now the second quote appears a mute point so a third quote is introduced.

 

[mgrfin]

SIN BOLDLY

“Sin remains in the spiritual man for the exercise of grace, the humbling of pride, and the repression of presumption. For he who is not busily at work driving out sin without a doubt has sin by the very fact of this neglect, even though he has committed no further sin for which he may be damned. For we are not called to idleness; we are called to labor against our passions. These would not be without guilt—for they are truly sins, indeed damnable ones — if the mercy of God did not forego imputing them to us. But He does not impute them to those only who manfully undertake the struggle with their failings and, calling upon the grace of God, fight it through. Therefore he who goes to confession should not fancy that he is laying down burdens in order to live a life of ease. On the contrary, he should know that by laying down the burden he is undertaking to serve as a soldier of God and is taking a different burden upon himself, the burden of battling for God against the devil and his own failings. The man who does not know this will suffer a quick relapse. Therefore he who does not intend henceforth to fight—why does he ask to be absolved and to be enrolled in the army of Christ?”

The snippet from Sin Boldly sure made Luther sound like he was encouraging people to sin - and sin big!

But as you can see from another snippet, he was not. From what I read, Luther was telling the listener that no sin was to great for Jesus to conquer.

I have to give you credit, Ginger. It seems that all life and death depends on you denying what Luther said and supported. No historian has ever denied that he said what he said about “sinning boldly…”

Lutherans canonized Luther. It is incredible that such an ill-tempered, angry, lying hypocrite could ever be declared a saint. Not only was his life not worthy of imitation, but his theology, if that is what you call it, was based on lies about what the Catholic Church taught (that we merit our way to heaven), he lead a whole nation into heresy, apostacy and schism, and did what he could to destroy the Church founded by Jesus Christ…

You are defending the indefensible.

I deny that Augustine supported polygamy. I await a link to the quote about Augustine, since it was you who was so anxious about getting multitudinous translations and links to Luther’s support of polygamy. BTW, no reputable historian denies that Luther supported that polygamous union.

peace

 

[Ginger2]

mgrfin,

I have given you the source: Saint Augustine On the Good of Marriage Chapter 15

You can do your own google search and choose whichever source you trust.

Then, after you have read chapter 15, please post the public apology I am owed

BTW, I was not trying to prove Augustine supported nor promoted polygamy. I am merely showing you one of the comments he made about having multiple wives.

 

[mgrfin]

mgrfin,

I have given you the source: Saint Augustine On the Good of Marriage Chapter 15

You can do your own google search and choose whichever source you trust.

Then, after you have read chapter 15, please post the public apology I am owed

BTW, I was not trying to prove Augustine supported nor promoted polygamy. I am merely showing you one of the comments he made about having multiple wives.

And you are owed a public apology for what reason?

“I am merely showing you one of the comments he made about having multiple wives.” And that comment proves absolutely nothing.

St. Augustine was simply reporting what was an historical fact.

He did not okay polygamy, support it or recommend it. You are promoting just another Lutheran lie.

Luther was not on the same planet as this great saint, this great theologian and Doctor of Grace.

Luther okayed and supported polygamy, and for political reasons. Amazing. And Luther recommended sinning ‘boldly’ to his friend, something you cannot deny, although you try.

It is you who owe us an apology! Reading you is like reading Luther. I know where you get it from. Why don’t you give us a discourse about what a great man he was, what a terrific example for the world. Comparable only to Christ in founding a new religion.

BTW, thanks for the cooperation.

peace

 

[Ginger2]

Post # 87 mgrfin said, “I’ve read Augustine, and I’ve never seen such a thing. Ginger is trying to dirty his name because Luther’s is so smudged.”

This is why you owe me an apology.

You insinuated that I told a lie because you have “never seen such a thing” And suggest I have ill motives for doing so.

Now do you deny Augustine said those words?

 

[mgrfin]

Post # 87 mgrfin said, “I’ve read Augustine, and I’ve never seen such a thing. Ginger is trying to dirty his name because Luther’s is so smudged.”

This is why you owe me an apology.

You insinuated that I told a lie because you have “never seen such a thing” And suggest I have ill motives for doing so.

Now do you deny Augustine said those words?

You yourself said that St. Augustine never supported or approved, or recommended polygamy. To say that he did is a lie.

Quote:
" BTW, I was not trying to prove Augustine supported nor promoted polygamy I am merely showing you one of the comments he made about having multiple wives." Unquote

I owe you no apology, and you won’t get one. You have a nerve to try to dirty the name of one of the great saints of the Catholic Church. Shame on you.

peace

 

[Calvinator]

Bump for mgrfin

mgrfin:

…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.

Some God that is

You aren’t familiar with the text

If you were, you would realize that the section you are dealing with is in response to the “Diatribe” by Erasmus

truecovenanter.com/truelu…r_bow.html#pt2
Bondage of the Will:

Sect 107 BUT let us suppose that God ought to be such an one who should have respect unto merit in those who are to be damned. Must we not, in like manner; also require and grant, that He ought to have respect unto merit in those who are to be saved? For if we are to follow Reason it is equally unjust, that the undeserving should be crowned, as that the undeserving should be damned. We will conclude therefore, that God ought to justify from merit preceding, or we will declare Him to be unjust, as being one who delights in evil and wicked men, and who invites and crowns their impiety by rewards.—And then, woe unto you, sensibly miserable sinners, under that God! For who among you can be saved!

Behold, therefore, the iniquity of the human heart! When God saves the undeserving without merit, nay, justifies the impious with all their demerit, it does not accuse Him of iniquity, it does not expostulate with Him why He does it, although it is, in its own judgment, most iniquitous; but because it is to its own profit, and plausible, it considers it just and good. But when He damns the undeserving, this, because it is not to its own profit, is iniquitous; this is intolerable; here it expostulates, here it murmurs, here it blasphemes!

You see, therefore, that the Diatribe, together with its friends, do not, in this cause, judge according to equity, but according to the feeling sense of their own profit. For, if they regarded equity, they would expostulate with God when He crowned the undeserving, as they expostulate with Him when He damns the undeserving. And also, they would equally praise and proclaim God when He damns the undeserving, as they do when He saves the undeserving; for the iniquity in either instance is the same, if our own opinion be regarded[See Note]

Since, therefore, Reason praises God when He saves the undeserving, but accuses Him when He damns the undeserving; it stands convicted of not praising God as God, but as a certain one who serves its own profit; that is, it seeks, in God, itself and the things of itself, but seeks not God and the things of God. But if it be pleased with a God who crowns the undeserving, it ought not to be displeased with a God who damns the undeserving. For if He be just in the one instance, how shall He not be just in the other? seeing that, in the one instance, He pours forth grace and mercy upon the undeserving, and in the other, pours forth wrath and severity upon the undeserving?—He is, however, in both instances, monstrous and iniquitous in the sight of men; yet just and true in Himself. But, how it is just, that He should crown the undeserving, is incomprehensible now, but we shall see when we come there, where it will be no longer believed, but seen in revelation face to face. So also, how it is just, that He should damn the undeserving, is incomprehensible now, yet, we believe it, until the Son of Man shall be revealed!

Note for Sect 107:

That the Diatribe associates Damnation and Predestination to Damnation (or Reprobation) in such a way as to make the cause of the one necessarily to be the cause of the other. Thus, if Predestination to Damnation be absolute, and without a deserving as its cause, then the Diatribe will falsely allege that we speak of Damnation as being absolute and without any deserving cause. Luther does not affirm that Damnation is absolute in the sense that men will be damned who do not deserve to be damned, but shows that even permitting the Diatribe’s wicked reasoning and lying accusations, it is still confounded by its own arguments, which reveal that all of Erasmus’ concerns are really man-centered, seeing he is willing that God should call that Good which is not, although he will not have God call that Evil which is not—both which are alike wicked, and neither of which is ever done by God, albeit his Predestination to Life and Predestination to Damnation be both of them absolute and in no way based on a foreseen deserving of anything in man or angel so predestinated.
That in the refutation, Luther could have easily put off these arguments by the assertion used nowadays, that Predestination to Damnation is based on foreseen deserving of sin, however, Luther never brings in any such arguments, which, with other texts, lead one to conclude that Dr. Luther was an orthodox Supralapsarian with regard to the absoluteness and the order of the Decree.

 

[mgrfin]

Hooray for mgrfin

You aren’t familiar with the text

If you were, you would realize that the section you are dealing with is in response to the “Diatribe” by Erasmus

truecovenanter.com/truelu…r_bow.html#pt2

You win, Calvinator. I’m not about to read all of that.

It should be noted however, that the greatest philosopher of Luther’s day, Erasmus, finally rejected him.

When you have your own thoughts, come back to me.

peace.

 

[Ginger2]

mgrfin,

I have shown you a quote where Luther condemns the practice of having more than one wife.

Why not put me in my place by showing everyone where Augustine denounces polygamy?

 

[mgrfin]

Bump for mgrfin

You aren’t familiar with the text

If you were, you would realize that the section you are dealing with is in response to the “Diatribe” by Erasmus

truecovenanter.com/truelu…r_bow.html#pt2

I would like an apology for your rude, red-lettered attack on me.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

mgrfin,

I have shown you a quote where Luther condemns the practice of having more than one wife.

Why not put me in my place by showing everyone where Augustine denounces polygamy?

So, you finally got it right: St. Augustine denounces polygamy? Accuse St. Augustine of not denouncing genicide? Of course he didn’t, but he had no reason to. But Luther, he hated the Jews, and would love for them all to be exterminated.

And Luther did not denounce polygamy, but rather supported it.

peace

 

[Ginger2]

 

[Calvinator]

I would like an apology for your rude, red-lettered attack on me.

peace

I didn’t mean the “bump” as an attack. I wasn’t sure you saw the post the first time so I wanted to call your attention to it. It appears that you took the quote from “Bondage of the Will” out of context.

I do think you are clearly wrong on the “sin boldly” issue. Luther did not mean that as a license to sin.

 

[Calvinator]

You win, Calvinator. I’m not about to read all of that.

It should be noted however, that the greatest philosopher of Luther’s day, Erasmus, finally rejected him.

When you have your own thoughts, come back to me.

peace.

You mean you proof texted a quote (fact) and haven’t actualy read the document for yourself (apparent fact) and are too lazy to do so (probably fact)? Is this what you mean?

Take the time and read the short post. I copied the pertinent information for you and it’s only 5,000 characters long so it’s not going to be that demanding on you to take a look at it.

You have clearly taken the quote from “Bondage of the Will” out of context. You are clearly unfamiliar with that work.

I know Erasmus rejected Luther’s theology but that isn’t the issue. The issue is that you posted something completely out of context.

 

[Chesster]

Many years ago I read a book that contained Luther’s letter to the Landgrave of Hesse giving permission to take a second wife.

Does anyone want me to post it?

 

[mgrfin]

I didn’t mean the “bump” as an attack. I wasn’t sure you saw the post the first time so I wanted to call your attention to it. It appears that you took the quote from “Bondage of the Will” out of context.

I do think you are clearly wrong on the “sin boldly” issue. Luther did not mean that as a license to sin.

I did take the ‘bump’ as an attack.

As for the quote from Bondage of the Will, that is a long time ago, (yesterday), so I have to go look it up.

As for sin boldly, I understood it as his own words, for which a man is responsible for. To propound such nonesense in a letter to your best friend and expect people 500 years from then to say, “Oh, he was just kidding”. What did he mean by it then?

peace