What do Catholics and Protestants have in common that makes us family?

[Christian_Unity]

If you read Matthew 19 you will see that Jesus affirms marriage between one man and one women as the ideal, as it was in the beginning with Adam and Eve.

We do not know if Adam have multiple wives, but it is very likely that he did considering how polygamy is the norm in the Bible. You guys might be shocked that both Martin Luther and Saint Augustine defended Bible polygamy in their days. Did you know God instructed the Israelite warriors on how to take additional wives through the spoils of war? And yes, God did bless King David with wives. Please consider Matthew 19 in the correct context which was about divorce and not defining what a biblical marriage is. Remember, I’m not Catholic and turn to Scripture alone for what I believe as a Christian. Therefore, context of a verse is significant in how I determine truth. Proof texting is a no no in my Christian circle. - Peace

 

[SonCatcher]

We do not know if Adam have multiple wives

How many ribs do you think he could spare?

but it is very likely that he did considering how polygamy is the norm in the Bible.

Just because a few headliners practiced it does not equate it being the norm. The Bible also records the horrors their multiple marriages produced (incest, fatal sibling rivalry, apostasy, etc). If anything, they should be considered cautionary entries (“this is why you don’t…”).

You guys might be shocked that both Martin Luther and Saint Augustine defended Bible polygamy in their days. Did you know God instructed the Israelite warriors on how to take additional wives through the spoils of war? And yes, God did bless King David with wives.

People sometimes think they need to explain everything just because it’s in the Bible.

Can you provide an exact citation for God “blessing” Davis with wives? The best I can find is 2 Samuel 12:8 where Nathan is indicting David for adultery and murder. The context there is plainly to highlight the gravity of David’s sin.

Please consider Matthew 19 in the correct context which was about divorce and not defining what a biblical marriage is.

A more accurate description would be “marriage and divorce.” In fact, a number of translations title the passage such. There were many occasions that people asked Jesus about one subject and he taught more completely than what was asked. This is hardly unique to this passage.

In order to fully teach why divorce is such a serious crime, Jesus expounded on what marriage is. If his teaching on marriage were somehow inadequate, his teaching on divorce would be incorrect. At the least, the foundation for the teaching would be inadequate and later theologians would have to provide suitable undergirding for the indissolubility of marriage. The fast that hasn’t happened attests to the teaching’s merits.

Remember, I’m not Catholic and turn to Scripture alone for what I believe as a Christian. Therefore, context of a verse is significant in how I determine truth. Proof texting is a no no in my Christian circle. - Peace

I have just just debunked your allegation of proof texting.

Have a nice day.

 

[JonNC]

Baptism and our faith in Christ unite us. The Catholic Church considers all Christians baptized with the trinitarian rite, intending to baptise to be in imperfect union with the Church.

In my experience, having looked into many Protestant denominations before I was reconciled with the Church, every one of them, to one degree or another, was founded on denying some aspect of Catholic doctrine. Trying to get all those groups to agree, much less be reunited with the Catholic Church, would be like herding cats.

Then try one at a time.

Jon

 

[Christian_Unity]

Saint Augustine who gave a defense of biblical polygamy:

whatdidaugustinesayaboutpolygamy.blogspot.com/

 

[SonCatcher]

Saint Augustine who gave a defense of biblical polygamy:

whatdidaugustinesayaboutpolygamy.blogspot.com/

St. Augustine is not known for his chastity, unfortunately. His writings are also known for instilling a certain prudishness into Christian society and giving us the old idea that the marriage vocation is somehow less holy than the consecrated life. Even without that context, his “defense” is underwhelming in that he mainly appeals to legal permissiveness. By the same argument abortion must somehow be a moral alternative because it is now legal and even “safe” (we know otherwise, of course).

 

[Christian_Unity]

St. Augustine is not known for his chastity, unfortunately. His writings are also known for instilling a certain prudishness into Christian society and giving us the old idea that the marriage vocation is somehow less holy than the consecrated life. Even without that context, his “defense” is underwhelming in that he mainly appeals to legal permissiveness. By the same argument abortion must somehow be a moral alternative because it is now legal and even “safe” (we know otherwise, of course).

I find Saint Augustine to be very interesting since he is well received by both Catholics and Protestants alike. You can almost say that Augustine believed like the Apostle Paul and Apostle John on the issue known as Calvinism (sovereignity of God and predestination).

 

[R_C]

I find Saint Augustine to be very interesting since he is well received by both Catholics and Protestants alike. You can almost say that Augustine believed like the Apostle Paul and Apostle John on the issue known as Calvinism (sovereignity of God and predestination).

You mean the heresy known as Calvinism.

 

[Gorgias]

We do not know if Adam have multiple wives, but it is very likely that he did considering how polygamy is the norm in the Bible.

I’m not so certain that it’s “very likely”. Since you “turn to Scripture alone for what I believe” and find that the “context of a verse is significant”, ask yourself – who is the first character in the Bible with many wives? I think you’ll find that it’s not Adam.

 

[Christian_Unity]

I’m not so certain that it’s “very likely”. Since you “turn to Scripture alone for what I believe” and find that the “context of a verse is significant”, ask yourself – who is the first character in the Bible with many wives? I think you’ll find that it’s not Adam.

If Adam didn’t have multiple wives, the reason probably had to do with the lack of available additional wives that were around for Adam to marry. Do you believe incest was probable with Adam’s children? Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob all married relatives and had multiple wives. Abraham married his half sister Sarah. Polygamy and incestuous marriages are more common in Scripture than what most Christian realize. I’m just sharing my perspective that a defense of a traditional marriage between a man and a woman is not a biblical position. Here is a site defending bible polygamy. Augustine defended polygamy and so did Luther.

biblepolygamy.com/

 

[Gorgias]

If Adam didn’t have multiple wives, the reason probably had to do with the lack of available additional wives that were around for Adam to marry.

So which is it – “Adam very likely had multiple wives” or “Adam had a lack of available additional wives”?

Do you believe incest was probable with Adam’s children?

I believe that a literalistic approach to the pre-patriarchal part of Genesis might lead one to suggest such a theory.

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob all married relatives and had multiple wives. Abraham married his half sister Sarah. Polygamy and incestuous marriages are more common in Scripture than what most Christian realize.

Yet, (as was mentioned above, IIRC) Jesus addressed this, saying that in the beginning, that wasn’t how it was supposed to be. These, the words of our Savior himself, would seem to be the pinnacle of our “biblical position” on marriage, wouldn’t they?

Augustine defended polygamy

That’s hardly a defensible position. Augustine wrote:

We must also be on our guard against supposing that what in the Old Testament, making allowance for the condition of those times, is not a crime or a vice even if we take it literally and not figuratively, can be transferred to the present time as a habit of life. For no one will do this except lust has dominion over him, and endeavors to find support for itself in the very Scriptures which were intended to overthrow it.

… For, if it was possible for one man to use many wives with chastity, it is possible for another to use one wife with lust. And I look with greater approval on the man who uses the fruitfulness of many wives for the sake of an ulterior object, than on the man who enjoys the body of one wife for its own sake. For in the former case the man aims at a useful object suited to the circumstances of the times; in the latter case he gratifies a lust which is engrossed in temporal enjoyments.

(On Christian doctrine, Book 3, Ch 18)

In other words, Augustine is saying that it’s improper to look at the situation of Old Testament times and presume that what may have been allowable back then can be used to support an argument about what’s allowable now – in fact, that line of reasoning is really an attempt to distort what Scripture was saying (that is, it’s trying to make Scripture appear to support something it was attempting to ‘overthrow’)! Moreover, when he explicitly addresses polygamy, he doesn’t say that polygamy is good: rather, he points out that it’s at least better than being lustful while monogamous. If I said “getting drunk and passing out is better than fornicating”, would you presume I’m telling you that getting drunk and passing out is something I approve of? Puh-leeze!

By the way – the assertion that Luther defended polygamy is supposed to be persuasive… why? There’s lots that Luther said that Catholics would find untenable…

 

[Della]

Then try one at a time.

Jon

The Church is trying, but there will always be ones that simply don’t want unity if it means they can’t have things as they want them. That’s fallen human nature, I’m afraid. The Church will reconcile with any and all who wish to embrace the unalterable teachings of Christ and his Church.

 

[Christian_Unity]

So which is it – “Adam very likely had multiple wives” or “Adam had a lack of available additional wives”?

 

[Christian_Unity]

So which is it – “Adam very likely had multiple wives” or “Adam had a lack of available additional wives”?

I believe that a literalistic approach to the pre-patriarchal part of Genesis might lead one to suggest such a theory.

Yet, (as was mentioned above, IIRC) Jesus addressed this, saying that in the beginning, that wasn’t how it was supposed to be. These, the words of our Savior himself, would seem to be the pinnacle of our “biblical position” on marriage, wouldn’t they?

That’s hardly a defensible position. Augustine wrote:

(On Christian doctrine, Book 3, Ch 18)

In other words, Augustine is saying that it’s improper to look at the situation of Old Testament times and presume that what may have been allowable back then can be used to support an argument about what’s allowable now – in fact, that line of reasoning is really an attempt to distort what Scripture was saying (that is, it’s trying to make Scripture appear to support something it was attempting to ‘overthrow’)! Moreover, when he explicitly addresses polygamy, he doesn’t say that polygamy is good: rather, he points out that it’s at least better than being lustful while monogamous. If I said “getting drunk and passing out is better than fornicating”, would you presume I’m telling you that getting drunk and passing out is something I approve of? Puh-leeze!

By the way – the assertion that Luther defended polygamy is supposed to be persuasive… why? There’s lots that Luther said that Catholics would find untenable…

I try real hard not to be dogmatic in which Scripture is silent. Who knows how many wives Adam really had. The contemporay issue of same sex marriage is quite interersting. It might surprise you that other Chrisitans, churches, and entire denominations support same sex marriage as approved by God. I do believe the issue facing our country about same sex marriage is secular (equality for all); therefore, the church cannot use religious views and opinions to oppose it. If we try to use religion to define legal marriages, it would be a wash since Christians support and refute same sex marriage based of religious reasons.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessing_of_same-sex_unions_in_Christian_churches

 

[SonCatcher]

I find Saint Augustine to be very interesting since he is well received by both Catholics and Protestants alike. You can almost say that Augustine believed like the Apostle Paul and Apostle John on the issue known as Calvinism (sovereignity of God and predestination).

That’s an entirely different matter than the one you advance him for.

If Adam didn’t have multiple wives, the reason probably had to do with the lack of available additional wives that were around for Adam to marry. Do you believe incest was probable with Adam’s children? Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob all married relatives and had multiple wives. Abraham married his half sister Sarah. Polygamy and incestuous marriages are more common in Scripture than what most Christian realize. I’m just sharing my perspective that a defense of a traditional marriage between a man and a woman is not a biblical position. Here is a site defending bible polygamy. Augustine defended polygamy and so did Luther.

biblepolygamy.com/

Isaac had only one wife. Granted, she was a relative (though degree of relation is uncertain).

Certain degrees of incest were tolerated while the population was small. Even today, second cousins may marry.

I have already addressed Augustine’s so-called defense of polygamy (he essentially argued legal permissiveness, but his sexual past makes his opinions on such matters suspect).

I have located the Luther quote and it is similar. Essentially, he only said that he could not find sufficient reason against it and cited the example of certain Old Testament figures as supporting it. This is a very weak argument and he knew it. Hence, his reluctance to grant permission to Landgrave Philip of Hesse and subsequent disavowal of the permission.

 

[Christian_Unity]

That’s an entirely different matter than the one you advance him for.

Isaac had only one wife. Granted, she was a relative (though degree of relation is uncertain).

Certain degrees of incest were tolerated while the population was small. Even today, second cousins may marry.

I have already addressed Augustine’s so-called defense of polygamy (he essentially argued legal permissiveness, but his sexual past makes his opinions on such matters suspect).

I have located the Luther quote and it is similar. Essentially, he only said that he could not find sufficient reason against it and cited the example of certain Old Testament figures as supporting it. This is a very weak argument and he knew it. Hence, his reluctance to grant permission to Landgrave Philip of Hesse and subsequent disavowal of the permission.

Thanks for the correction on Issac. It appears he only had one wife. But you have to admit, as you work through the Scriptures… polygamy is quite common and is really is the biblical norm. Even Jesus used a polygamy parable in the NT. If you search Google, you will find that even today that polygamy is the norm in our world today. Therefore, when I see Christians trying to defend traditional marriage as one man and one woman, I do believe it is a man-made belief with no Scripture support.

socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/02/martin-luthers-lax-attitude-towards.html

 

[SonCatcher]

I try real hard not to be dogmatic in which Scripture is silent. Who knows how many wives Adam really had. The contemporay issue of same sex marriage is quite interersting. It might surprise you that other Chrisitans, churches, and entire denominations support same sex marriage as approved by God. I do believe the issue facing our country about same sex marriage is secular (equality for all); therefore, the church cannot use religious views and opinions to oppose it. If we try to use religion to define legal marriages, it would be a wash since Christians support and refute same sex marriage based of religious reasons.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessing_of_same-sex_unions_in_Christian_churches

You do not understand the purpose Christ had for establishing the Church. In the Great Commission, He instructed us to “preach the gospel to every creature”, not only to those who are baptized. If the culture is contrary to the Gospel, it is in part our purpose to conform the culture (primarily by bringing its citizens to the Lord and instructing them in His ways). Any time the culture champions an evil, it is our place to change it, insofar as it is possible. Failing to do so would be rejecting the Commission.

Jesus’ teaching on marriage applies equally to the issue of same-sex relationships. He taught that marriage is a lifelong commitment between one man and one woman, elevating our First Parents as the model. Obviously, this includes only mixed-sex couples.

The theological supports cited in the Wikipedia article are even more problematic than Luther’s and Augustine’s comments being used to support polygamy.

I am puzzled. Do you really want to discuss the things that unite all Christians or advance causes condemned by the Church since the Apostles?

 

[Ion]

They have the Orthodox

 

[Christian_Unity]

You do not understand the purpose Christ had for establishing the Church. In the Great Commission, He instructed us to “preach the gospel to every creature”, not only to those who are baptized. If the culture is contrary to the Gospel, it is in part our purpose to conform the culture (primarily by bringing its citizens to the Lord and instructing them in His ways). Any time the culture champions an evil, it is our place to change it, insofar as it is possible. Failing to do so would be rejecting the Commission.

Jesus’ teaching on marriage applies equally to the issue of same-sex relationships. He taught that marriage is a lifelong commitment between one man and one woman, elevating our First Parents as the model. Obviously, this includes only mixed-sex couples.

The theological supports cited in the Wikipedia article are even more problematic than Luther’s and Augustine’s comments being used to support polygamy.

I am puzzled. Do you really want to discuss the things that unite all Christians or advance causes condemned by the Church since the Apostles?

Can we just disagree agreeably on the issue of same sex marriage John? I’m sure there are many Catholics who struggle with the entire issue of same sex marriage in our country. Same sex marriage is silent in the Scriptures. When you study the six verses in Scriptures that have been traditionally used to condemn all homosexual relationships, it’s not there. Scripture never condemns a loving commited same sex orientation marriage or relationship. Even in the account of Sodom and Gomorrah, the sin of homosexuality is never mentioned when Scripture later defines the actual sins of Sodom.

Since we are both males John, in a way, we both are in a same sex marriage with Christ since He is our bridegroom, and the church consisting of both male and female is the bride.

 

[SonCatcher]

Thanks for the correction on Issac. It appears he only had one wife. But you have to admit, as you work through the Scriptures… polygamy is quite common and is really is the biblical norm. Even Jesus used a polygamy parable in the NT. If you search Google, you will find that even today that polygamy is the norm in our world today. Therefore, when I see Christians trying to defend traditional marriage as one man and one woman, I do believe it is a man-made belief with no Scripture support.

socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/02/martin-luthers-lax-attitude-towards.html

There is no such parable. A quick search does reveal a perverse reinterpretation of one parable (the wise and foolish virgins). You really need to stick to mainstream theological sources. This wacky fringe you keep citing isn’t healthy for your soul.

Remember, the Devil quoted Scripture in tempting Jesus. He does the same with men today.

The Holy Spirit protects the Church so that she cannot succumb to false doctrine. The same guarantee is not given to any one theologian. Not even St. Augustine.

 

[Christian_Unity]

There is no such parable. A quick search does reveal a perverse reinterpretation of one parable (the wise and foolish virgins). You really need to stick to mainstream theological sources. This wacky fringe you keep citing isn’t healthy for your soul.

Remember, the Devil quoted Scripture in tempting Jesus. He does the same with men today.

The Holy Spirit protects the Church so that she cannot succumb to false doctrine. The same guarantee is not given to any one theologian. Not even St. Augustine.

I’m not saying that the 10 virgins is about polygamy. I’m just saying that polygamy is never condemned in the Scriptures in the OT or NT. I’m also saying if Jesus condemned polygamy, he would never have used the 10 virgins bride and bridegroom parable. We can learn to disagree agreeably without name calling, right?