Did Luther promote Polygamy??!!

[Lamb]

I am always amused when people point to the Patriarchs as support for polygamy. Can someone point me to the patriarch where that worked out well for them?

Let's see, Abram/Abraham was married to just Sarah, but slept with her handmaiden to help God along with his plan. So let's count that as support for polygamy. How did that work out for him?

Isaac had one wife.

Jacob had two wives, one who was devoted to him, but unloved and one who was loved, but never satisfied. Then they used their handmaidens and children to wage a war for Jacob's affection. In the end, some of his children plotted to murder their half brother. So yeah, let's have polygamy because we need more families like that.

King David and Solomon had multiple wives, how did that turn out for them?

So where are these successful polygamy patriarchs in the Bible? Why on Earth would anyone want what they had?

You make good points. God tolerated polygamy but there are always consequences to our actions and those weren't always in our best interest.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

...God tolerated polygamy but there are always consequences to our actions and those weren't always in our best interest.

Reading some of the links, do you think this might have been some of the intent behind Luther's advice? He especially made this distinction for Christians who were trying to live holy lives.

 

[Lamb]

Reading some of the links, do you think this might have been some of the intent behind Luther's advice? He especially made this distinction for Christians who were trying to live holy lives.

I think Luther believed that it isn't always going to be a black or white answer.

 

[atpollard]

I think Luther believed that it isn't always going to be a black or white answer.

Luther was pretty smart there.

Here is a real world question that a missionary faced. You are working in Africa and you lead most of a remote village to accept Christ. Many of the men have two or three wives from before they became Christians. They read the Bible and accept that God intended each man to have one wife. What should they do about their wives and their children?

It really ISN'T all black and white.
Whenever possible, err on the side of love (self sacrifice for the well being of another).

 

[Pedrito]

Whether or not Luther promoted polygamy is relatively unimportant.

Why?

Because God actually ordered it!

To recapitulate and expand: Where did God ever censure the patriarchs or anyone in Israel for having more than one wife? Or in the New Testament for that matter? Neither David nor Solomon were censured, even though they ignored the counsel offered in Deuteronomy 17:17. And the only prohibition of polygamy in apostolic times applied to church leaders – one apparent reason being to prevent time conflicts between paying fair and proper attention to multiple wives, and devoting adequate time to ministering to the people under their care.

==============================================================================================

As mentioned generally in Post #12:

Deuteronomy 25:5:
If brothers live together, and one of them dies and has no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry outside to a stranger. Her husband's brother shall go in to her and take her as a wife for himself, and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her.

Polygamy. God ordered it and codified it in the Law.

And Genesis 38:6-10:
6 And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, whose name was Tamar.
7 And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him.
8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.
9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.
10 And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.

God had already made His requirements clear in patriarchal times.

==============================================================================================

From Post #5:
“Perhaps a back-fire of "Sola Scriptura" that Protestants hadn't counted on?...
...it's the back-fire thing.”

From Post #6:
“Sola Scriptura lands you in uncharted territory with every reader who wants to ignore tradition. Luther may have respected some of the saints and some of the church councils but he was in uncharted territory a lot of the time so he had to wing it for doctrines (and he did).”


Actually, the problem is that those who proclaim “Sola Scriptura” actually practice “Sola Scriptura As Modified By Selected Traditions”.

True and pure Sola Scriptura does not lead to “uncharted territory” nor to “backfire things”. It presents a coherent message which was appropriate at the time of the apostles. Learning what that message was, can only bring blessing, no matter what God-inspired additions or changes to doctrine and practice might have sprung into being thereafter.

Just what was that blessed apostolic “faith once and for all delivered to the saints”?

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Luther was pretty smart there.

Here is a real world question that a missionary faced. You are working in Africa and you lead most of a remote village to accept Christ. Many of the men have two or three wives from before they became Christians. They read the Bible and accept that God intended each man to have one wife. What should they do about their wives and their children?

It really ISN'T all black and white.
Whenever possible, err on the side of love (self sacrifice for the well being of another).

I'd tend to agree. Cultural perspectives really do need that type discernment.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Actually, the problem is that those who proclaim “Sola Scriptura” actually practice “Sola Scriptura As Modified By Selected Traditions”.

Then it's no longer "Sola Scriptura", and those that claim it are presented with the problem of how much "Selected Tradition really does influence their worldview.

True and pure Sola Scriptura does not lead to “uncharted territory” nor to “backfire things”. It presents a coherent message which was appropriate at the time of the apostles. Learning what that message was, can only bring blessing, no matter what God-inspired additions or changes to doctrine and practice might have sprung into being thereafter.

Just what was that blessed apostolic “faith once and for all delivered to the saints”?[/color]

How can you make the first statement about "Sola Scriptura As Modified By Selected Tradition", then state that "True and pure Sola Scriptura" exists? They cannot exist at the same time.

 

[TurtleHare]

Luther did not promote polygamy because wouldn't that involve him shoving it down our throats like the Mormons do insisting that it's for the better of mankind or whatever it is they say? It's one thing for a guy to say hey there is no direct command in our bible against this and it's another thing to say it was promoted by a guy who thought that was the true way of life, which Luther did not believe if you've read his writings.

 

[Josiah]

Then it's no longer "Sola Scriptura"

http://www.christianityhaven.com/sh...riptura-quot-The-Rule-of-Scripture-in-Norming



.

 

[Pedrito]

Pedrito:

Actually, the problem is that those who proclaim “Sola Scriptura” actually practice “Sola Scriptura As Modified By Selected Traditions”.

ImaginaryDay2:

Then it's no longer "Sola Scriptura", and those that claim it are presented with the problem of how much "Selected Tradition really does influence their worldview.

ImaginaryDay2 has just identified with clarity the origin of denominationalism – i.e. identified the source of the undeniable confusion that characterises Christendom.


==============================================================================================


Pedrito:

Actually, the problem is that those who proclaim “Sola Scriptura” actually practice “Sola Scriptura As Modified By Selected Traditions”.

True and pure Sola Scriptura does not lead to “uncharted territory” nor to “backfire things”. It presents a coherent message which was appropriate at the time of the apostles.

ImaginaryDay2:

How can you make the first statement about "Sola Scriptura As Modified By Selected Tradition", then state that "True and pure Sola Scriptura" exists? They cannot exist at the same time.

Actually, they can and do.

“Sola Scriptura As Modified By Selected Traditions” pertains to the established practices of religious groups (denominations, churches) that so prominently wave the “Sola Scriptura” flag (as well as others that are not so vocal (one could say)). Those practices wrest and ignore Holy Scripture in the interest of supporting post-Apostolic doctrine.

The term coined by Pedrito (“True and pure Sola Scriptura”) refers to the practice of using untainted Holy Scripture to determine what the original Apostolic Gospel was. That approach excludes the entrenched practices of quoting Scripture out of context and applying meanings that are exactly the opposite of what is actually stated – techniques that are necessary and employed when attempting to retrofit doctrines developed in the post-Apostolic period, into God’s Holy Revelation.

(That retrofitting should be unnecessary if God actually inspired the observable post-Apostolic development of progressively extended doctrine. Why not simply acknowledge that He did so?)

 

[Pedrito]

In God’s God’s Holy Revelation to us, He placed a number of predictive models (or types), indicating things He would bring about at a time then future to each of those models.

Ephesians 5:22-31 is one such model. It pertains to the one-man-one-wife principle. That principle is described thus in Verse 32: “This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.”.

The one-man-one-wife principle is an important living model of Christ and His Church.

It puts into clear context, other statements made by Paul regarding the visible roles of men and women, including hair styles and length, the wearing of head coverings, etc. Paul was not a misogynist. (Nor was he a misogamist.)

It is also another reason why church leaders were constrained to abide by that condition.

==============================================================================================

Post #19: “Given what Jesus said about marriage (the two shall be one flesh etcetera) the Catholic Church teaches monogamy and always has.”

Except for the immorality engaged in by popes and other Church clerics in times past, that is. (Is this one of Pedrito’s Red Flags, this time eliciting a challenge to provide historical examples?)

“...the Catholic Church teaches monogamy and always has”???

Not according to the historical record, Pedrito would suggest.

 

[Pedrito]

From Post #24:

Here is a real world question that a missionary faced. You are working in Africa and you lead most of a remote village to accept Christ. Many of the men have two or three wives from before they became Christians. They read the Bible and accept that God intended each man to have one wife. What should they do about their wives and their children?

Actually – Pedrito has knowledge of such situations because he once had a strong interest in what is termed foreign missions.

Many “Evangelical” missions used to force the converted husbands to abandon any and all wives taken after the first, together with their children. Depending on the particular culture, that action often condemned those rejected wives and children to lives of destitution. How clearly and strongly that must have reinforced the missionaries’ message that “the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts”! (Do you think?)

The Bible offers no censure regarding husbands having multiple wives before becoming Christians. Those husbands should be welcome, as should their families. However, those husbands are precluded from the office-bearing community within the Church.

==============================================================================================

Actually, the question of what to do about husbands having multiple wives arises from the inherent notion of cultural superiority.

Cultural superiority is totally contrary to Biblical revelation in the context of the Christian faith. (Does everyone know the relevant Scripture?)

Yet unfortunately, generally speaking, “foreign missions” (especially the “evangelical” ones) often have cultural superiority as a covert basis.

Pedrito remembers hearing an address by an authoritative representative of one “evangelical” missionary society, in which it was stated that the purpose of foreign missions was to “teach them the American way of life.”

The manner of stating, indicated that no censure of that statement was expected from any other missionary societies. (Not US based ones, anyway.) And Pedrito did not detect any negative reaction at the time. Not from the people being addressed, nor from the other members of that society there present.

==============================================================================================

The fact is that there were polygamous marriages in the church community in Paul’s day, and the fact is that no censure was forthcoming against them – no enforced splitting of families.

Who do we think we are, belonging to culture X, to assume the right to apply and enforce rules on people from culture Y, that are alien to apostolic teaching and practice?