Luther’s views on sex and marriage are a perfect example of why Protestants have striven, lo these many centuries, to keep hidden, large portions of the writings of the reformers, particularly those of Luther.
But imagine doing such a thing. Imagine! This is simply inexcusable, and indeed, amounts to nothing short of an intellectual crime. Literally millions have been deprived of one of their most fundamental rights – the right to know the “whole truth.”
I’m just glad that this sad state of affair is begging to change. Thanks to Google Books and the Internet Archive (and a fellow named Armstrong), many of these formerly little known historical writings are becoming available online. Now just anyone can have unprecedented access to these fascinating historical documents. And for this I think we should all be thankful, Protestants and Catholics alike.
Maybe the time has finally come when so many old misconceptions and misunderstandings among Christians can actually begin to be resolved. Maybe the time has come when all Christians will be able to “come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4)
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
-
Dave, here are a few more online references you might find useful..
Letters of John Calvin, ed. by Jules Bonnet. Thomas Constable, Edinburgh. Vol.1 (1855) and Vol.2 (1857), online from the Internet Archive.
http://www.archive.org/search.ph...y=john%
20calvin
The history of the popes, from the close of the Middle Ages. Drawn from the secret archives of the Vatican and other original sources, Ludwig von Pastor, Several volumes online from Google Books.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Lud..._Volumes_Online
The popes and science; the history of the papal relations to science during the middle ages and down to our own time, James Joseph Walsh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Jam...es_Joseph_Walsh
Ben: the mistake many Roman Catholics make is to assume that Luther and the other Reformers function as quasi-papal authorities for "protestants", so that finding "embarrassing" writings - and often the "scandalous" nature of these passages seems to be being read into them rather than read out of them, but let's let that pass - will then shake these schismatics to the core of their being, opening them up to receiving "a knowledge of the truth".
Now, for some "protestants" that may well in fact be true, and I dare say a number of conversions to Roman Catholicism have their origins in such shattered images of morally perfect Reformers.
But the bottom line is this: whatever Luther may have said about polygamy in this or that writing, letter or sermon, the Evangelical Lutheran Church has never, ever practised or taught polygamy, and those writings form no part of the confession of faith of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (or of any other "protestant" church). Luther's speculations on the subject may be a fascinating topic, but the Lutheran church never adopted those speculations in practice, nor do we treat Luther's writings as holy writ or as authoritative in toto.
Find me something in the Smalcald Articles or the Small or Large Catechisms or any other part of the Lutheran confessions that support your thesis here, and that might be a different matter.
Luther's views on polygamy are a practical example ofapplied sola scriptura.
They also seem to help illustrate the old saw that heresy begins below the belt.
Yes, Luther was famously polygamistic.
Erm...
That's spectacular, Ben. I happen to have volumes 3-5 of that series of Calvin's letters, so this completes the set.
Ben: the mistake many Roman Catholics make is to assume that Luther and the other Reformers function as quasi-papal authorities for "protestants", so that finding "embarrassing" writings - and often the "scandalous" nature of these passages seems to be being read into them rather than read out of them, but let's let that pass - will then shake these schismatics to the core of their being, opening them up to receiving "a knowledge of the truth".
This is the standard answer. I don't know how many people fall into this fallacy but it has never applied to me. All I'm interested in is for the teachings of the so-called "Reformers" to be known in their full breadth and scope. Only then can it be completely understood why the Church reacted the way it did to this revolutionary movement.
If Luther thought polygamy and concubinage were permissible, then that is a scandalous position for any Christian to take, be he pope or peasant. Period. That's precisely why the bigamy of Philip of Hesse (which also included sanctioning of lies on Luther's part) is widely considered the biggest scandal of the "Reformation."
Find me something in the Smalcald Articles or the Small or Large Catechisms or any other part of the Lutheran confessions that support your thesis here . . .
What "thesis"? Again; I'm simply presenting historical facts. I have a lot of posted material about Luther. But it's not all "negative." In fact, I have counted fifteen papers about Luther that I have written, where I either agree with him or take a neutral position regarding his views (certainly not opposed).
Like history in general and important historical figures, Luther is very complex and a mixed bag.
Yes, Luther was famously polygamistic.
Of course he wasn't personally (he was pro-choice; personally opposed but it's okay if anyone else does it). Luther did, however, think little of violating solemn vows made to God, pertaining to the priesthood and female religious. He encouraged folks to ignore those, which is an extremely serious matter, once one understands the high importance that God puts on solemn vows and oaths (much biblical material about that).
the high importance that God puts on solemn vows and oaths (much biblical material about that)
Yes, Jephthah springs to mind...
"Yes, Luther was famously polygamistic."
In a sense, yes. He'd already taken a vow of celibacy, "marrying" the Church. He then took a second spouse, a nun.
These historical pictures help demonstrate that if one wants to have a solidly Biblical church one needs to live and preach the call to holiness. Holiness builds unity. Sin divides people and gives them egoes.
Cardinal Archbishop, Henry Edward, in his prefatory note to Ludwig Pastor's "History" wrote the following (Oct. 27, 1891):
“Professor Pastor’s ‘History of the Popes from the Close of the Middle Ages’ comes to us with a singular weight of authority….because this history may be regarded as the first- fruits of the action of the Holy Father, which, a little time ago SO SURPRISED THE WRITERS OF ANTI-CATHOLIC HISTORY. Leo XIII, as it will be remembered, addressed a letter to the five Cardinals whom he had appointed as a commission to oversee the publication of historical matters contained in the Vatican Archives.
The Holy Father charged them to see that the history of the Holy See and of the Church should be written with ABSOLUTE TRUTH... of which we have a divine example in Holy Writ, where THE SINS, EVEN OF THE SAINTS are as OPENLY RECORDED AS THE WICKEDNESS OF SINNERS.”
Pastor, vol. 1, p. iii. http://books.google.com/books?vi...r=1#PRA1-
PR3,M1
see also: Pastor, vol. v, "Corruption of the Italian Clergy of all Ranks," 169ff., and Fra Girolama Savonarola 181ff. http://books.google.com/books?&h...0all%20Ranks%
22
In a letter to Francesco Chieregati, dated Nov. 25, 1522, Pope Adrian VI makes this startling admission:
“The Scriptures complain that the sins of the people come from the sins of the priests, and, therefore, (as Chrysostom says), our Saviour, when He was about to cure the sickness of the city of Jerusalem, went to the Temple to chastise first of all the sins of the priests, like a good physician, like a good physician who cures disease by going to its root.
WE KNOW THAT IN THIS HOLY SEE,THERE HAVE BEEN MANY ABOMINATIONS THESE MANY YEARS--ABUSES IN SPIRITUAL THINGS, EXCESSIVE DECREES, AND EVERYTHING PERVERTED; nor is there any wonder if the disease has descended from the head to the members; FROM THE SUPREME PONTIFF TO PRELATES OF LOWER RANK.
‘We all (i.e., we prelates and ecclesiastics) have gone aside everyone to his own ways, and there is none that did good, no, not one (psalm 14:3).’ Therefore it is necessary that we all give glory to God and humble our souls before Him, and each of us see whence he has fallen, and rather judge himself than await the judgment of God in His rod of anger.”
Luther's Correspondence and Other Contemporary Letters, vol.2 p.146 by Preserved Smith.
http://books.google.com/books?id...ters%22&
jtp=146
The Church has been open and forthright about the sins of her leaders. Shouldn't Protestants be equally so? Certainly the time is long overdue.
Well, they can't, Ben, because that goes against the Myth of Protestant Origins, that I have written about before.
Ironically, there seems to be tendencies towards two poles in Protestant thought: the one pretends that the so-called "Reformers" were these holy noble, selfless, apolitical, freedom-loving, tolerant characters who wouldn't hurt a flea, and who fought heroically against Romish evils and pretense and abomination, bringing the Church back to its roots.
The other pole is to recognize (as anyone familiar with the history must) that there were great sins and hypocrisies among the Protestant Founders, too, but to not care: the opposite pole of indifferentism and postmodernist apathy as to one religious truth claim over against another: the perpetual quest after truth routine.
Dave: I can honestly say I have never met a single person who holds to either of the positions you describe. But then, most of the people I know are made of flesh and blood, not straw.
If I were to summarise the mainstream position, it would be this: "We don't agree with everything the Reformers said or did, but we do agree with what they confessed about the gospel". Wholly different from, and unrelated to, either of the "poles" you describe.
As for Luther's vows, presumably if a protestant pastor, who had made an ordination vow to hold to his church's teachings, then wished to convert to Roman Catholicism, you would then tell him regretfully that God takes vows very seriously, and accordingly he should remain where he is rather than break such a solemn pledge to the Almighty.
Dave,
I know the drill well. And I’ve seen my share of the enormous amount of anti-Catholicism on the web. And how often it’s the same old sixteenth century reform nonsense; “the pope’s the anti-Christ.” “the Catholic church is the whore of Babylon,” and of course, that all time favorite —“Catholics worship Mary” (that is the all time favorite isn’t it?).
Heaven forbid that any these silly benighted people (some of who seem otherwise honorable and intelligent) should ever consider posting primary source documents (I’ve got some great suggestions!) on their websites! No, that definitely wouldn’t do. For that would allow their equally benighted followers to glimpse behind the veil of centuries of deception and behold the “reformers” in all their true “glory” (here bow reverently). And then all those troubling questions….
Just for the record, let me say clearly that I am not in any way anti-Protestant. After all, half of my family is Protestant! My mother, like her mother before her, was as a convert. Both were raised Methodist. Just prior to World War Two, my grandmother converted to Catholicism via Anglicanism. My mother, who followed her into the Church shortly thereafter, told me that my grandmother had read her way into the Church. In 1952 my mother married my father, a “cradle Catholic,” and in 1956 I appeared on the scene. Growing up, most of my friends were Protestants. And today I have good friend who is a Baptist fundamentalist (but very liberal politically) with whom I often disagree. My point is this: I don’t see any contradiction between being critical of certain individuals (Catholic, Protestant or whatever) on the one hand, and having strong affections for those same individuals on the other.
"As for Luther's vows, presumably if a protestant pastor, who had made an ordination vow to hold to his church's teachings, then wished to convert to Roman Catholicism, you would then tell him regretfully that God takes vows very seriously, and accordingly he should remain where he is rather than break such a solemn pledge to the Almighty."
Speaking of straw . . . .
John H is correct. Dave, your exaggeration of the two extreme poles is just wrong.
Protestants never claim any kind of “infallibility” or “impeccability” for Luther or Calvin or anyone – only Jesus is both infallible and impeccable. And we are not “not caring” or cavalier about those sins and mistakes. They are serious and were wrong and we grieve and feel the pain and shame and embarrassment. Nevertheless, just as David’s adultery and murder does not take away from the truths in the Psalms that he wrote, so also Luther’s sins do not take away from his insights into Romans and Galatians on justification by faith.
How do we know these records are true, if they only came out around 1900; and they are written by Roman Catholic writers? (You can understand the reluctance and suspicion of bias, right?) Table Talk has many different writers, compilers, and memory issues, and the context was their late night drinking beer discussions; and there are many questions over many of those records.
From what I have seen, historians and Protestants, when we know about Luther’s sins, such as his cursing, and dirty mouth of scatology, and harsh words against the Jews, (it was indeed over the top and cruel, but his main motivation was theological, not racial; that is, he was mainly frustrated with them not responding to the gospel.). Nevertheless, we all admit that Luther was wrong and sinned in his harsh language against the Jews. Same would go for this issue, if he gave active counsel for Philip that is was OK to have a second wife or concubine, etc., and justifying it on the OT patriarchs and Kings. But, of what I did read in your post, he was against divorce; so give him credit for that, at least.
When those secret sins were exposed to the light of day, as even Jesus predicted – we are pained, but we confess them. Has the Vatican confessed the problems with the homosexual and pedophile priests, and those that cover it up, like Bernard Law of the Boston diocese?
Piper quoting Heiko Oberman’s book, Luther: Man between God and the Devil , wrote,
“Nevertheless most will agree that even though the thrust and breakthrough of the Reformation against such massive odds required some of Luther’s forcefulness, a line was often crossed into unwarranted invective and sin. Heiko Oberman is surely right to say, “Where resistance to the Papal State, fanaticism, and Judaism turns into the collective vilification of papists, Anabaptists, and Jews, the fatal point has been reached where the discovery of the Devil’s power becomes a liability and a danger.” Luther’s sometimes malicious anti-Semitism was an inexcusable contradiction of the Gospel he preached. Oberman observes with soberness and depth that Luther aligned himself with the Devil here; and the lesson to be learned is that this is possible for Christians, and to demythologize it is to leave Luther’s anti-Semitism in the hands of modern unbelief with no weapon against it. In other words, the devil is real and can trip up a great man into graceless behavior, even as he recovers grace from centuries of obscurity.” (John Piper, The Legacy of Sovereign Joy: God’s Triumphant Grace in the Lives of Augustine, Luther, and Calvin, Crossway Books, p. 31-32)
Also, that picture you have of the Polygamists - what is that? Is that a Mormon leader? The one that the FBI is trying to find?
I could not find anywhere where you label it; and having that up with Luther is ridiculous.
He would not have taught or practiced anything like that.
Since both Oberman and Piper wrote about and admitted the sins of Luther, both of you are wrong in what you wrote below. Most people I know freely admit the sins of Luther when we know about them and see them; especially the harsh writings against the Jews because we know about that.
"The Church has been open and forthright about the sins of her leaders. Shouldn't Protestants be equally so? Certainly the time is long overdue.
Ben
" Well, they can't, Ben, because that goes against the Myth of Protestant Origins, that I have written about before." Dave A.
From Wikopedia, on Bernard Law -- who participated at the Papal conclave in 2005 on John Paul II's commemoration. He is still a Cardinal? How open and forthright is all of this issue from the RCC?
"In response to the scandal, over fifty priests signed a letter declaring no confidence in Cardinal Law and asking him to resign - something that had never before happened in the history of the Church in America. Law submitted his resignation to the Vatican and Pope John Paul II accepted it on December 13, 2002.
In a statement Cardinal Law said, "To all those who have suffered from my shortcomings and mistakes I both apologize and from them beg forgiveness". He remained cardinal, which is a separate appointment, and participated in the 2005 papal conclave.
After his resignation, John Paul appointed Law to several authoritative positions in Rome and the Vatican. He is currently the archpriest of the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore. He is also a member of the Congregations of Oriental Churches, Clergy, Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, Evangelisation of Peoples, Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, Catholic Education, Bishops as well as the Pontifical Council for the Family. This is a large number of organisations for any cardinal to be involved in and is partly due to residing in Rome.
Hi Ken,
Hey, all I'm doing is presenting the historical record. You can squeal and moan about that all you like and play games with my presentation, but it doesn't change the facts.
Protestants have a long history of excessive, cynically selective pseudo-hagiography with regard to the "reformers" (especially when they seek to contrast them with the Catholic "Dark Ages" that supposedly preceded them).
Anti-Catholics in particular, keep it going today, so that it remains prominent among historically-uninformed laymen.
Most Protestant scholars and Church historians today, however, have moved beyond that and honestly present facts of history, whether "good" or "bad" for Protestant polemics.
You really have no substantive argument here, so you opt for the "your dad's uglier than mine" approach and juvenile, bankrupt barbs at Grisar's accuracy:
"How do we know these records are true, if they only came out around 1900; and they are written by Roman Catholic writers?"
Well, because we have primary sources that can be checked! Even anti-Catholic James Swan admitted that Grisar is accurate and can be trusted in that way, as I noted on this blog:
"I will say though, in my own use of Grisar, I have found him to be mostly reliable with his citations."
(2-7-07)
http://beggarsallreformation.blo...-grisar-
on.html
Furthermore, Grisar habitually cites Protestant historians (mostly Lutherans) in agreement, on particulars. He did so in this portion. I can easily back this up with a dozen Protestant historians in my own collection. It's common knowledge that this was the biggest scandal of the "Reformation." What is it you dispute?
If you think Grisar is inaccurate, then prove it; don't give me this crap that he can't be trusted, with no evidence presented for why anyone should think so, beyond the fact that the man was a Catholic. You can't get away with that sort of nonsense on this blog.
“How do we know these records are true, if they only came out around 1900; and they are written by Roman Catholic writers?”
How do we know they are true? It’s simple, Ken; CHECK THE SOURCES. Oh, I forgot! Said sources have been “HIDDEN WITH EMBARASMENT” for five centuries! Pity. Hey wait a minute! Here's an idea. Of course it might involve still more “embarrassment,” but it just might solve the difficulty. Consider this:
Just have Protestants put the ALL the writings of the reformers (at least those of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Melanchthon) online. That way, almost anyone (gasp!) could read and check these works, and Protestant suspicions regarding the trustworthiness of Catholic writers (Grisar, Pastor, Armstrong, et al) could be, once and for all, either vindicated or allayed.
Of course those writings would have to be translated into English - a bit of work to be sure. But certainly no more so than that of having had Pastor’s forty volume “History of the Popes” translated into English over A HUNDRED YEARS AGO! And with the incredible tools we have nowadays, such an undertaking would be much easier to accomplish.
Therefore I say, Protestants should, in the interest of historical truth, and for the greater benefit of human knowledge, OVERCOME THEIR RELUCTANCE to having the works OF THEIR OWN REFORMERS, who so profoundly altered the course of world history, be made known. Until such time as they do so, it will be THEIR credibility, not that of Catholics, which must REMAIN in question.
-------------------------
Some online works -- German and Latin only:
.
Luther’s Briefe, Sendschreiben, und Bedenken i.e., Luther’s Letters, Circulars, (or “Open letters”), and Considerations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Wil...te#Online_works
One volume of “D. Martini Lutheri Opera latina varii argumenti ad Reformationis historiam imprimis pertinentia” -- Erlanger edition of Luther’s Works, 67 vols.
http://books.google.com/books?vi...ie+%
22#PPP12,M1
The Corpus Reformatorum. Again, only a few volumes online.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Cor...us_Reformatorum
-----------------------
Luther’s works, earliest editions -- not online in any language. The Wittenberg and Jena (pronounced Yay- nah) eds. entitled:
“Alle Bücher und Schriften des Theuren Seligen Mannes Gottes Dr. M. Luther”
(All Books and writings of the dear blessed Man of God Dr. M. Luther)
http://books.google.com/books?vi...d+Schriften+%
22
Try subst. Schrifften for Schriften and/or Teurer for Theuren in web searches.
Concordia Theological Seminary seems to have some of these works -- Rare books room.
http://hickory.palni.edu:4505/F/...0001&
format=999
"Said sources have been “HIDDEN WITH EMBARRASSMENT” for five centuries!"
I meant to say that said sources have been with “HIDDEN WITH EMBARRASSMENT” from THE AVERAGE PERSON for five centuries.
Dave is right when he says there are "primary sources that can be checked." But for the most part, this is true ONLY FOR SCHOLARS who have knowledge of, and access to, the relevant literature; literature, which the majority of people don’t even realize exists, and which they wouldn't be able to read anyway without their having acquired a solid knowledge of the original languages.
So for all practical purposes these writings, many of which are of the UTMOST HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE continue to be sealed from public view. But maybe these “Dark Ages” will soon be coming to an end. Let’s hope. FIAT LUX! (LET THERE BE LIGHT!).
Dave and Ben,
You make good points and most of my post was not about what you focused on; I freely admitted the sins of Luther and even quote two other protestant writers on that. You guys ignored the basic thrust of my whole post; that John H was right and there is not that extreme polarity you describe and we freely admit the sins of Luther and others when known.
I accept the history and sources of Grisar, as you have documented it and James Swan has spent a lot of time on this also.
My main point was that John H was right and most Protestants are not in those two extremes you put forth; and we do freely own up to that stuff, when it is known and can be backed up; so you are right basically --
Luther was wrong to counsel Philip of Hesse and those views on Henry VII also, but it seems from what I read, he was more against Divorce, so that is why he used the OT patriarchs as examples of polygamy and that God "allowed" and "permitted" it in the OT, etc.
Many missionaries who start out in a polygamist culture, do not counsel divorcing all their wives but one; but rather view divorce as worse than polygamy, and that the Christian who was once a pagan should still take care of his wives, but that he cannot be an elder or pastor ( I Timothy 3, "husband of one wife"), and to teach the next generation God's ideal of marriage as one male and one female (Gen. 1:27, 5:2, 2:18-25, I Timothy 3, Titus 1, Matthew 5, 19, Mark 10, Ephesians 5, etc.)
Luther was obviously embarrassed about this stuff with Philip of Hesse, (for he knew it was wrong; or that it seemed or could be interpreted as him seeking to keep himself in good graces with the political powers) and that is why he did not want it to come out publicly.
OOPPS ! -- typo --
". . . and those views on Henry VII also. . . "
should have been Henry VIII
Why don't you at least label the picture with the Mormons (it looks like the Polygamist guy that the FBI is trying to find, Jeffers, I think is his name, he has been on the news for his radical Mormonism and polygamy) and polygamy and be fair that that is not something that has anything to do with Luther?
That is not "squealing and moaning" but just calling for accuracy and fairness.
The point is that Luther's scriptural approach is ancestral to the Mormon's former practice of polygamy. Scripture Alone cannot adequately support a ban on polygamy, which is permitted in the Old Testament and never explicitly banned in the New.
Luther was obviously embarrassed about this stuff with Philip of Hesse, (for he knew it was wrong; or that it seemed or could be interpreted as him seeking to keep himself in good graces with the political powers) and that is why he did not want it to come out publicly.
Luther pretended that what he counseled Philip was a species of confession: something even Melanchthon showed no awareness of.
He also thought that it was a fine-tuned, nuanced question of moral theology that the common people were too stupid to understand. In other words, he was being an elitist, and also obviously brown-nosing for political favor.
That's exactly why Melanchthon made overtures to Henry VIII. Obviously, if they had the political leadership of England on their side, then this would be a great coup for the "Reformation." So they catered to the king's lusts. They didn't give a damn about what was right in this instance.
Then Luther counseled lying to cover up his idiotic, unbiblical counsel, because he knew down deep that folks wouldn't accept his reasoning. But he didn't really repent of it. He acted exactly as Bill Clinton often acted. No true repentance there. He always kept the polygamist option as permissible in some circumstances (situation ethics, in other words). I think the episode speaks volumes about the character, ethics, and theological errors of the Protestant founders.
Why don't you at least label the picture with the Mormons (it looks like the Polygamist guy that the FBI is trying to find, Jeffers, I think is his name, he has been on the news for his radical Mormonism and polygamy) and polygamy and be fair that that is not something that has anything to do with Luther?
That is not "squealing and moaning" but just calling for accuracy and fairness.
Hogwash. If a person advocates polygamy, there is nothing wrong with posting a picture in an article about same, of a polygamist. Polygamists have many wives, and hence, lots of children.
This is not even a rational objection, let alone an issue of "accuracy and fairness." It is exactly accurate, because this is the "fruit" of polygamy (pun half-intended).
And dontcha love the portrayal of Luther (from his lifetime) with a halo and the Holy Spirit descending upon him (a combination of saint and our Lord Jesus)? Yet we are told that Protestants never overestimate Luther's saintliness and supposed (often self-proclaimed) quasi-prophetic, pseudo-messianic status.
Of course they do; always have. Scholars today don't, as I happily noted, but it's very common among Protestant laymen.
Luther was far, far closer in character to Bill Clinton or Machiavelli than to Jesus or St. Francis of Assisi. That's not to say I think he was an "evil" man through and through. I don't; just saying that if comparisons must be made in his case, it ain't to saints.
Commenting by HaloScan
