The "Roman Catholic" Understanding of Martin Luther

I look a trip down cyber-memory lane this morning... back to the year of our Lord, 2003. Facebook was still a year away. There was no Twitter or Tik Tok... there wasn't even YouTube! What's still the same is back then we were sitting in front of computers feverishly taping away in theological discussions. Primarily, we had discussion boards and blogs.  Rome's defenders were still having a bit of a mini-Renaissance with regularly announcing convert conquests. It was not uncommon to find ex-Protestants turned Roman Catholic warriors with blogs or published books. Typical of converts to anything is convert zeal. Rome's newest converts spewed over with "coming home" to Rome and pointing out the flaws of their previous "Protestant" life. Who was ultimately responsible for their former Protestant life? Who was it that caused them to live without the fullness of truth for so long?  Yep, you guessed it: the same guy responsible for Nazi Germany- Martin Luther.  

What's interesting about many of those defenders of Rome back in 2003 was their historical analysis of Luther. I don't think many of them actually read much from any treatise actually written by Luther. They read books about Luther written from a Roman Catholic perspective.  In 1987, the Roman Catholic publisher TAN had reprinted one of the worst scathing attacks on Luther ever published: Father O'Hare's The Facts About Luther.  By 2003, this reprint probably had more impact on Rome's newest converts than it had when it was originally published! I bought the book from on an online bookstore named Amazon. This was back before Amazon sold cat food and every other material possession one desperately needs in two days.  They sent me two copies by accident.  

Father O'Hare's The Facts About Luther was my major introduction into trying to understand how Roman Catholics understood Luther. O'Hare's book is filled with error, including the abuse of primary and historical contexts, as well as being poorly documented. Similarly, a lot of Rome's defenders back in 2003 were... just like O'Hare's book!   

In trying to figure out what was going on with the content being put online by Rome's defenders, I did a simplistic study on Roman Catholic scholarly historical evaluations of Luther. There wasn't really anything significant online at the time addressing this. I spent a lot of time at the Westminster Seminary library trying to figure it out.  Two lengthy web-articles (now available via the Internet Archive) were the result:

The Roman Catholic Perspective of Luther (Part One) Destructive Criticism of Luther

The Roman Catholic Perspective of Luther (Part Two) Constructive Criticism of Luther

Looking back on these links I was once so proud of, now I see them as glorified book reports. Back then though, I think I was one of the first people to respond to Rome's zealous converts by explaining to them that Father O'Hare's book belonged to a period of Roman Catholic destructive criticism of Luther. Rome's scholars and historians had moved on, in fact, they were downright critical of the methods utilized by Father O'Hare.,, So much for Rome's converts being deep into history... they were clueless about Reformation history according to the Roman Catholic perspective!  

There is a sense in which I miss interacting with Rome's defenders in 2003. It was like shooting fish in a barrel. As I venture across cyber-space, I don't as often come into contact with the same number of Roman Catholic Luther-bashers as I used to. Then again, I'm not much of a Facebook person and I don't do Twitter. Maybe they're still out there on those platforms. I tend to think now so much more information is available, a certain number of people actually look stuff up before they hit "enter" on a keyboard. Back in 2003, there was not Google Books yet and Wikipedia was still not a force to be reckoned with. Also now besides my blog, many people have undertaken the goal of putting Luther's seemingly outrageous statements in context. Determining what Luther actually said and what context he said it in is now relatively easy.  All one needs to do is care to go deep into history with a few clicks on a keyboard or asking one of those nice ladies like Siri or Alexa to look something up!   

Luther: The Bible is clearer, simpler, and more reliable than any other writings

What is the easiest book to understand? According to an advocate of Eastern Orthodoxy I've been interacting with, Luther claimed it was the Bible.  He points to Luther stating,  

Holy Scripture must necessarily be clearer, simpler, and more reliable than any other writings. Especially since all teachers verify their own statements through the Scriptures as clearer and more reliable writings, and desire their own writings to be confirmed and explained by them. But nobody can ever substantiate an obscure saying by one that is more obscure; therefore, necessity forces us to run to the Bible with the writings of all teachers, and to obtain there a verdict and judgment upon them. Scripture alone is the true lord and master of all writings and doctrine on earth. If that is not granted, what is Scripture good for? The more we reject it, the more we become satisfied with men’s books and human teachers.5 

5. Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, Vol. 32: Career of the Reformer II, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann, vol. 32 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999), 11–12.

This person argued Luther was absolutely wrong that the Bible is simpler and clearer than any other writing.  On the face of it, it does certainly seem like Martin Luther made a logical blunder. Isn't a children's book much "simpler" than the Bible? I suspect there are many books in my own personal library that are "clearer" than the Bible as well.  Did the great Martin Luther have a misguided zeal in his claims about the Bible?  Sure, the Bible is a great book, but is it "clearer, simpler, and more reliable than any other writings"? Let's take a closer look.

Documentation

Even though the quote is found precisely in LW 32:11-12, this does not necessarily mean the person using it read LW 32 and mined it out; a simple Google search of the formatted reference ("5") suggests this quote was probably taken from R. Scott Clark's blog article, Was Sola Scriptura A Reformation Slogan And Doctrine?  Also, the bolding in the quote does not appear in Clark's blog article, nor in LW 32. 

The quote comes from Grund und Ursach aller Artikel D. Martin Luthers so durch römische Bulle unrechtlich verdammt sind, 1521 (Defense and Explanation of All the Articles). While this treatise is found in its original German from Luther's actual manuscript in WA 7, 308- 457 (with the quote appearing on page 317), the English translation this particular quote is based on primarily comes from O. Clemen, Luthers Werke in Auswahl, 11.  In Clemen, the quote is found on page 64: 

The English rendering of LW 32 is a revision of this treatise found in the Philadelphia Edition of Luther's Works vol. 3 (with the quote occurring on p. 16, found below).  Ewald Plass also includes an English translation of the quote in What Luther Says, Vol. 1, 74 (see below). 

Context

This is my answer to those also who accuse me of rejecting all the teachers of the Church. I do not reject them; but everyone knows that they have erred at times, as men will, I am willing to put confidence in them only so far as they give me proofs for their opinions out of the Scriptures, which never yet have erred. This St Paul commands me in 1 Thessalonians, the last chapter, where he says, “First prove and confirm all doctrines; hold fast that which is good.” St Augustine writes to St Jerome to the same effect: “I have learned to do only those books that are called the Holy Scriptures the honor of believing firmly that none of their writers has erred; all others I so read as not to hold what they say to be the truth, unless they prove it to me by the Holy Scriptures or by clear reason.”

The Holy Scriptures must needs be clearer, easier of interpretation and more certain than any other scriptures, for all teachers prove their statements by them, as by clearer and more stable writings, and wish their own writings to be established and explained by them. But no one can ever prove a dark saying by one that is still darker; therefore, necessity compels us to run to the Bible with all the writings of the doctors, and thence to get our verdict and judgment upon them; for Scripture alone is the true over-lord and master of all writings and doctrines on earth. If not, what are the Scriptures good for? Let us reject them and be satisfied with the books of men and human teachers.

Conclusion

As the contextualist I strive to be, I try to read materials according to their written and historical context. The quote being cited is from Luther's introductory general statement from his preface to a 1521 document in which he was responding to the papal bull Exsurge Domine. Luther's contention was that the Papal church was teaching errors not in accord with Scripture. A cursory reading of LW 32 demonstrates Luther's argument is partly in regard to the hierarchy of authority. Luther is simply saying the Bible is the final authority which determines the veracity of secondary authorities, particularly "all the teachers of the Church." In that sense, if the Bible is the final authority that judges secondary authorities, it is simpler and clearer, able to be judge and jury of lesser authorities. In practice: if one picks up any volume of Christian theology, however old or new, its veracity is determined by whether or not it can be substantiated by the ultimate authority of sacred scripture.

In this early period of Luther's fight with Rome, when the papists cited decrees, councils, fathers, etc. against him, his response was to counter with Scripture. As an experiment, if one reads LW 32: 12-19, "The First Article," Luther called out the Papal church for saying the sacraments give grace to anyone without almost any qualifications. Read Luther's answer and ask if the Papal church in the year 1521 was teaching something simpler and clearer than the Scriptures were teaching (Note also, Luther includes citations from Augustine in his answer). Luther's answers in the entirety of the Defense and Explanation of All the Articles demonstrates exactly what his preface alluded to: that the Scriptures gave infallible clarity on issues that had been obscured by the Papal church. The Bible was clearer, simpler, and more reliable than what the Papal church was saying. 

Luther did not adhere to Scriptura Nuda. Luther says specifically in the introduction of the work cited that he does not reject "all the holy teachers of the church." He says, "...everyone, indeed, knows that at times they have erred, as men will; therefore, I am ready to trust them only when they give me evidence for their opinions from Scripture, which has never erred." He then goes on to cite 1 Thes 5:21 and... Jerome! Luther therefore did not reject all authority of the church or tradition. He rejected the church and tradition as... infallible ultimate authorities. Luther's point is that one must take all theological documents and church tradition and judge them by their adherence to the Scriptures.

Addendum #1 Other English Renderings

Other English versions of this quote can be found here and here, Ewald Plass translates the quote as follows: 

"Holy Scripture must certainly be clearer, plainer, and more explicit than the writings of all others, because by it, as by a writing clearer and more reliable, all teachers prove their statements; and they want their writing to be confirmed and clarified by it. But surely no one can prove an obscure statement with a more obscure statement, Therefore we must needs turn to Scripture with the writings of all teachers and from that source get our judgments and verdict concerning them. For Scripture alone is the true lord and master of all writing and teaching on earth. If this is not to be. of what use is Scripture to us? Then we had better reject it and be satisfied with men's books and human teachers."

Addendum #2 Roman Catholic historian Hartmann Grisar

In his massive biography of Luther, Roman Catholic historian Hartmann Grisar says, 

Thus the Bible, according to a further statement, is "clearer, easier and more certain than any other writing." "It is in itself quite certain, quite easy and quite plain; it is its own explanation; it is the universal argument, judge and enlightener, and makes all clear to all." 

Later, however, the idea that Holy Scripture was obscure preponderated with him. Two days before his death Luther wrote in Latin on a piece of paper, which was subsequently found on his table, his thoughts on the difficulty of understanding Scripture : "No one can understand the Bucolics of Virgil who has not been a herdsman for five years; nor his Georgics unless he has laboured five years in the fields. In order to understand aright the epistles of Cicero a man must have been full twenty years in the public service of a great State. No one need fancy he has tasted Holy Scripture who has not ruled Churches for a hundred years with prophets like Elias and Eliseus, with John the Baptist, Christ and the Apostles." In all likelihood his experiences with the sectarians in his own camp led him towards the end of his life to lay more stress on the difficulty of understanding the Bible.

A first response to Grisar is based on a textual consideration. What's being cited from Luther (that the Scriptures are "obscure") is not something Luther actually wrote. Grisar is citing Table Talk utterance 5677. Second, this second-hand comment from Luther does not say that the Bible is obscure. The text says, "Let nobody suppose he has tasted the Holy Scriptures sufficiently unless he has ruled over the churches with the prophets for a hundred years (LW 54:476). The Table Talk also records Luther saying that since the Bible is the word of the Holy Spirit it's depth cannot be completely plumbed (utterance 1205, cf. What Luther Says, entry 212).  This sentiment makes more sense in regard to "tasting" the Scriptures rather than a despondent Luther declaring the Scriptures obscure two days before he died.

Addendum #3 William Whitiker 

In his book, A Disputation on Holy Scripture: Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton,

William Whitiker uses Luther's argument here. 

Our eighth argument is to this effect: The fathers proved their opinions out of the scriptures. Therefore the scriptures are clearer than the writings and commentaries of the fathers: for no one proves what is unknown by what is still more unknown. Luther hath this argument in the Preface of his Articles condemned by Leo X. The Jesuit answers, that the scriptures are indeed, in respect of their truth, clearer and more open than the writings of the fathers, but not in respect of the words. Which surely is a foolish answer: for to say that the scriptures are clearer than the fathers in respect of their truth, is nothing more than saying that they are truer. But what sort of a distinction is this? If the truth of scripture be clearer, how can the words be more obscure? For it is from the words that the truth arises. If therefore he confess that the scriptures are plainer than the commentaries of the fathers, in respect of their truth, then he concedes that the truth is plainer in the scriptures than in the writings of any father; which is sufficient. And doubtless if we will compare the scripture with the writings of the fathers, we shall generally find greater obscurity and difficulty in the latter than in the former. There is no less perspicuity in the Gospel of John or in the Epistles of Paul, than in Tertullian, in Irenæus, in certain books of Origen and Jerome, and in some other writings of the fathers. But in all the schoolmen there is such obscurity as is nowhere found in scripture. “The words of scripture,” says he, are more obscure than the words of the fathers.” Even if there were some obscurity in the words of scripture greater than in those of the fathers, it would not nevertheless be a just consequence, that the scriptures were so obscure that they should not be read by the people. This should rather rouse men to an attentive reading than deter them from reading altogether. Besides, the scriptures speak of necessary things no less plainly than any fathers, or even much more plainly, because the Holy Spirit excels in all powers of expression. Where has Augustine or Chrysostom, or any father, written more plainly that Christ hath delivered men from their sins and from eternal punishment, than the evangelists, than Paul, than Peter, than the rest of those whose ministry the Holy Ghost hath used in writing the scriptures? Surely all necessary things are so plainly set forth in the scripture, that he who does not understand them in scripture will never be instructed by any commentaries of the fathers.

James White Obsession Syndrome

Now that the COVID scare is dissipating, I'm interrupting my normal programming to make my readers aware of a syndrome that appears to infect a small percentage of people... primarily American Roman Catholic males with access to the Internet. Fortunately, the great majority of American Roman Catholic males with access to the Internet appear to be immune (in fact, they have no idea who James White is or what the Roman church actually teaches). 

For a small group though, an interest in apologetics may run the risk of developing into a full-blown James White Obsession Syndrome. What begins as simply learning to defend their church and their beliefs, if unchecked, turns into an obsession with James White. There are signs that you may be infected:

1) A lengthy amount of time is spent negatively mentioning James White on blogs, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube videos, and any form of social media that allows the inner-narcist to take control of a keyboard.  

2) If James White is mentioned, you feel the uncontrolable urge to add a comment about how awful you think James White is. 

This syndrome is hard to cure. There is though a remedy that may work on those who are not too deeply infected:

1) Direct the sufferer to the official Vatican website.

2) Locate the Vatican search engine. Type in the words, "James White." Typically, the results will say this: "0 results have been found for "James White"

3) Using the technique of cognizant dissonance, slowly explain to the sufferer that the Vatican has no idea who James White is, nor do they care who James White is. 

4) Explain to the sufferer that if they really want to be faithful to following the authority structure of the Roman Catholic Church, they should primarily be concerned with the issues that the Vatican is currently concerned with. Instead of obsessing over James White, they should regularly be reading all the news coming out of the Vatican and first being concerned with that.

5) If this doesn't work and they insist that James White is a significant threat, encourage them to contact the Vatican directly to ask if James White is someone the Magisterium should be concerned with. In waiting for an answer,  encourage the sufferer to fast and pray rather than mention "James White" on social media. Breaking this social media addiction though by fasting and prayer probably won't work. Most people would rather spend their time online than doing that boring prayer and fasting stuff.

This has been a public service announcement.  Have a nice day... especially the folks on the "Catholics & Reformed" Facebook Group. 

The Historical Reliability of the Book of Acts in the Age of Wikipedia

 

 Introduction

I have lived during the transition from a world in which detailed historical information was typically bulk housed in my local library to now being available with the press of a thumb on a small plastic gizmo. The time saving benefits are immeasurable: having instant access to the time my local pizza parlor closes, the tedious details of my favorite movie, or the entire biography of an eighteenth-century playwright. Wikipedia, “the free encyclopedia,” or, “Wiki,” tends to be the source instantly occurring in basic web-searches. Its anonymously written entries (sometimes by multiple authors!) have seeped deep into the zeitgeist of popular culture, baldly accepted as being as reliable as the dusty set of encyclopedias whose entries were written by specialized scholars.

True, Wiki is helpful with common knowledge facts. The acquisition of immediate information though should be tethered with the modern proverb, “just because it’s on the Internet, does not mean it’s true!”  For an explicit example of the folly of immediate gratification of instant cyber-knowledge, I set Google with the search criteria of the broad category, discrepancies in the Book of Acts. Out of the returned search results of about nine million hits, in the top three were links to Wikipedia and its overtly secular sister, “rationalwiki.”

This paper will examine Google hit #2, Wikipedia’s “Passages of disputed historical accuracy” found in their entry, “Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles.” It will be demonstrated that the entirety of the Wiki entry is fraught with a biased worldview which evaluates the details of history with a skewed skeptical lens. It will be shown that their title words, “historical reliability” means in essence, historical unreliability. Wikipedia is soaked in the underlying assumption that the only thing one can know with certainty about the Book of Acts is that one cannot know anything with certainty. Wiki stands in direct antithesis to Luke’s overt goal of providing historical and theological certainty of the early church (Acts 1:1-4).

 II.  Inherent Article Bias

Before delving into the actual disputed Acts passages presented by Wiki, it is necessary to have a careful look at the overall entry that sets the stage they appear on. Whoever wrote the article clearly falls in the scholarly tradition of skepticism coming to fruition in the 19^th-century German Tübingen school.[1]  

The article opens mentioning that Acts does contain some accurate historical details. It immediately adds the qualifier that Acts is not accurate in its depiction of Paul, “both factually and theologically.” Only two paragraphs in, Wiki informs its readers that the “Paul” presented by Luke is not “generally prefer[ed]” by “scholars,” substantiated only by a source simply saying, “When it comes to the ‘life of Paul,’ the modern scholarly consensus is that Paul’s letters are to be given priority over Acts in any historical reconstruction.”[2] This amounts to the philosophical determiner of history being a simple headcount rather than any sort of detailed analysis. The false crescendo of this underlying presupposition comes later when Wiki ironically says, “By 2017 consensus had emerged among scholars that the letters of Paul are more reliable for information about Paul than Acts,” but substantiates this with merely, “citation needed.”

 On the one hand, the Wiki entry gives the traditional view that Luke was a contemporary “follower of Paul,” but then with the other says, “However, most scholars understand Luke–Acts to be in the tradition of Greek historiography.” This statement is offered as a contrast with Luke’s assertion that his historiography was written to provide “certainty” (Luke 1:4).  This seemingly innocuous comparison is substantiated and fleshed out only in an endnote to a New Testament scholar who holds that while Luke was personally associated with Paul, his work as a historian is riddled with error.[3] Thus, “the tradition of Greek historiography” is a tradition of trivial correct historical facts mixed with misinformation and personal agendas.   

Regarding the sources Luke may have used to compile Acts, Wiki provides nothing definite. Wiki highlights an author’s comment that Luke’s use of previous historical sources was a “seriously distorted” series of “stringed together” stories by the time it reached him.[4] This assertion presents a true sense of irony: Wiki has, in a few paragraphs, strung together a number of poorly substantiated biased facts, and this one in particular lacks any documentation!

 Wiki also sets the stage with a brief discussion on the textual traditions of the Book of Acts.  While they conclude that the shorter Alexandrian text tradition of Acts is preferred, their underlying point presents dissonance by questioning whether Luke’s writings can be trusted in their current form. Of the Book of Acts Wiki says, “the differences between the surviving manuscripts are more substantial than most.” What is left out is the fact that the existence of a substantial manuscript tradition does not speak against the reliability of a source, but rather is that tool which allows the original to be substantiated by a comparison of the existing manuscripts.        
            In a seeming attempt to balance out their overt skepticism, Wiki does present a section dedicated to historically accurate details found in Acts. These examples though are followed by a series of disclaimers set in the form of scholarly opinion: Acts does get some basic things historically correct but is still not to be completely trusted. Scholars cited suggest using “caution”: be skeptical of the history of the early church. That skepticism includes taking seriously the ‘hallucination theory” of Christ’s post-resurrection appearances, that Acts may have been written early but Luke did not know Paul, etc. This negativity is mixed with scholars positive to the veracity of some of the tedious details of Acts and its early composition. The entire section amounts to a cacophony of opinion rather than any sort of meaningful presentation of the accuracy of the Book of Acts.  

 III. Passages of Disputed Historical Accuracy

 In comparison to the nine passages Wiki deems historically accurate, six examples are offered. While the offering of three more positive proofs for the historicity of Acts may seem generous, the differences in presentation is striking. Wiki’s historically accurate passages are put forth as simple one sentence snippets with little or no documentation. Of the six negative examples, each is given a full paragraph explanation with plenteous documentation. The positive passages are given one overall hyperlink in the table of contents while each disputed passage has its own so readers can immediately be brought to the content. Let us review each disputed passage.

A.    Acts 2:41 and 4:4 – Peter’s Addresses

The first example involves alleged discrepancies with statistics and venue amplification. Acts 2:41 says Peter’s sermon at Pentecost resulted in three thousand conversions and Acts 4:4 records an additional five thousand.  According to Wiki, these extraordinary numbers are impossible because Jerusalem only had a population of 25-30,000 people.

In response, the extraordinary need not be deemed impossible from a presuppositional Biblical worldview. Logically, if the overall population was as is claimed, this does not necessarily render Luke’s conversion tally inaccurate. It coincides with Luke’s emphasis that the effectual work of the Holy Spirit was being poured out, miraculously.

Wiki’s numbers though need not be confidently assumed.  First, to determine the population of first-century Jerusalem involves, at the very least, estimating from ancient primary sources. Josephus records 6,000 Pharisees living in Jerusalem in the mid first century[5] and that 1,100,000 Jews died during the 70 A.D. siege of Jerusalem with 97,000 taken captive.[6]   Tacitus numbers the population at the time of Rome’s invasion as 600,000.[7]  While these numbers differ, Josephus and Tacitus are at least unified in having a population well over 25-30,000.  Second, Wiki is offering statistical certainty without any meaningful examination. Their statistic of 25-30,000 has its genesis in outdated nineteenth century scholarship.  For instance, an 1847 book, Ancient Topography of Jerusalem by James Ferguson went after the veracity of the numbers provided by Tacitus and Josephus. He arrives contrarily at an estimate of 23,000 – 37,000, saying, “which I do not think it at all probable that Jerusalem could have contained as a permanent population.”[8]  His determination has been debated, but not in any way favorable to his small numeric conclusion. Modern studies in archaeology are producing numbers much higher: 50,000, 80,000, 100,000, 200,000.[9]  

Wike also disputes the method which produced the large number of converts recorded by Luke. Wiki says (via Grant), “Peter could not have addressed three thousand hearers without a microphone.”[10] First, there is no physical reason why a person could not stand in front of three thousand and address them. Second, Luke does not specify the exact spot of the sermon or what natural sound surroundings could have been utilized. Third, Wiki ignores that the feat of speaking to large crowds previous to contemporary electronic amplification certainly did occur: Charles Spurgeon once spoke to an audience upward of 20,000 without modern sound equipment. Fourth, Luke says that it was not simply one sermon at one time: “And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them” (Acts 2:40).

B.     Acts 5:33-39: Theudas

Whereas the accuracy of Josephus was left out of the previous example by Wiki, this one relies on his description of the Jewish rebels Judas and Theudas. The purported discrepancy is that Luke made a chronological error when presenting Gamaliel’s account of Theudas followed by Judas. Even though put in the same order, Josephus ultimately presents their chronology reversed: Judas’ revolt occurred around 6 A.D., Theudas between 44 – 47 A.D. The discrepancy further insists the later revolted after the date of Gamaliel’s speech recorded by Luke.  

Wiki says the discrepancy rests on the assumption that Luke and Josephus were referring to the same Theudas. A plausible answer is to first assume Luke and Josephus are referring to the same Judas “who rose up in the days of the census” (Acts 5:37) during the census of Quirinius (Ant. 20,5,2), but to not assume the same Theudas is being mentioned. In this alternate scenario, neither Luke nor Josephus has committed an historical error. Luke’s Theudas, according to Gamaliel, “claim[ed] to be somebody” (Acts 5:36). Josephus says Theudas was a magician claiming to be a prophet (Ant. 29,5,1). Theudas was a common name at the time and is representative of similar names, used interchangeably: Theodotus, Theodosius, Theodorus.[11] Luke’s Theudas was previous to Judas and that documented by Josephus’s was after.

C.     Acts 10:1 Roman Troops in Caesarea

This discrepancy asserts no Roman troops (an Italian regiment or “cohort”) were stationed in Caesarea during the reign of Herod Agrippa (41-44), therefore Luke is in error in his description of the Roman Centurion Cornelius, “a centurion of what was known as the Italian Cohort.” Wiki bases the discrepancy on a “lack of inscriptional and literary evidence” and insinuates that Luke either made it up or “projected” Roman troops back to an earlier time.  

Surprisingly, Wiki offers a solution. They highlight that Acts 9:32-11 may be out of chronological order (taking place after Herod’s death), therefore only calling into question Luke’s accuracy in the sequence of events. For those who trust Luke, this amounts to a non-solution solution: Luke may be accurate on the one hand, but inaccurate on the other.  

Wiki concludes by noting a few historians “see no difficulty here” but hide any hint of their considerations in footnotes: Cornelius may have lived in Caesarea away from his troops and there is a record of “troops of Caesarea and Sebaste” between A.D. 41-44 (the later solution taken from F.F. Bruce). In essence, Wiki appears to realize there is not an actual discrepancy; rather there is an ambiguity in the historical presence of Roman troops in Caesarea during the time period in question.  Consulting Bruce, Wiki left out that “the soldiers making up an auxiliary unit were usually provincials, not Roman citizens… awarded Roman citizenship when their period of service had expired.”[12] There is therefore no legitimate basis for doubting Luke’s account.

D.    Acts 15: The Council of Jerusalem

Wiki presents the old conundrum that the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 is the same event of Galatians 2. Fleshed out in footnotes, if the two chapters from different Biblical books are referring to the same thing, there is “the presence of discrepancies between these two accounts,” “open contradiction,” and “There is a very strong case against the historicity of Luke's account of the Apostolic Council.” The only aspect Wiki will allow is there actually was a Jerusalem Council but to grant its historical existence only with “caution.”

There are two plausible solutions. Some attempt to harmonize Acts 15 with Galatians 2. For instance, Roman Catholic scholar Raymond Brown sees Acts 15 as “a simplified and less acrimonious report.”[13] F.F. Bruce takes four pages in his commentary on Acts to smooth over the accounts.[14]. The New Bible Commentary avoids mentioning the discrepancies between the chapters and simply exegetes both together (as do a number of conservative sources).[15] This method moves closest to special pleading. The more plausible solutions is to not assume Acts 15 and Galatians 2 are documenting the same event. Rather, Galatians 2 should be harmonized with Acts 11:29-30. Robert Cara says this harmonization explains Paul’s refusal to circumcise Titus (Ga1. 2:3) and his circumcision of Timothy, the latter being circumcised after the declarations of the Council meeting of Acts 15.[16] This solution places the writing of Galatians in AD 48 and the Acts 15 council a year later.

E.     Acts 15:16-18: James’ Speech

This discrepancy challenges the quotation of Amos 9:11-12 by James during the Jerusalem Council. The text James cited is from the Greek Septuagint. James “presumably spoke Aramaic” so, posits Wikipedia, it would be unlikely for him to have cited the text in this linguistic form.

This criticism is a discrepancy based on assumptions rather than solid historical facts or external evidence of an actual discrepancy. First, Wikipedia refutes itself by mentioning the obvious: “Although Aramaic was a major language of the Ancient Near East, by Jesus's day Greek had been the lingua franca of the area for 300 years.” There is no reason why James be limited to one language and one Bible translation. Second, Wiki assumes Lukean deceit before considering theological implications:  James could have had a theological motivation for using the Greek text for its emphasis on “all the Gentiles” rather than the Hebrew, “all the nations.”

F.      Acts 21:38: The sicarii and the Egyptian

This discrepancy insists that Luke made an error when he quoted the Roman Tribune asking Paul if he was “the Egyptian” rebel who led Assassins into the wilderness. The error arises because Luke miscited Josephus who described two different groups and different events: The Assassins (the sicarii) and also an Egyptian rebel who led followers to the Mount of Olives. Luke carelessly morphed these two together.

First, this discrepancy assumes that Luke via the Roman Tribune was citing historical fact, but it could be just as easily assumed that Luke was recording what the Roman Tribune said, however erroneous it was. Paul does not answer the question directly, but rather simply affirms who he is... perhaps because the question was factually ridiculous. Second, if Luke and Josephus are referring to the same “Egyptian,” the discrepancy rests on Josephus documenting thirty thousand while Luke documents four thousand. But “The tendency of Josephus to exaggerate especially in regard to numbers is well noted by scholars.” [17]  Could it not be Josephus in error rather than Luke?  The editors of The Works of Josephus point out,  

Accordingly Josephus, Antiq. 20.8.6, agrees well with St. Luke; for as he there says nothing of so great a number as 30,000, so he says that the number slain by Felix, when he subdued them, was no more than 400, and 200 taken prisoners. These smaller numbers much better agree to 4000 than to the 30,000.[18]

 

IV. Conclusion

As has been demonstrated, there are plausible solutions to each discrepancy put forth by Wikipedia. For Acts 2:41 and 4:4, the numeric discrepancies are solved via more recent historical inquiries. It is within the realm of possibility that large groups of people did hear what was preached, without modern-day equipment.  For Acts 5:33-39, the discrepancy rests on using Josephus to interpret Luke (whereas in the previous discrepancy, his history was avoided because it would have substantiated Luke). The solution comes by treating both Luke and Josephus as being accurate though not necessarily referring to the same Theudas. Acts 10:1 is resolved by demonstrating Wiki did not actually prove a certain discrepancy. Simply because there is not yet “inscriptional and literary evidence” does not mean that an Italian Regiment was not in Caesarea. There is no negative evidence suggesting Luke was in error, like an extra-biblical inscription saying, “there were no Roman troops in Caesarea A.D. 41-44.”  

Acts 15 is resolved by harmonizing it with Acts 11:29-30 rather than Galatians 2.  Acts 15:16-18 is the weakest of Wiki’s discrepancies, arguing ridiculously that James only spoke Aramaic and could not have cited the Greek Septuagint. The discrepancy amounts to conjecture rather than a meaningful presentation of proof. Finally, Acts 21:38 once again rests solely on choosing the accuracy of Josephus over Luke (while the editors of Josephus grant his “30’000” terrorists was an exaggeration).

We now live in a different era of information dissemination. One hundred years ago, the tedium involving possible discrepancies in the book of Acts was often confined to books, journals, and newspapers. Now, almost anyone has direct access to information to plug into their worldview, however erroneous it may be. It might seem ridiculous to take the effort to refute a source that has no bonafide credibility or responsibility. Wiki’s authors are anonymous and the content of the entries are subject to change at a whim.  But this is now where the battles for the soul are often being fought. Christians must never underestimate how the enemy works. The enemy no longer needs to wait for a book of antibiblical sentiment to be published. He can do immediate damage, on a much broader scale, in a matter of moments, by the push of a button on a smart phone. Being able to defend the faith “in the arena” now means entering the cyber-arena, being ready to demonstrate flawed history and underlying biases in popular culture, particularly those found in the most popular Google hits on any given subject.  

Endnotes

1. Van Ommeren, Nicolas M. “Was Luke an Accurate Historian?” Bibliotheca Sacra, 148. 1991, 60.

2. Hornik, Heidi J.; Parsons, Mikeal C., The Acts of the Apostles through the centuries (New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2017), 10.

3. Robert Grant, A Historical Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Harper & Row, 1963), 145. “Luke evidently regarded himself as a historian, but many questions can be raised in regard to the reliability of his history.”

4. Richard Heard, An Introduction to the New Testament (London: A and C, Black, 1950), 138. “But it remains doubtful whether Luke had yet formed his plan of writing Acts when he was in contact with [Silas and Paul], and in his narrative in the early part of Acts he seems to be stringing together, as best he may, a number of different stories and narratives, some of which appear, by the time they reached him, to have been seriously distorted in the telling.”

5. Josephus, F., The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (Philadelphia: J. Grigg, 1825), 9.

6. Josephus, F., The Works of Josephus: With a Life Written By Himself, Volume 4 (New York: A.C. Armstrong & Son, 1889), 169.

7. Ibid.

8. James Ferguson, An Essay on the Ancient Topography of Jerusalem (London: John Weale, 1847), 52


9. See the extensive comparative lists found in Richard Bauckham, The Book of Acts in its Palestinian Setting (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1995), 241-242.

10. Grant, 145.

11. A.T. Robertson, “Points of Chronology in Luke’s Writings,” The Methodist Quarterly Review 70 (January, 1921), 147.

12. F.F. Bruce, The Book of Acts (Grand Rapids: Wm. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 202.

[13] Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1996), 306.

[14] F.F. Bruce, Commentary on the Book of Acts (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1964), 298-302.

[15] Guthrie, D. (ed.). The New Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1970), 991.

[16] Michael J. Kruger (ed.), A Biblical – Theological Introduction to the New Testament (Wheaton: Crossway, 2016), 154.

[17] Janeway, B. “Is the Acts of the Apostles Historically Reliable? Part 2 of 2,” Chafer Theological Seminary Journal Volume 5, 5(2), 72.

[18] Josephus, F. The Works of Flavius Josephus (London: George Virtue, 1841), 972.

---

Pius X: "Protestantism as proudly called by its founders, is the sum of all the heresies, that have been before it, after it, and that could still be born to slaughter the souls"

On a web page entitled, Martin Luther: The greatest heretic in human history comes the following quote from Pope Pius X:  

“Protestantism as proudly called by its founders, is the sum of all the heresies, that have been before it, after it, and that could still be born to slaughter the souls” -Pius X

I was curious to see this quote in its original context, especially in light of the current Pope and the trend in ecumenism the Magisterium has engaged in since the twentieth century. While many of Rome's defenders battle in cyber space to stomp out the Protestant Revolt, Pope Francis willingly received a statue of Luther at the Vatican and said things like, "With gratitude we acknowledge that the Reformation helped give greater centrality to sacred Scripture in the Church’s life." If you were a faithful Roman Catholic between 1903 and 1914, Pope Pius X seems like he's saying something a bit different about the Reformation than Pope Francis in the twenty-first century!

Let's take a look at the quote from Pius X and make sure it says what it's purported to say.    

 

Documentation

The web page in which I found this quote does not provide a reference, nor did any of the others I came across in my cursory search with this exact wording. However, there are other versions of the quote that offered up helpful clues:   

"Protestantism, or Reformed religion, as proudly called by its founders, is the sum of all heresies that have been before it, that have been after it, and that still could be born to slaughter souls." St. Pius X, ora pro nobis. (link)

This same catechism (p. 398) states “Protestantism * * * is the sum of all Heresies. The most monstrous congeries of errors, both private and individual, and enfolds all heresies.” 

“Protestantism, or the reformed religion, as its founders haughtily call it, is the sum of all heresies that ever existed before it, that have arisen since, or that may arise hereafter for the ruin of souls" (link)

From these texts I was able to determine the primary source: Compendio della dottrina cristiana prescritto da sua Santita Papa Pio X. As one of the texts above states, this was a 1905 Catechism by Pope Pius X.  The quote is found on page 398 of the 1906 edition. 

Context

128. Fra le altre, vanno tristamente famose le eresie: di Sabellio, che impugnò il dogma della SS. Trinità; di Manete, che negò l'Unità di Dio, ed ammise nell'uomo due anime; di Ario, che non volle riconoscere la Divinità di N. S. Gesù Cristo; di Nestorio, che negò a Maria SSma la sua eccelsa qualità di Madre di Dio, e distinse in Gesù Cristo due persone; di Eutiche, il quale in Gesù Cristo non ammise che una sola natura; di Macedonio, che combattè la divinità dello Spirito Santo; di Pelagio, che intaccò il dogma del peccato originale e della necessità della grazia; degli Iconoclasti, che ripudiarono il culto delle Sacre Imagini e delle Reliquie dei Santi; di Berengario, che disdisse la presenza reale di N. S. Gesù Cristo nel SS. Sacramento; di Giovanni Hus, che negò il primato di S. Pietro e del Romano Pontefice; e finalmente la grande eresia del Protestantesimo (sec. XVI), prodotta e divulgata principalmente da Lutero e da Calvino. Questi novatori, col respingere la Tradizione divina riducendo tutta la rivelazione alla S. Scrittura, e col sottrarre la S. Scrittura medesima al legittimo magistero della Chiesa, per darla insensatamente alla libera interpretazione dello spirito privato di ciascheduno, demolirono tutti i fondamenti della fede, esposero i Libri Santi alla profanazione della presunzione e dell'ignoranza, ed aprirono l'adito a tutti gli errori.

129. Il protestantesimo o religione riformata, come orgogliosamente la chiamarono i suoi fondatori, è la somma di tutte le eresie, che furono prima di esso, che sono state dopo, e che potranno nascere ancora a fare strage delle anime.

Conclusion

Yes, the quote says Protestantism is the sum of all heresies that have been before it, that have been after it and that it's a soul killer. The quote is found in an appendix to the Catechism which discusses church history (Breve Storia Della Religione). In #128 (above), Luther and Calvin are specifically singled out for rejecting "divine Tradition" "reducing all revelation to Scripture," and interpreting Scripture without the Roman Magisterium. The quote then follows in #129.  It's interesting that this Catechism is found in various places online (translated into English), but this section does not appear (see, for instance, EWTN's version and this published version). The 1905 Catechism was revised and rereleased in 1912. "The history of the Christian religion" appendix section does occur in the revision, but it appears the appendices are left off at times.  I don't suspect any nefarious purposeful deletions. Rather, it appears the Catechism section has more pragmatic value. 

The Catechism also has some other interesting tidbits: 

Q. What should a Christian do who has been given a Bible by a Protestant or by an agent of the Protestants? A Christian to whom a Bible has been offered by a Protestant or an agent of the Protestants should reject it with disgust, because it is forbidden by the Church. If it was accepted by inadvertence, it must be burnt as soon as possible or handed in to the Parish Priest.

D. Che dovrebbe fare il cristiano se gli venisse offerta la Bibbia da un protestante o da qualche emissario dei protestanti? R. Se ad un cristiano venisse offerta la Bibbia da un protestante, o da qualche emissario dei protestanti, egli dovrebbe rigettarla con orrore, perché proibita dalla Chiesa; che se l'avesse ricevuta senza badarvi, dovrebbe tosto gettarla alle fiamme, o consegnarla al proprio parroco.[source]

Q. Why does the Church forbid Protestant Bibles? A. The Church forbids Protestant Bibles because, either they have been altered and contain errors, or not having her approbation and footnotes explaining the obscure meanings, they may be harmful to the Faith. It is for that same reason that the Church even forbids translations of the Holy Scriptures already approved by her which have been reprinted without the footnotes approved by her.

D. Perché la Chiesa proibisce le Bibbie protestanti? R. La Chiesa proibisce la Bibbie protestanti perché o sono alterate e contengono errori, oppure, mancando della sua approvazione e delle note dichiarative dei sensi oscuri, possono nuocere alla Fede. Per questo la Chiesa proibisce eziandio le traduzioni della Sacra Scrittura già approvate da essa, ma ristampate senza le spiegazioni dalla medesima approvate. [source]

Pope Pius was not tolerant of ecumenism towards Protestants. He lumped all Protestants in with "modernism," that movement of liberalism within theology that infiltrated the ivory towers of academia (philosophy, history, sciences), most particularly Roman Catholic scholarship. Protestantism, according to Pius X, was that movement that ushered in the destruction of religion. Pius also called modernism the "sum" or "synthesis" of all heresies. Despite these attributes, J.N.D. Kelly refers to him as "deeply conservative" and "one of the most constructive reforming popes." Kelly also calls him "A man of transparent goodness and humility" [The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986, 314].

Luther: The World by This Teaching Becomes Only the Worse, the Longer it Exists... the People are More Avaricious, Less Merciful... and Worse than Before Under the Papacy

Here's a snippet from one of Rome's defenders on the failure of the Reformation:

Luther openly acknowledged the rapid decline in morals that his new religion was bringing about: "Luther quite candidly admitted the distressing state of things described above without in the least glossing it over, which indeed he could not well have done; in fact, his own statements give us an even clearer insight into the seamy side of life in his day. He speaks of the growing disorders with pain and vexation; the more so since he could not but see that they were being fomented by his doctrine of justification by faith alone.

"This preaching,"; he says, "ought by rights to be accepted and listened to with great joy, and everyone ought to improve himself thereby and become more pious. But, unfortunately, the reverse is now the case and the longer it endures the worse the world becomes; this is [the work of] the devil himself, for now we see the people becoming more infamous, more avaricious, more unmerciful, more unchaste and in every way worse than they were under Popery."

The basic gist is that Martin Luther admitted his teaching ("his doctrine of justification by faith alone") made people worse. This is a typical Roman Catholic charge, that Luther was vexed and agonized that his teaching made things worse. If Luther's teachings really were from God, wouldn't they make people better? Wouldn't they make the world better? Even though I've covered this quote before, let's take a fresh look and see what Martin Luther was saying about his evangelical teachings and their impact on the world.

Documentation

While no documentation is provided, Rome's defender mentioned the old Roman CatholicLuther biographer Hartmann Grisar a few times. A quick Google search reveals the quote came from Grisar's multi-volume biography of Luther. In volume 4:210, Grisar states, 

Luther quite candidly admitted the distressing state of things described above without in the least glossing it over, which indeed he could not well have done; in fact, his own statements give us an even clearer insight into the seamy side of life in his day. He speaks of the growing disorders with pain and vexation; the more so since he could not but see that they were being fomented by his doctrine of justification by faith alone.

“This preaching,” he says, “ought by rights to be accepted and listened to with great joy, and everyone ought to improve himself thereby and become more pious. But, unfortunately, the reverse is now the case and the longer it endures the worse the world becomes; this is [the work of] the devil himself, for now we see the people becoming more infamous, more avaricious, more unmerciful, more unchaste and in every way worse than they were under Popery.”[3]

[3] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 1², p. 14, “Hauspostille.”

Grisar's original text was in German. He provides a helpful reference: ""Werke,” Erl. ed., 1², p. 14, “Hauspostille.”"  Here is Werke Erl. ed., 1², p. 14. The text reads, 

"Hauspostille” refers to the House Postil sermons from Martin Luther. The House Postil sermons were delivered by Luther at his house (the old monastery) to his friends and family between 1531 - 1535.  These sermons were not written by Luther, but were put together by two of Luther's associates  (Veit Dietrich and Georg Roerer). In many cases, two versions of the sermons exist, as is the case with this text. The text Grisar is citing is Veit Dietrich's. His account can be found in English in Dr. Martin Luther's House-Postil, in the First Sunday in Advent sermon (Matthew 21:1-9). Roerer's version can be found in The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Volume 5 (Michigan: Baker Books, 2000) pp. 25-30. Both accounts are very similar, except that Dietrich's is longer, containing additional material at the end. We'll be primarily utilizing the English translation in which the quote in question can be found here, but also referring to Roerer's version. 

Context

Luther first explains how the Jews expected a grand powerful king, not a meek man riding on a donkey. They expected a man of might and power like all earthly rulers. A king who could provide earthly riches and power, thrusting the Jews to a powerful place over all the nations. Rather, this man on a donkey had a different power: the forgiveness of sin and everlasting life:

For we are all poor sinners, but in baptism, and afterwards in our whole life, if we turn unto Christ, He comforts us, and says: Give me your sins and take my righteousness and holiness; let your death be taken from you, and put on my life. This is, properly speaking, the Lord Jesus' government. For all His office and work is this, that He daily takes away our sin and death, and clothes us with His righteousness and life. [Dietrich''s version]

Original text: Denn wir sind elende arme Sünder, aber in der Taufe tröstet uns Christus, und spricht: Gib mir deine Sünd her, und hab dir mein Gerechtigkeit und Heiligkeit; laß dir deinen Tod abziehen, und zeug mein Leben an. Das heißt eigentlich Christus Regiment. Denn all sein Ampt und Werk ist dieses, daß er uns täglich Sünde und Tod ausziehe, und sein Heiligkeit und Leben uns anziehe (Werke Erl. ed., 1², p. 14). 

Luther explains that a king with such extraordinary gifts should be most coveted, yet it is not:

This announcement we should indeed hear with great joy, and everyone should thereby be bettered and made more holy. But alas, the contrary is true, and the world grows worse as it grows older, becoming the very Satan himself, as we see that the people are now more dissolute, avaricious, unmerciful, impure and wicked than previously under the papacy. [Dietrich''s version]

Original text: Diese Predigt sollt man billig mit großen Freuden hören und annehmen, sich daraus bessern und fromm werden. So kehret sichs leider umb, und wird die Welt aus dieser Lehr nur je länger je ärger, das ist des leidigen Teufels Arbeit und Geschäft. Wie man siehet, daß die Leut jekund geiziger, unbarmherziger, unzüchtiger, frecher und ärger sind, denn zuvor unter dem Papstthum (Werke Erl. ed., 1², p. 14).

"We must certainly receive this message eagerly and gratefully, by it becoming more pious and godly. Unfortunately there's the opposite side, that by this teaching the world becomes more and more hostile, wicked, and malicious; yet not through the fault of the teaching but of the people, thanks to the pernicious devil and death. Today people are possessed by seven devils, whereas before it was only one. The devil now bulldozes the people so that even under the bright light of the gospel they become greedier, slyer, more covetous, crueler, lewder, more insolent and ill-tempered than before under the papacy." [Roerer's version]

Notice in Roerer's version, Luther doesn't blame his teaching, but the people and ultimately Satan. Luther goes on to say:

What causes this? Nothing else than that the people disregard this preaching, do not use it aright for their own conversion and amendment, that is, for the comfort of their conscience, and thankfulness for the grace and benefit of God in Christ; but every one is more concerned for money and goods, or other worldly matters, than for this precious treasure which Christ brings us. For the most of us, when we do not feel our misery, the fear of sin and death, would rather, like the Jews, have such a king in Christ as would give us riches and ease here on earth, than that we should comfort ourselves in Him in the midst of poverty, crosses, wretchedness, fear and death. The world takes no delight in this, and because the gospel and Christ do not give it what it desires, it will have nothing to do with Christ and the gospel.[Dietrich's version]

"Why so? Not through fault of the teaching but because the message is not met with thankful acceptance; people cast it to the wind and pay more attention to money and goods than to the blessed treasure which our Lord Christ brings to us." [Roerer's version]

In harmony with his earlier points, he explains people seek after earthly riches, not heavenly riches. Most people want the same powerful king the Jews expected, not the foolishness of Christ. With a pastoral heart, Luther warns:

Therefore our Lord in turn rebukes this world and says: Do you not rejoice in this, nor thank me, that through the sufferings and death of my only begotten Son, I take away your sins and death? Then I will give you sin and death enough, since you want it so; and where you were possessed of and tormented by only one devil, you shall now be tormented by seven that are worse. We see farmers, citizens and all orders, from the highest to the lowest, guilty of shameful avarice, inordinate life, impurity and other vices. Therefore let every one who would be a Christian be hereby warned as of God himself, joyfully and thankfully to hear and receive this announcement, and also pray to God to give him a strong faith, that he may hold fast this doctrine; then surely the fruit will follow, that he will daily become more humble, obedient, gentle, chaste and pious. For this doctrine is of a character to make godly, chaste, obedient, pious people. [Dietrich''s version]

Luther states those who accept this gospel will have fruit follow and "will daily become more humble, obedient, gentle, chaste and pious. For this doctrine is of a character to make godly, chaste, obedient, pious people." Then there are those who will not accept the gospel:

But those who will not gladly receive it, become seven times worse than they were before they heard it, as we see everywhere. And the hour will surely come when God will punish this unthankfulness. Then it will appear what the world has merited by it. Now, since the Jews would not obey the prophet, it is told to us that our King comes meek and lowly, in order that we may learn wisdom from their sad experience, and not be offended by His poverty, nor look for worldly pomp and riches, like the Jews; but learn that in Christ we have a King who is the Just One and Savior, and willing to help us from sin and eternal death. This announcement, I say, we should receive with joy, and with hearty thanks to God, else we must take the devil, with walling, weeping and gnashing of teeth." [Dietrich''s version]

Conclusion

Was the world getting worse because of Luther's "new religion"? Yes! In context, it's the world which grows worse because of the Gospel being preached. Those though who accept the gospel are transformed by the gospel. Luther consistently held that the Gospel would find great opposition and would be attacked from all sides. The Gospel would be used by the world as a license to sin and all sorts of evil because of Satan. The Gospel would indeed make those of the world worse, while changing the lives of those who accept it. Luther wasn't postmillennial. While he was discouraged that the world seemed to be getting worse, his eschatological expectation can be traced back even to the early days of his Reformation work. For Luther, it was the end of the world. Things were going to get worse. The Gospel was going to be fought against by the Devil with all his might. The true church was a tiny flock in a battle against the world, the flesh, and the Devil. He hoped the people would improve with the preaching of the Gospel, he often admitted he knew things were going to get worse because of the Gospel.

Addendum: Understanding the House Postil

These two links are of vital importance for anyone attempting to understand how Luther's House Postil was put together:

Unravelling Luther’s House Postils, Part 1

Unravelling Luther’s House Postils, Part 2

Of interest is the author's conclusion that "Veit Dietrich was correct; he was the only one who transcribed the sermons Luther preached in his home in the early 1530s, though Rörer may have been in attendance to hear portions of some of them."

Bernard of Clairvaux: "Holy Scripture was written for Mary, about Mary, and on account of Mary"

What is the purpose of Holy Scripture? According to this website, via a quote attributed to St. Bernard of Clairvaux, "Holy Scripture was written for Mary, about Mary, and on account of Mary." This statement is part of a pro-Roman Catholic cumulative case of quotes from church history alleging to prove, "devotion to Mary is necessary for salvation." The page is representative of the worst of Roman Catholic propaganda: historical quotes devoid of references are used to bolster a pernicious Mariolatry. 

True, St. Bernard was known at times for excessive Mariology. It's ironic that Bernard's Marian views played a role in the sixteenth century Reformation.  Luther mentioned him a number of times, sometimes fondly, other times critical of his Mariology: that the church of his day put forth a warm and friendly Mary while Christ was portrayed as a harsh judge.  It's in the realm of possibility, therefore, that Bernard penned an excessive Marian comment. We'll see though, there is reason to doubt he wrote it. While some of Rome's defenders may believe "Holy Scripture was written for Mary, about Mary, and on account of Mary," it doesn't help their credibility when they use spurious quotes from church history. Let's take a closer look.   

Documentation

In the link I utilized, no documentation is provided. However, in an 1948 English translation of a seventeenth century Roman Catholic work from Jean Eudes, comes the following:  

1. The all-surpassing love of God for Mary causes Him to become entirely hers: "My beloved to me;' by His thoughts, words and actions. By His thoughts, because she has been from all eternity the first object of His love, after the sacred humanity of His Word, and the first and worthiest subject of His thoughts and designs: "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways." (4) By His words, because St. Bernard declares that the whole of Sacred Scripture was written "for Mary, about Mary and on account of Mary."(5) By His works, because everything that God has done in the world of nature, grace and glory, and everything He has accomplished in the God-Man and through Him is more for the sake of this admirable Virgin, than all other creatures together as He loves her alone above all His creatures.

 (4) Proverbs 8,22                                                                                                                                                         (5) De hac, et ob hanc, et propter hanc omnis Scriptura facta est. Serm. 1 in Salve.

The only difference in the English wording is the use of the word "sacred" rather than "holy." This text therefore may be the origination used to create this popular English version cyber-quote. This text from Jean Eudes was originally written in French in 1681:

The French version similarly provides Bernard's text in Latin (De hac, et ob hanc, et propter hanc omnis Scriptura facta est), and provides the same reference: "Serm. 1 in Salve." "Serm. 1" refers to "sermon one," while "in Salve" refers to "Salve Regina" (Hail, Holy Queen, Marian Hymn). The reference then is to St. Bernard's first sermon on the Salve Regina (there are four sermons in total).  When searching out this Latin text, I discovered Eudes was correct that the quote was from Bernard's Salve Regina sermon, but he was in error as to which one it was. It's from Bernard's third sermon, not the first.

Context 

2. Non solum autem coelum et firmamentum, Domina rerum intelligitur, sed aliis nominibus convenienter appellatur, et rerum vocabulis designatur. Ipsa tabernaculum Dei, ipsa templum, ipsa domus, ipsa atrium, ipsa cubiculum, ipsa thalamus, ipsa sponsa, ipsa filia, ipsa arca diluvii, arca testamenti, urna aurea, ipsa manna, virga Aaron, vellus Gedeonis, porta Ezechielis, civitas Dei, ipsa coelum, ipsa terra, ipsa sol, ipsa luna et stella matutina, aurora ipsa et lucerna, tuba et mons, fons quoque hortorum, et lilium convallium; desertum ipsa, et terra repromissionis lacte et melle manans, stella maris, navis quoque, via in mari, sagena, vinea, ager, arca, horreum, stabulum, praesepe subjugale, apotheca, aula, turris, castra, acies, populus, regnum, sacerdotium. Ovis est, pascua est, paradisus est, palma est, rosa est, fluvius est, potus est, columba est, columna est, vestis est, margarita est, candelabrum est, mensa est, corona est, sceptrum est, panis est, oleum est, vinum est, arbor est, virga est, cedrus est, cypressus est, platanus est, cinnamomum est, balsamum est, myrrha est, thus est, oliva est, nardus est, crocus est, fistula, calamus, et storax est, soror et mater est. Et ut breviter concludam, de hac et ob hanc, et propter hanc omnis Scriptura facta est, propter hanc totus mundus factus est, et haec gratia Dei plena est, et per hanc homo redemptus est, Verbum Dei caro factum est, Deus humilis, et homo sublimis.

A partial English translation can be found here:

“ O Lordess, Holy Mary, thou art heaven, earth, pasture, paradise, bread, drink, manna, oil, wine, cinnamon, balm, myrrh, frankincense, olive, spikenard, saffron, gum, a temple, a house, a bed-room, a bride, a lamp, a kingdom, a priesthood, a trumpet, a mountain, a wilderness, a field, a vine, a floor, a barr, a stable, a manger, a warehouse, a ball, a tower, a camp, an army, a bird, a palm, a rose, a river, a pigeon, a garment, a pearl, a candlestick, a table, a crown, a sceptre, a tree, a cedar, a cypress, a pipe, a reed, a daughter, a sister, a mother, a sun, a moon, a star, the city of God, the rod of Aaron, the fleece of Gideon, the gate of Ezekiel, the morning-star, the fountain of gardens, the lily of the valley, and the Land of Promise flowing with milk and honey.” 

And here:

His saintship, in the same elegant and edifying style, calls her ladyship, heaven, earth, pasture, paradise, bread, drink, manna, oil, wine, cinnamon, balm, myrrh, frankincense, olive, spikenard, saffron, gum, a temple, a house, a bed-room, a bride, a lamp, a trumpet, a mountain, a wilderness, a field, a vine, a floor, a barn, a stable, a manger, a warehouse, a hall, a tower, a camp, an army, a kingdom, a priesthood, a bird, a palm, a rose, a river, a pigeon, a garment, a pearl, a candlestick, a table, a crown, a sceptre, a tree, a cedar, a cypress, a reed, a daughter, a sister, a mother, a sun, a moon, a star, the city of God, the rod of Aaron, the fleece of Gideon, the gate of Ezekiel, the star of the morning, the fountain of gardens, the lily of the valley, and the land of promise flowing with milk and honey.

And here:

St. Bernard shows that the most orthodox faith finds no exaggeration in the words of the Rabbins, when he cries : 'It is for Mary that all Scripture has been made, for her the universe has been created. Full of grace, it is by her that the human race has been bought, the Word made flesh, God human and man God.'”.

Conclusion

The line that Eudes appears to be citing is "De hac, et ob hanc, et propter hanc omnis Scriptura facta est, propter hanc totus mundus factus est." This translates to, "The Scriptures were intended for her, and the world made for her sake." 

There is reason to doubt Bernard is the author of this quote. It's generally accepted that Bernard's four sermons on the Salve Regina are wrongly attributed to him. As far back as the seventeenth century, the Salve Regina sermons have been flagged as dubious. Jean Mabillon released a set of Bernard's collected works and included these sermons in his volume, Opera dubia, notha et supposititia (dubious, spurious, and inauthentic works).  In his 1891 Bibliographica Bernardina cataloging Bernard's writings, Leopold Janauschek lists the four Salve Regina sermons as falsely attributed to St. Bernard:

92. Sermones IV in (antiphonam) "Salve Regina" (qui Bernardum Totelanum auctorem habent).

Others have also noted the sermons are not from St. Bernard:

"And the spurious St. Bernard, “ De hac, et propter hanc omnis Scriptura facta est, propter hanc totus mundus factus est,” &c. "The Scriptures were intended for her, and the world made for her sake.'" (source)

"But, be this as it may, they cite the sermons on the Salve Regina, and represent St. Bernard as having said—“innocens fusti ab originalibus et ab actualibus peccatis—Thou wast innocent, oh Queen, of all sin, whether actual or original.” But, as to this, the answer is, that the four sermons on the Salve Regina, attributed in some old collectors to St. Bernard, so far from being known to be his, are quite indisputably recognized as the work of another, as may be seen in the preface to the Paris folio edition. This is an important fact.

(d) Although thus marked as spurious by their own highest authorities, (as in the late Benedictine edition, in large octavo, vol. iv. p. 1442,) would it be believed that this passage is quoted, at large, as St. Bernard's, in a book published in Boston (Patrick Donahoe, 1855,) and approved by Bishops Neuman and Fitzpatrick? The work abounds in similar deceptions." (source)

Here's an irony I came across while looking into this quote: not only is the quote used unchecked to promote Mariology, it's also used by Rome's detractors to combat Mariolatry. When I first saw the quote, I immediately placed it in the "this quote sounds too good to be true" category... which provoked me to track it down.  Protestant apologists / lay-apologists are also responsible for the arguments they use against Roman Catholicism. If Protestants also use bogus information to refute Rome, shame on them!