"Here I Stand!" (4th witness blunder), Part 3 of 3

[2025-01-12: added link at bottom to Paul McCain/CPH's blog on this subject.]

      This concludes from Part 2 regarding the controversy surrounding the historicity of Luther's famous phrase "Here I Stand...".  — But what I had originally planned as a 4th witness for the defense of the phrase turned out to be a blunder on my part.  I had to completely rewrite this post.  But in my error, I take comfort because I realize that my 4th witness is actually a true witness in a perverse way – but who is the culprit?... (Hint: I should have known.)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 Andrew Pettegree – for the defense?

Andrew Pettegree,
author of
Brand Luther

      Andrew Pettegree is the author of the new book Brand Luther (reviewed in this blog post). From Wikipedia: Pettegree is “...one of the leading experts on Europe during the Reformation. ... He is also the founding director of the St Andrews Reformation Studies Institute.” — Andrew Pettegree is hardly a friend of Martin Luther or Lutheranism. After describing the events of Luther’s burning of the papal bull, Pettegree judges Luther (page 131):

“In many respects this was the most unfortunate of the dramatic set-piece events of the Reformation.”

At least Pettegree does not deny that the burning of the papal bull happened! This statement is only one of many examples where Pettegree shows his unfriendliness to Martin Luther’s Reformation.  However Pettegree shows a modicum of ability in judging history when he defends the account (or “myth”) that Luther actually nailed the Ninety-Five Theses to the Wittenberg castle church door on October 31, 1517 (ref. pages 12-13).

But how will Pettegree report the controversial phrase "Here I Stand"? Will he now also take the opportunity to take another shot at Luther’s legacy by mentioning this controversy of the historicity of Luther’s “Here I Stand…” phrase, and so give it credence?  It would be a good opportunity for him to gain added stature as one who can stand over Luther and over Lutheranism, as he does in many other places.  Hmmm, no controversy is even mentioned at this point by Pettegree. (Why doesn't he even mention the controversy?) Rather he quotes Ernest Schwiebert's book Luther and His Times, (pages 504-505) verbatim without comment.  And what does Schwiebert record of Luther at this critical time of the Reformation? He says:

"... I am bound by the Scriptures adduced by me, and my conscience has been take captive by the Word of God, and I am neither able nor willing to recant, since it is neither safe nor right to act against conscience. [omitted "Here I stand" text here] God help me. Amen."

At this point I made an error. In my haste, when I saw "God help me. Amen", I thought that Schwiebert (and Pettegree) had included the "Here I stand..." phrase. But as I was about to publish this blog post, I double checked my sources and discovered my blunder. How stupid! How embarrassing! ... or is it?

• Who is this Ernest Schwiebert that he should boldly omit the "Here I Stand" phrase? And who published his book that strips one of the best known phrases ever recorded of the sayings of Martin Luther? ... and gives Pettegree free license to do the same and thus embarrass true Lutherans that they should be so encouraged by this actual phrase of Luther? One could say that this historian "Schwiebert" was no friend of Luther or Lutheranism, just like Pettegree who praises papal indulgences and criticizes Luther's burning of the papal bull.
• Who is it that published "Ernest George Schwiebert"?... it is the great Concordia Publishing House and the LC-MS!! Oh! What? ... Concordia Publishing House? I thought they were supposed to be friends of Luther and his Reformation...? Hmmm, seems that is in question now. (I found my culprit!)
• And what is this? I notice that the American Lutheran collaborators for the 1953 Martin Luther film were the great theologians Dr. Jaroslav Pelikan and Oswald C.J. Hoffmann of the LC-MS, and Theodore Tappert of the opposing LCA synod, an American synod that was highly liberal. But wait! Did they contradict Schwiebert's judgment and left the controversial phrase in the Luther film? Really? Pelikan, Hoffmann and Tappert opposed Schwiebert? Surely not!

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

Conclusion
In the end, neither Schwiebert or Pettegree or “Diarmaid MacCulloch” or Dr. Scott Hendrix or an editor of the Weimar Ausgabe or any other “church historian” of today could convince me one way or the other if this phrase was actually spoken.  No, it is C.F.W. Walther, it is Pastor Hermann Fick, it is Prof. Franz Pieper who strongly convince me that this possible “myth” substantially happened.  And even if this phrase were a “myth”, no screenwriter could have done a better job of putting words into Luther’s mouth.  I believe that, on this matter, it is C.F.W. Walther, NOT Ernest George Schwiebert, who is the best judge of those other recorders of Luther and the Reformation, of those who recorded that Luther actually spoke these words.  It is C.F.W. Walther who understood Martin Luther better than anyone since the Reformation century.  And it is C.F.W. Walther who will be the best judge of those who recorded the Reformation writings of and about Luther, including George Rörer.
      No, I have to say... would to God! that CPH sold more than just socks with this phrase, but much more, sold framed artwork, screen-printed pencils, embroidered table cloths, whatever... so that Christians are constantly reminded of what they stand on, the same as Martin Luther, whether he said those exact words at the Diet of Worms or not!  That phrase is the perfect summary phrase for the Reformation!
      So to anyone who would be stubborn on this “controversy”, I will point them to Pelikan, Hoffmann and Tappert's allowance for this phrase in their 1953 film, even in the face of Schwiebert's (and CPH's) 1950 attempt to mythologize the phrase. Pettegree’s report even cements Schwiebert's place among "modern historians", surely because Schwiebert was published by CPH.  —  But to true Lutherans, I will say: Walther, Fick, and Franz Pieper report this phrase "Here I Stand..." and much more, as not only “fact” but all the events surrounding it as one of the top defining moments in Reformation history... in true Church History. Let the naysayers chatter and cackle!
      And surely we don’t want to deprive Queen Elsa, Disney Pictures, the Frozen movie, and the songwriters of “Let It Go” their rightful glory in this phrase “Here I Stand!”, do we?

Here I Stand!... with Luther, Walther, and Pieper -- on God's Holy Word! (sola Scriptura) Here I Stand, on God's Grace (sola fidei), by God's Grace Alone! (sola gratia) Amen!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Addendum 2017-12-10:  There is evidence in Luther's own Table Talk (or Tischreden) to corroborate the phrase "Here I stand".  In the Weimar Ausgabe, vol. 5, there are 2 versions of the same "Table Talk" where Luther himself recounts the events at the Diet of Worms: #5342a and #5342b.  In his narrative, he paraphrases the basics of what he said at the Diet before the Emporer, and all the world:

• #5342a, p. 66, line 20: “und will dabey stehen, es gehe mir druber, wie der liebe Gott wil!”
• #5342b, p. 71, lines 4-5: “bei den will ich bleiben, es gehe druber, wie der liebe Gotte wolle.”

This Table Talk is not in the American Edition.  I did not check to see if it is in the St. Louis edition.  

If I understand the archaic German wording, the #5342a bold phrase means: 

"and will thereby stand" on my teachings regarding Holy Scripture. – 

Translator Charles Daudert in his book Off the Record With Martin Luther, p. 81 (Amazon), renders #5342b as 

“I must stand by them [his writings of Scripture teaching]. I can do no other than what our dear God wills”.

Addendum 2018-02-09: The St. Louis Edition's German text of Luther's last words to the Diet of Worms is in Vol. 15, 1926; American Edition LW 32, p. 113.. [2025-03-19: updated link]

2025-01-12: see also Paul McCain's/CPH's excellent blog published 4 months after this blog confirming this point.

Pieper still in theological diapers – Matthias Loy (on Election/Predestination)

      My headline comes from an article in 1881, in Lehre und Wehre, vol. 27, page 334 (German text here).  It is a quote from Prof. Matthias Loy of the Ohio Synod (see pages 503-504 here) against Prof. Franz Pieper of the St. Louis seminary of the old (German) Missouri Synod regarding the doctrine of Election of Grace or Gnadenwahl.  It highlights the chasm that had developed after the Ohio Synod removed itself from the Synodical Conference because of the conflict over this doctrine, sometimes referred to as the Predestinarian Controversy (#2 here).

Prof. Matthias Loy
Ohio Synod

      Prof. Matthias Loy is quite well known in the history of American Lutheranism.  He is considered by many as a faithful, conservative Lutheran.  He translated several German hymns into English.  Theodore Tappert published three essays of Loy in his Lutheran Confessional Theology in America 1840-1880.  And so his accusation that Pieper was in "theological diapers" is rather striking.  And considering their age difference (Pieper was only 29 to Loy's 53), an older man might feel this way when he saw this younger theologian refuting his theology.  In fact at the time of Pieper's article in 1881, the Ohio Synod was cutting off fellowship with the Missouri Synod and the Synodical Conference.

      There are today some who feel that this controversy is over, but it is not.  The controversy continues, here and now.  Only the battlefields have shifted. –  But Franz Pieper delineated, perhaps as well as his leader Prof. Walther, the points at issue and exposed the Ohio Synod's errors, despite their claims of orthodoxy.  Claiming the truth does not make one's doctrine true – only Holy Scripture makes doctrine true.

     For those who have not seen this prolific attack on God's doctrine of Election, I am presenting Prof. Matthias Loy's signature essay as he removed himself from fellowship with C.F.W. Walther:

(Highlighting added; Hyperlinks added for reference and must be opened in new tab/window)

      Indeed, Prof. Loy is quite passionate in his attack on Missouri's teaching against the use of "in view of faith" (intuitu fidei) as the reason for God's Election of Grace and quotes John Gerhard (see 2nd to last page above) in his defense – Gerhard's weakness.  Loy attempts to portray himself as the great defender of the Lutheran teaching of "justification by faith", defending against the great error of Walther that Election is NOT "in view of faith" but purely by God's grace.  And when Theodore Tappert reprinted Loy's essay, Tappert certainly did not refute Loy's stand defending the erroneous teaching of God's election of a Christian "in view of his faith".
      Franz Pieper continued on in his essay to highlight the point at issue: that it was the Doctrine of Conversion that the Ohio Synod was erring on.  And many years later, in Pieper's Brief Statement of 1932, the conflict over the Doctrine of Conversion (and Election of Grace) was put to rest. (see "Of Conversion" here)  Indeed, Pieper's writing of the Brief Statement, "OF CONVERSION" and "OF THE ELECTION OF GRACE", directly answers the objections of Prof. Matthias Loy as well as those of all his theological descendants:

12. On the basis of these clear statements of the Holy Scriptures we reject every kind of synergism, that is, the doctrine that conversion is wrought not by the grace and power of God alone, but in part also by the co-operation of man himself, by man's right conduct, his right attitude, his right self-determination, his lesser guilt or less evil conduct as compared with others, his refraining from willful resistance, or anything else whereby man's conversion and salvation is taken out of the gracious hands of God and made to depend on what man does or leaves undone....
...
36. ...Nor does Holy Scripture know of an election "by foreseen faith," "in view of faith," as though the faith of the elect were to be placed before their election...

It is sad for me that Prof. Roland Ziegler questions the use of the Brief Statement today when in fact it wonderfully upholds the Lutheran Confessions, even above John Gerhard...

Although Prof. Loy uses strong language in saying "theological diapers", what strikes me more is Pieper's response:

"For us, almost too much honor lies in this strong expression ('theological diapers')." 

— Franz Pieper (1881)

Dear God!  May I be in the same "theological diapers" that Franz Pieper glories in!

Matthew 18:3 – Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Martyrs 13: Lambert Thorn: "your fire my fire"- Luther; Which ending?

      This continues from Part 12 (Table of Contents in Part 1a and Part 1b) publishing the book of Hermann Fick on the martyrs of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. –  Part 13 presents the essay on Lambert [Lampertus] Thorn, who in contrast to Voes and Esch, asked for 4 days to reflect on his situation.  Dear God! how Lambert is more in my comfort zone ... for how many thousands of times have I put off confessing my Saviour before men?  We see by this account a surprising scenario... and a mystery...

What was the fate of Lambert Thorn? Tappert said: "He died in prison five years later, in 1528, without recanting." — Dr. Albert Collver says: "The fate of one of them, Lambert Thorn, is not quite clear.  He remained in prison and was not executed until 1528."  (These may be just doing the common thing of following the editors of the German Weimar Ausgabe (WA).)  —  The St. Louis editor, Stoeckhardt, (footnote) said: "He suffered his martyrdom later than the other two (Voes & Esch)."  — Seckendorf reports that some said Lambert was murdered in prison (see Fick's "Annotations").  —  There is a discussion by both J.G. Walch (here) and De Wette (here) on this matter in the Forewords to their books of Luther's writings.

But ... now read Hermann Fick's account below for a different ending to the story than several of the above.

Some highlighting added hyperlinks added for reference. Minor edits of spelling, etc.

------------------------------------------------------------

The Martyrs of the Evangelical Lutheran Church

by C.J. Hermann Fick
(tr. by BackToLuther)
XIII.

Lambert Thorn. [2019-03-22 fix link]

"Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life."

(The Lord Jesus, Rev. 2:10.)

To the place of Jakob Praepositus [Jakob Probst], where one would be frightened with persecution for the sake of the Lutheran doctrine and its office, came Lambert Thorn, a learned man, as prior of the Augustinian monastery at Antwerp. But because he also confessed the Lutheran doctrine publicly, he was thrown in a tough prison by the papists together with Heinrich Voes and Johann Esch at Vilvoorde and stripped of his priestly ordination in Brussels.  Yet he was not executed with them since he took time to reflect, and so was led back to prison.  Luther issued the following letter of consolation to him [Jan. 19, 1524 – English translation by Margaret Currie -->> here <<--, pgs 118-119; Tappert Letters snippet here; StL ed., vol. 10, col. 1924 , Letter # 702; De Wette, vol. 2, p. 462-463]:

"Grace and peace in the Lord!  Christ, who is with you my dear brother Lambert, bears witness within me that you have need of my comfort neither by word, nor by writing.  For He suffers and is glorified; He is captive and reigns; He suffers violence and nevertheless triumphs in and with you, having made you just and holy, through the knowledge of Himself, which is hidden from the world, but which He has so richly bestowed upon you. [page 112]

"Thereby you are not only strengthened inwardly by His Spirit in your affliction, but also by the true, salutary example of the two brothers, Heinrich [Voes] and Johannes [Esch] at Brussels in the year 1523 due to constant confession of divine truth.

"Thus both you and they are to me greatly comforting, indeed a sweet savor to the whole of Christendom, and are to the Gospel of Christ a wonderful adornment and jewel.  How would it be for me that I should weigh you down with my cold, feeble consolation?  And who knows why the Lord did not permit you to perish with those two.  Perhaps He spared you that He might do some mighty work through you.

"Therefore I am sincerely refreshed, and rejoice with you, with thanks to the faithful Savior, our Lord Jesus Christ, who has given me not only to confess his Word, and graciously granted to taste the first-fruits of his Spirit; but also has left for me to experience and see in the three of you such a rich, glorious prosperity of His grace.

"I might deem this a misfortune, by which one says: I was the first to bring this doctrine to the light of day, for the confessing of which these two were burned, and you are now imprisoned.  But in that I consider myself not worthy for the latter, that I such persecution and tribulation as you three (and God be praised! that others have not suffered and endured) will nevermore be found worthy to suffer persecution and disgrace for the sake of Christ’s name and Word.

"Nevertheless, I shall comfort myself thus — that your bonds are my bonds, your prison my prison, and your fire my fire.  In addition, I shall preach and confess indeed publicly before the ungodly evil world, princes and angels just the Word: for whom those two were burned, and you are imprisoned and bound: wherefore I also suffer along with you and rejoice.

"But the Lord Jesus, who has begun the good work in you, will perform it until the day of His wonderful and joyous appearing, Phil. 1:6.  Pray for me, as I do for you, and remember you do not suffer alone, but He who says, Psalms 91:14, “I will be with him in trouble; he shall call upon me, and 1 will answer him: I will set him on high, because he hath known [page 113] my name, I will protect him.”  Indeed, we all, together with the Lord, are with you, therefore you are not abandoned.  But await the Lord, be strong and courageous, and await the Lord, Ps. 27:14, who said: In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world, John 16:33.

"Do not dispute with Satan, but turn your eyes to the Lord.  Be firmly rooted upon the pure faith, and never doubt that we shall be justified and saved through the precious blood of Christ, the spotless Lamb of God. So little are our works and human commandments able to take away sin and make us just: so also neither condemn nor make guilty for some sin.

"Here in our Elector’s land is good peace, God be praised. The Duke of Bavaria and Bishop of Trier cause many to be slain, and banish some.  Other bishops and princes are indeed not bloodhounds; nevertheless they torment their people with threatenings, and do them great harm.  So Christ is now again become the reproach of men, and despised of the people, Psalm 22:7, which also you were made a member of by the holy calling of our Father in heaven,  and may He also perfect this call in you to the honor of His Word and name, Amen.

"All our people greet you, especially Jakob Probst and the brothers of Antwerp, and commend themselves to your prayers. At Wittenberg, Tuesday after St. Anthony’s, 1524."

But this letter did not any more reach into the hands of the dear martyr.  Because he remained through God's grace steady in the evangelical Lutheran doctrine, so the Papists immediately rushed him to the fire.   Four days after the execution of his brothers Voes and Esch, on July 4, 1523 he was burned in Brussels.  Before, indeed on the pyre, he held still another long sermon and triumphed thus joyfully over Satan and the Roman Antichrist.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Annotations.

13. Lambert Thorn. Sources: Seckendorf, historia lutheranismi, volume. 1, p. 280.  Die heiligen Märtyrer der evangelischen Kirche by Volkert and Brock, p. 11. Luthers Werke, Walch edition (W1), Vol. 10, p. 2214. Seckendorf calls him Johannes Lambert. Some say, as he reports, that Lambert was murdered in prison.

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

Fick states that Thorn was burned 4 days after Voes and Esch, even adding that he gave a long sermon on the pyre.  Fick acknowledged the other reports of Thorn's fate, but chose this ending.  Who is the one to believe?  Did Thorn die 5 years later in prison?  Was he murdered in prison?  What about Luther's letter of January 19, 1524?  Could the papists have concealed his death for about 6 months so that Luther did not know that Lambert was already dead before he even wrote his letter to him? ... One thing is clear... that Lambert Thorn died later than the first two martyrs.  But Pastor Fick is so forceful in his presentation (Volkert and Brock's account, p. 17, concur with him), that I will believe him about the actual manner and time of Lambert's death, call me naive if you want.  Some might fault me for going against Theodore Tappert, to which I would answer: "So what?"  I will take Hermann Fick's judgment over Theodore Tappert on this.

I believe I am following the better Church Historian in Hermann Fick, because he not only knows the languages, not only had access to the German sources, but more importantly could better judge past Church Historians in this matter, whether they had a tendency to err in certain matters.  Dr. Colliver may take a path less firm in describing the ending for Lambert Thorn, but I will take Fick's account – Lambert Thorn was executed on July 4, 1523 by the papists, not murdered in prison or held in prison another 5 years.

Thorn did not need Luther's letter of consolation, the letter (perhaps) did not arrive before Thorn's execution.  But do you suppose Thorn read Luther's letter as he was in Abraham's bosom (Luke 16:22)?  Thorn's requested time of reflection took him back to the promises of God's Word:

Ps. 50:15 – Call upon me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me.

And so he did... he called upon the Lord Jesus "in his day of trouble".  And so He was... the Lord Jesus was glorified in Thorn's confession and martyrdom.
In the next Part 14...

Who was Theo. Tappert? ("church historian"?)

Theodore G. Tappert

[2025-05-26: updated links to Internet Archive copies]

Who was Theo. Tappert († 1973)?

• He, along with Jaroslav Pelikan, was the architect of the American Edition of Luther's Works:   "...his proposed table of contents for an edition of the works of Luther in English was blended with mine [Jaroslav Pelikan] to form the basis for the American Edition, which I then helped to edit." — Jaroslav Pelikan in the book The Reflective Reformer: Theodore G. Tappert, in "Others Remember" section [2025-05-26: updated link].
• His translation and editing of the Book of Concord overthrew the Concordia Triglotta as the main English translation of the Lutheran Confessions for generations of LC-MS theologians and pastors.  Fellow collaborators were Jaroslav Pelikan (there he is again), and Arthur C. Piepkorn.  The reference to "Tappert" in many writings referencing the Lutheran Confessions was to this book.  (Why was there an almost overnight disappearance of the venerable Concordia Triglotta?  Why must Concordia Publishing House struggle to get the Triglotta published again?)
• He was a department editor of the New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1955), published by the Reformed book publisher Baker Book House.
• He translated Hermann Sasse's Here We Stand book into English.
• He wrote the book Lutheran Confessional Theology in America, 1840-1880 in 1972, purporting to give the true Historical Theology of several theologians, including C.F.W. Walther.
• He was presented its highest award by the Concordia Historical Institute (along with C.S. Meyer) for the above book in 1972.  Director August Suelflow wrote the following (see here): "When his volume Lutheran Confessional Theology in America, 1840-1880 was produced by Oxford University Press, New York, in 1972, it immediately became obvious to the Institute's Committee on Awards that there was an author who should receive every consideration to receive the Institute's newly created "Distinguished Service Award" which consisted of a certificate and a replica of the unique medal which apparently was struck in 1546 to commemorate the death of the great reformer, Martin Luther. The Awards Committee was unanimous in the choice of Dr. Tappert."

Theo. "Ted" Tappert holds a position of "honor" as a church historian within today's LC-MS similar to Hermann Sasse.  Why is this?  Because today's (English) LC-MS is not the old (German) Missouri Synod.  But neither Theo. Tappert or Hermann Sasse were true church historians.  There is no mention of Franz Pieper in virtually all the writings of Theo. Tappert.  Why?  Franz Pieper said it best concerning "Historical Theology" (Christian Dogmatics, vol. 1, pgs.100-101):

It is the function of historical theology not only to give a historically true picture of the events, but also to evaluate these established facts in the light of Scripture.  Historical theology is the divinely taught art of ascertaining from Scripture God's verdict on the historical events and conditions.  ...  When the church historian judges events according to his subjective view or any other extra-Biblical norm, church history is no longer a theological discipline. ...Where things are as they should be, the Church will, therefore, elect only such men as professors of church history as are thoroughly conversant with the Scripture doctrine in all its parts, well informed in dogmatics, in order that the instruction in church history will not confuse but aid Christian understanding.

When today's LC-MS pastors and theologians want to learn more about the theology of C.F.W. Walther, they turn to Tappert's assessment in his book Lutheran Confessional Theology in America, 1840-1880, indeed, they give Tappert its highest award!  But Tappert's theology lacked the "light of Scripture" in many ways, and substituted his subjective view.   An associate of Tappert, E. Clifford Nelson – another "church historian", wrote the following about Tappert and the controversies within the LC-MS in the 1960s:

... an article ... under the title, The Maturing of American Lutheranism  ... "The Word of God according to the Lutheran Confessions." ... it almost goes without saying that it speaks immediately– but without specific reference–to the Missouri Synod and the demonic internecine warfare that plagues that particular household and impairs the totality of witness to the world by all who name the Name of Christ. (The Reflective Reformer, sub-section "In Memoriam".)

The "demonic internecine warfare" in the LC-MS?  So the Concordia Historical Institute awarded its highest "Distinguished Service Award" to an outside theologian of the L.C.A. (see graphic) who wrote to assist in its "demonic internecine warfare"?  Maybe we can judge the Concordia Historical Institute from this...

There is no mention of Franz Pieper in virtually all the writings of Theo. Tappert – and there is a reason for this.   Theo. Tappert was one of the opponents of the old (German) Missouri Synod that Franz Pieper spoke about in his Last Words to the Missouri Synod.  Why?  Because Tappert opposed the pure Lutheran Doctrine of Justification.  And today's (English) LC-MS that followed Tappert is not the old (German) Missouri Synod, but rather the "Graebner Synod".

For those who are interested in true Church History, they would be better informed by reading the writings of those men in my masthead: Luther, Walther, and ... Franz Pieper!  ... and not Theo. Tappert.