Doug Douma has published several letters written by Gordon Clark (link). I've also typed some of Clark's letters that can be found here (link) and here (link). The following are more letters written by Clark between 1935 and 1944 - all of which are public - and original scans of which can be read online at the PCA Archives. Additionally, I have typed Clark's handwritten notes in the margins of several letters.
When I find a scan to be unreadable, I insert a [?]. I'll link to scans of the letters in question, and perhaps the reader will have better success understanding some of what was written than I have:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[link, pgs. 4-8]
Dec 1935.
Dear Dr. Buswell,
You
have greatly honored me first in reading the article on Determinism and then in
replying at such length. With your regular college duties and your irregular
ecclesiastical ordeal, any further encroachment on your time is presumption.
However, I shall undertake an answer to your letter and hope that in the near
future we may have as pleasant a conversation as on our Vineland trip.
In
addition to the pleasure involved, I look forward to a conversation as opposed
to letters or printed material because unintended inferences can be corrected
on the spot and a more satisfactory conclusion reached. In the article on
Determinism I fear my phrasing can mislead where the complete background of the
argument could not be fully developed.
One
point you mention in your letter, and around which I might group some
reflections on your lecture, What is God, for which many thanks as I
enjoyed reading it, is the distinction between permission and an effective
decree. While I have great respect for Hodge, I feel that on this matter he
falls short of Calvin. When we examine our own experience of 'permission' we
see that always it implies an independent power in another person. We permit a
man to do something, that is we do not hinder him from doing something; but his
is the power and frequently enough we could not have forced him to do it if he
had not wanted to. But there is no power independent of God, in the case of
omnipotence the distinction vanishes, and I want to stick by the proposition of
the catechism: God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass. Further,
the introduction of permission, which was intended to relieve God of
responsibility for sin, does not accomplish its end. The historic objection to
Christianity runs: Either God could have prevented sin and did not want to, or
else he wanted to and could not; therefore God is either not omnipotent or not
good. I cannot see how permission enables us to escape that dilemma. If we
could prevent a suicide but permit it, we seem as morally reprehensible as if
we had actually goaded the person to his act. Permission therefore does not
solve the problem for which it was intended. My own solution – well, at least
no one has convinced me of logical error, though that may be due to my stubbornness
or stupidity.
Your
own statement on page three of your letter, the second complete paragraph, that
“all things comes to pass by the causative decree of God,” suits me much
better than the indefinable distinction between permission and something else. How
they were caused, by necessity i.e. mechanical law or by teleological factors
i.e. determined by a man's character, is in my opinion an important
distinction, but quite secondary to the main problem.
This
leads to the question of infra vs supra-lapsarianism. On this question I hold
that logical order is the exact reverse of temporal order. For example (1) I
must buy a Christmas present, (2) at Wanamaker's, (3) which means I must take
the trolley, (4) therefore I must walk to the corner. Such is the plan; its
execution is the exact reverse. The execution of the decrees is as follows:
creation, fall, work of redemption, the consummation, i.e. the reprobation of
some, the glorification of others. The logical order is the exact reverse.
Unless the two orders are thus in reverse, I do not know of any principle by
which any answer to the question can be given.
Finally
in your paragraph on Boettner, whom I have not read, and Calvin II, 23, 6, I am
afraid you do not do Calvin full justice. He admits that mere foreknowledge
does not oblige the object of that knowledge, and that is my point too; then
Calvin goes on to say “Since he foresees future events only in consequence
of his decree that they shall happen, it is useless to contend about
foreknowledge, which it is evident that all things come to pass rather by
ordination and decree.” As I suggested in my Determinism: foreknowledge, which
we both admit, shows that the future is certain. If God does not make the
future certain by decree, what force independent of God accounts for his
certainty?
As
letters go, this is a long one though the arguments are stated briefly; I trust
the brevity does not altogether obscure the basic principles. Were it proper to
expand and comment on your lecture, the discussion would run mainly in the same
channels. But since affairs in the church make it probable that we shall meet
in the not too distant future, the defense rests.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[link, pages 14, 20-23; marginal notes, letter from Buswell, March 14th and 30th, 1936][Ed: marginal notes to Buswell’s letter of the 14th,in response to Buswell saying “I do not concede the absence of the millennium in other passages of the New Testament, e.g. the apocalyptic discourses of Christ, the Thessalonian Epistles, and the 15th chapter of Corinthians.”]
Not in Mt. 24, not in Mk. 13, nor in 1 Cor 15
[Ed: marginal notes to Buswell's letter on March 30th]
[Matt.] 13:38 shows that the weeds and tares are individuals nations 13:42, 43 – nations are never so healed
Doesn’t this refer to heaven?
Does not imminent mean – no intervening prophecies.
I agree: but this alone does not constitute premil
This really does not answer my question
The ideas of a millennial reign of Christ on earth is so appealing, is such a natural climax to a divinely controlled course of history, that I think I would have accepted it long ago, were it not for the actual teaching of the Scriptures. If it were true, the Scriptures would have taught it as plainly as they teach total depravity.
Wheaton College
Wheaton Ill.
Dear Dr. Buswell,
As this evening I telegraphed Mr. Dyrness, arrangements have been made here whereby I am to be regular appointed and then assigned to Wheaton (administrative red tape) leaving me next year in the same position I now am. The department does not think that this jeopardizes my future, and so I am counting on being with you next fall. With this decided, there are a few details I should like to have straightened out. Perhaps you can assign me one of your assistants to write to so as to relieve you minor annoyances.
In the matter of living arrangements, we shall try to follow your suggestion and rent out our house here; but whether we take a house in Wheaton, or an apartment if there by such, depends, beside the factor of cost, on whether or not there is office room for me in the College. If I have such a room and can keep my books in it, have it furnished with a typewriter and bookcases, then a place with one less room would be sufficient, and I would not have to buy a typewriter and move it, as I had thought of doing. In general, can you give me some idea of the renting possibilities. Is the furnished home of the absent professor still in the market, or will it be next fall?
In the next place, do you want me to do any extensive ordering for the library? There are some books which will be required for my courses, books which I did not see in the short five minutes I had to look at the stacks. But in addition to these immediate requirements, what? Should I here, from our lists, prepare a list of several hundred books, have your librarian check them against your catalogue, and ask you to order what you do not have? I mention this matter at this early date because I could serve you so much better by using my faculties here than I could after arriving in Wheaton.
As perhaps too cryptically indicated in the telegram, if you want me to give exegesis of Romans the first term (or was it the second?) then to balance my schedule it might be wise to offer an intensive study of Kant for two hours the other term. This should be open only to seniors, or at least to those who have six credits in philosophy.
Mr. Stam just wrote me that he cannot find a copy of Vos’ Pauline Eschatology for you. It is out of print, and I have tried hard to locate some copies, but as yet without success. However, if you wish, I shall mail you my copy, you can read the one chapter on Chiliasm, note his exegesis of 1 Cor. 15, and return the book as I have not yet had time to study it at all carefully.
It occurs to me that this letter may cross one of yours. In which case you need not reply to this until I shall have replied to yours. No doubt there are many other things I should include in this letter, but things have happened so swiftly in the last few days and today, I am ready to turn in. I hope your trip to Boston and return was pleasant, and I am looking forward to a very enjoyable year at Wheaton.
Very truly yours,
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[link, pages 8-9]April 23rd 1936.
Dr. J. Oliver Buswell, Jr.
Wheaton College, Wheaton Ill.
Dear Dr. Buswell,
Your letter of the 21st is at hand concerning the curriculum. You may be assured that I will cooperate in every way to maintain continuity and to give students material of real worth.
Although I am willing to set aside some of my professional preferences, in particular I am willing to give the course in Introduction, yet, to keep the record clear, permit me to repeat that I consider it poor policy. I have heard you lament the type of theology course you were given in Seminary. Whether the cases are analogous I do not know, but the following analogy came to my attention a few months ago. Some educator got the bright idea that High School students should have an introductory course in foreign language. So there was inserted into the curriculum a course in which two weeks were given to French, two weeks to German and so on. Now while a mature student who already knew several languages could pick up in two weeks some idea of the structure of a new language, such a procedure leaves the beginner hopelessly confused and lacking in any real and definite information. The situation is even worse in philosophy. As I said I am willing to give the course and will do my best to prevent it from having its ordinary result. The ordinary result in my mind is to spoil the student for any further philosophy. It produces superficiality and a false assurance\, and obscures the necessity of system.
I wonder if we could not make a compromise. You have given Introduction three hours a week for both terms. This would imply that Introduction is more important than Plato and Aristotle combined, or as important as the History of Ancient and Modern Philosophy combined. I am sorry that when I was visiting Wheaton I was so tired by evening that it was difficult to carry on an intelligent conversation with Dr. Thiessen. Perhaps I could have convinced him that the value in Introduction is to be found in a purer form in other courses without the disadvantages. I am sold on History as the best introduction; and Plato and Aristotle and Kant seem so vastly superior to almost every contemporary writer that I have difficulty in seeing the wisdom of the usual Introduction. So, let me suggest a compromise. I want none, Dr. Thiessen wants six hours; can we make it three hours? Just a one term course.
Courses 221 and 222 stand as we agreed in New York.
You have reduced Plato to two hours and have increased Aristotle to three for one term, omitting the second term. Such minor matters are quite all right with me.
Hellenistics Age remains the same. Medieval is inserted for two hours one term. Quite all right. In a permanent schedule I too should insist on this course. It was because the schedule was possibly not permanent that I loaded up on my specialties on the assumption that this would profit the students most. Kant is O.K.
The only other modification is the omission of French Philosophy and the insertion of Recent Realism and Pragmatism: three hours and two hours respectively. Was this arrangement of hours intentional? The material which Dr. Thiessen wants from these courses was not entirely absent from my original schedule. A great deal of modern philosophy is inspired by the positivism of Comte, and his philosophy and its antecedents were included in the French course. Pragmatism is included both in the history of ancient philosophy, and particularly in Plato. You know, one of the truest sayings in the Bible (not that one statement can be strictly truer than another truth) is: There is nothing new under the sun. Protagoras had a complete system of pragmatism long before James, Pierce, or Dewey were ever heard of. The cry for recent developments is not a sign of profundity. Of the making of many books there is no end and the most recent book will appear tomorrow. But to be practical: suppose we make a two hour, two term course on the philosophy of the recent past.
Again let me express all willingness to cooperate; if my tone is too dogmatic, pardon me; but also be so good as to overlook the tone and consider the arguments for a more conservative policy in philosophy.
There was something else I wanted to say, but it escapes me. I hope you will not tire of reading such long letters, for undoubtedly there will be others.
Your in His service,
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[link, pages 15-16]April 28th 1936
Dr. J. Oliver Buswell, Jr.
Wheaton College, Illinois.
Dear Dr. Buswell,
Your letters of the 24th, 23rd, and 25th clear up a number of problems. The office facilities at Wheaton, making it possible to study in an office, also make it possible for us to manage a three room apartment if no better accommodations appear. The leeward thus allowed will permit me to worry about housing from 3:00 A.M. to 8:00 A.M. instead of from two to three as before. Did you ever try to schedule your worries in this manner? I must thank you from the offer of your typewriter, but it seems better to proceed with my original plan and buy one even if I have to move it.
As for the library, I shall follow your suggestions. It will take a little time to prepare a list, so we may consider this matter quiescent for the present.
Connected with books, particularly text books: three of us here are collaborating on a History of Philosophy. It will not be ready for use this autumn. Would it, then, be possible for your office to mimeograph the completed chapters, and would the cost be low enough to justify their use by the students? The number of pages involved would be either 160 or 285 double spaced. In mimeographing at single space, this would perhaps be out to 100 or 140. It could be used as a whole in the History of Ancient Philosophy, the chapter on Plato could be require in the course of that name, and the chapter or Aristotle similarly. Since I do not know the number of students who might take these courses, I cannot tell whether this scheme is practicable or not.
Now, as for the curriculum. Your letter of the 25th mentions a “compromise” which looks like giving me the whole hog. Does Dr. Thiessen remember whether the class I spoke to, Wed. at 12 I think, was the course in Introduction? It looked like History to me. At any rate I have no objection to your arrangement of an introduction on a lower level than the regular history course. It is not an arrangement which I should have suggested. But if such is the best way to satisfy the requirement of course number, credits, etc., then could we not diminish the awkwardness of overlapping by refusing major credit in the lower level. That is, the lower course would be designed for those who do not intend to take more or much more philosophy. However, my only real concern was to save the students from the hodge podge which ordinarily goes under the name of introduction.
As for Realism and Pragmatism, I think your proposal is the only practicable one. I shall include generally the philosophy of the recent past. However, it seems to me wiser to balance the courses so that each would be the same number of hours a week. In your letter of April 21st you gave Realism three hours and Pragmatism two. If it has been the general custom for students to take one of these and not the other, this makes no difference; but if the idea is to take both, then the student wants something to fill in the same hours both first and second term. I only mention this to call your attention to it. From my point of view, or I should say for my convenience, the matter is immaterial. Strange matter!
I have read with great interest and approbation your “effervescence.” I am glad to see you do not advocate the re-creation re-plenish theory. When you get the time I should also like to hear your reaction to Allis’ article in The Evangelical Quarterly. Vos’ Pauline Eschatology is out of print. It was published by the author who does not know the existence of any more copies. But being an absent minded old gentleman, there may be some left at the Princeton University Press, where it was printed. But I hardly think there is, for the Reformed Episcopal Seminary has tried everywhere and is unable to locate any copies. If you see any second hand, by all means pick them up, and what you do not want can easily be disposed of in Philadelphia.
Very cordially yours,
--------------------------------------------------------------------
May 11 1936
Dr. J. Oliver Buswell, Dr.
Wheaton College, Illinois.
Dear Dr. Buswell,
Your letter of April 30th, I delayed answering to allow time for information on the housing problem to come through, as you indicated it might. A few days ago a letter came from a real estate man and I shall write to him this evening.
You are kind in offering me again the use of you Corona. However, my brother-in-law has dug up an L. C. Smith for me. Thank you for your offer.
There was one other question I had wanted to add to the list. Should I bright along my gown and hood. The catalogue for 1936-37, which arrived the other day, does not mention a mid-year convocation; but if there will be need for a gown and hood, I can easily be prepared. I suppose a tuxedo is unnecessary. I have not worn it once this season and perhaps can escape at Wheaton next year also.
Tomorrow I expect to send you my copy of Vos’ Pauline Eschatology. It is doubtful if you can find one elsewhere. The page which I am anxious that you should read are pp. 235-246. There will be no hurry about your returning the book. I shall no doubt bring it with me next fall anyway.
I take it from your short note of April 27th that you agree in the main with Allis on the Scofield Bible. If I am mistaken, please tell me so.
I am glad to hear that you will be able to mimeograph my chapters on Greek philosophy without too much cost to the students. The chapter on Plato, I can send at any time. It covers eighty pages double spaced. The chapter on Aristotle is of the same length and will be ready in a month at most. I do not know whether I want the third chapter done or not. Perhaps not.
There was a slight, an insignificant misunderstanding with reference to the two courses on contemporary philosophy. My suggestion was that they be made the same number of hours each term. To tell the truth, I had more in mind the reduction of the three to two, instead of the increase of the two to three hours a week. To keep the time allotted proportional to the importance, two hours seems to me sufficient. However, if it turns out to be three hours, I can utilize the extra hours by completing the history of ancient, medieval, and modern philosophy with the history of future philosophy.
By this time I hope you have finished moving into your new home, that you, and particularly Mrs. Buswell, have all the details arranged for your comfort. You certainly deserve to be remembered on your tenth anniversary, for wherever I go, the impression always is that you have really put Wheaton on the map. May you enjoy your home for many years to come.
I am under the impression that you have been, or will be, asked to speak at the formation of our Presbyterian Church of America. If you can accept, as I hope you can and will, I shall have the pleasure of seeing you again sooner than I expected. No doubt the start will be small, but three are rumors that before two years shall have elapsed, there will be an influx of congregations from an at present unexpected source. At any rate I hope you will be able to be with us, June 11th to 14th.
Your younger brother in the Lord,
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[link, page 23]May 16th 1936
Dr. J. Oliver Buswell, Dr.
Wheaton College, Illinois.
Dear Dr. Buswell,
Your letter of May 13th does not seem to require much of an answer.
Enclosed you will find the chapter on Plato to be mimeographed. There should be made enough copies for students in the introductory course, the course in ancient history, and the course in Plato. By using it three times in this way, no doubt the cost will be small.
Enclosed also are the first sheets for the Library. No doubt you have many of the books here listed. They all fall under your category number one, as I shall use them all in connection with the courses as assigned readings. One book only have I marked number two. When classes and examinations are finished here, I shall prepare a second and a third list.
And in a month I shall forward the chapter on Aristotle. You are very kind in allowing this work to be done in your office. It saves the students some cash and puts me under great obligations to you generosity.
It just strikes me that in the event of a new denomination, you are the one who should have several good ideas on what a Board of Christian Education should do. It might be well to jot them down.
I hear that we shall have a congregation in Cicero, and perhaps one or two in Chicago. No doubt this is your good work.
Cordially yours,
[Ed: Clark has handwritten notes on pages 6-7 which seemingly outline his thought on what his course proposals would cover, as Clark writes:
201 History of Ancient Philosophy. PreSocratics, Plato, Aristotle, Epicureans, Stoics and NeoPlatonists. Three hours a week, first semester
202 History of Modern Philosophy. Rationalism, Empiricism, Criticism. Three hours a week, Second semester.
203 Plato. Based on the reading in English of the most important dialogues. Three hours a week. First term
204 Philosophy in France since the seventeenth century. Three hours a week. Second term.
322. Aristotle. Based on the reading in English of Aristotle’s chief treatises. Two hours a week. Both terms.
323. The Hellenistic Age. Epicureans, Stoics, and the confluence of Greek philosophy with Judaism in Philo and with Christianity in the Gnostics; Neo Platonism. Two hours a week. Both terms.
9 10
M Gk/Modern Plato/Fr
T Ari Hellen
W Gk/Modern Plato/Fr
T Ari Hellen
F Gk/Modern Plato/Fr ]
[Ed: In another place (link), Clark has handwritten notes which speak of an update to the philosophy major, but it is unclear if they are with reference to his time at Wheaton since they are attached to the Wheaton resignation letters (though compare the description of 202 above with the description of 301/302 below). Clark's handwritten notes in question from this link state:
Philosophy. Delete 221, 222, 403, 404. Insert
301, 302 History of Modern Contemporary Philosophy. The first semester, from Descartes to Kant, treats of Rationalism, Empiricism, and Criticism. The second semester is a study of the relation of Idealism, Realism, and Pragmatism to the Christian faith. Credit, three hours each semester. Dr. Clark.
The Requirements for a Major are hours including 201, 202, 301, 302, 341, 342, and two years of German or French]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[link, page 2]
May 20th 1936
Dr. George V. Kirk
Wheaton College, Ill.
My dear Dr. Kirk,
During my pleasant visit to Wheaton last [?], Dr. Buswell [?] per cent as the [?] I might expect.
Since all the financial arrangements have been verbal, there is one [?] I [?] like to [?] in this connection. Either in a letter or in conversation in March, If my memory serves me correctly, I asked Dr. Buswell whether Wheaton, like Pennsylvania, contributed five per cent of the salary to the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of American. Because of the many matters we had to talk about, this question was lost in the shuffle. What is your policy? On April 18th, when Dr, Buswell met me in New York I was going to repeat the question; but before I got to it, he offered me in addition to the salary quoted above three hundred dollars to cover the extra expenses involved in a year of visiting. It [?] removed from my mind the last hesitation about [?] Wheaton, [?] this sum in connection with the budget, I thought I should refer to in this reply. With this generous arrangement for [?] expenses, the matter of an annuity became a surely [?] question for the time being and I did not raise it with Dr. Buswell at that last meeting.
The letters from the various offices of Wheaton all express happy anticipations; and I reciprocate most [?]. I look forward to a most enjoyable time.
Very cordially yours,
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[link, pages 4-5]
Wheaton College
Wheaton, Ill.
January 23rd 1937.
Dr. Edgar A. Singer, Jr.,
The quiet humor of your letters, as well as of your conversation, is always a source of enjoyment. And perhaps the womanly intuition of Mrs. Singer in referring to me as the father of that baby is more instinctively flattering than you seem to believe. Indeed I am afraid that I have become a very fond papa and cannot refrain from enclosing the latest snap-shot.
I am sorry that Chester has had to undergo an operation. Last summer he mentioned the possibility, but was delaying because of the expense. Your encouraging news implies that the delay did not cause any serious complications. By this time, I trust, he is well recovered.
Under separate cover I am sending the chapter on The Hellenistic Age. You have already read about the first forty pages, but they could not doubt profit again by your criticisms. The section on Plotinus is awful. But Dr. Husik says Plotinus is awful anyway. If you can suggest diverting filler, I should be only too glad to include it. Will you kindly show the chapter to Francis, Chester, and to Dr. Husik if he cares to examine it, as I hope he will. The criticisms may be returned to me with page and paragraph references, without returning the chapter. There is little chance of confusion.
As for next years possibilities, your suggestion of something in the way of a reserve though less than an ultimatum seems the best policy. For since I should like to come back, I do not want a bluff called. You need not tell the administration that I do not want to stay at Wheaton unless I have to. There are attractions here, and it is the definition of “have to” which is difficult. The friendship and inspiration of the philosophy department at Penn is invaluable; the truly pleasant friendship here is not philosophical and solitude brings the risk of stagnation. The house on St. Mark’s Square is another reason for wishing to stay in Phila, and there are still others.
On the other hand, to return as an instructor again savors of disgrace; in fact remaining twelve years as an instructor is almost a disgrace. Then again there are two persons who dislike Dr. Smith and are for that reason, I judge, disinclined to favor the philosophy department. The same two love me no more, and church affiliations lead one of them to wish for and to work for, both in the civil courts and in private, my embarrassment whether financial professional, or personal. Only a promotion can insure some degree of stability; and if I do not accept a promotion from Wheaton, and if I cannot obtain one at Penn, I cannot guess where the next avenue of advancement may be.
At any rate, with full recognition and appreciation of your previous efforts to obtain a promotion, it now seems highly desirable, not to any necessary practically, to have a definite commitment from the administration in order to come to a decision.
Give my best regards to everyone in the office, and thank de Benneville for sending me the first part of the fifth Ennead.
Cordially yours,
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[link, pages 7-8; marginal notes, letter from Buswell, March 31, 1937]Ousia is one with the Father.
p. 216 Endowment by derivation: a glory coming from the Father The Son is derived from the Father
p. 218 his derivation from God.
p. 219-p.220 that the unique begetting occurrent in the preexistence state is more doubtful. Many scholars attach it to the incarnation, and says Sonship is inseparable from the monogenes.
p. 220 “Frankly confessing our preference for the Trinitarian explanation” – but state the opposite view [ie Vos says Sonship is eternal]
p. 221 Vos holds
that John 5:26 and 6:57 teach that the [eternal] source of the Son’s life is in
the Father.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[link, pages 14-20; probably written in May of 1938]
Dear Dr. Buswell,
The enclosed letter from the Wheaton Alumni Association, asking for a letter of comparisons, is self explanatory.
But the Wheaton College constituency, many of whom have never known university life, and some no doubt have never known any college life, may need some things emphasized and others omitted.
Would you therefore give a judgment as to the suitability of my reply?
Thank you.
Gordon H Clark
When one first comes to Wheaton, the things which impress are determined by one’s previous circumstances. It may well be imagined, therefore, [???] when an instructor transfers from a city of approximately two million to one of seven thousand, from a university of thirteen thousand student to a college of one thousand, and from a library of 750000 volumes to one of thirty five thousand, the first impressions are contrasts of size.
Institutive distinctives, however, are more important than quantitative, and of the above contrasts in size only the last has a qualitative bearing. While the fact must frankly be faced that Wheaton cannot afford equipment comparable with universities established two centuries ago, the librarian and the administrative officers concerned are not to be outdone by any university officials in their willingness to improve the facilities. In the winter of 36-37 during one period of four months the Librarians received and catalogued more volumes than during the preceding two years. This growth has continued in the last year also, and if funds can be secured, the development of the Library will be one of the brightest aspects of Wheaton’s academic advance.
People more frequently ask for a comparison of the academic attainment between the students here and those in the University. This could best be made by a purely objective study of the intelligence quotients. Any other expression of opinion is a mere guess. The contrasts between students groups as observed in the Philosophy classes may be briefly summed up in these three. First, Wheaton is free of the typical fraternity man who comes to college to learn politics and to make business acquaintances. This is a distinct advantage to the academic work of the college. Second, in philosophy the students show more interest in the theological phrases of the subject and less interest in the scientific. For example, nominalism’s difficulties with the Trinity woke more discussion than its impetus to experimental science. Conclusions, however, are to be drawn with caution because it may mean that fewer scientific students take philosophy at Wheaton. In the third place, without statistical investigation is seems that Wheaton students must earn a larger proportion of their expenses; and this is undoubtedly an unfortunate handicap. Scholarship funds could well be doubled before anything remotely resembles luxury put in its appearance.
Aside from academic comparisons there are the social, moral, and religious phases of college life. Against these present a contrast as great as those of size. People live more closely together. Social engagements, athletic contacts, Library Societies, recitals, concerts, seems to be much more numerous at Wheaton. One student recently said that there had been sixty prayer meetings held in that one week.
So for contrasts dealing strictly with Wheaton ideals, those who have never known anything but Wheaton can with difficulty realize the relief of not having girl students smoke in the classrooms, and those who have never known anything but a secular institution are completely at a loss to understand Wheaton.
There is far more contact between faculty and students; whereas two or three students are entertained in the University twenty or thirty are invited to faculty homes at Wheaton. Likewise there are more social contacts among the faculty. In fact, while it is all very pleasant, one misses the comparative quiet of city life.
How so?
[In?] which case the world cannot be known.
non sequitur
We do not have to [hold?] that men must have all types of action
impossible
I requested a distinction between know and know plus love in the interests of epistemology. But Van Til admitted no distinction.
The work and love is to understand
What is the literal meaning of this?
May I attempt to clarify matters by replying to your letter more or less paragraph by paragraph.
The reference to James 2:19 does not seem to be inconsistent with the position of the paper because the statement of James says that the devils believe merely that there is one God. To believe that there is one God is not sufficient to salvation. The devils did not believe that Christ had died for them. The mere fact, therefore, that one intellectual operation does not produce salvation, does not prove that salvation (including sanctification) is not to be found in another intellectual act. My paper does not hold that we know God by any random intellection, but that our knowing God is an intellection and not an emotion. Your paragraph end with the phrase “total ethical reaction of the whole man” which must, it seems to me, take intellection as basic, because I cannot conceive morality except as founded on truth.
This leads to another point which is preliminary to discussing detailed contents. The point in question is that of the exact scope of the article. I have asked and tried to answer the question: What is the religious activity par excellence, or to make it more definite, how to we grasp God himself. For I hold that our personal appreciation, contemplation, grasp, or God is more fundamental than obeying some particular command he may impose on us. My answer is, of course, the intellect. That is, I am defending the primacy of the intellect in religious (and in all) matters. But note: if the intellect is prime, it has no equals. To put something on the level of truth and mind is to deny the primacy to anything. This accords with the notion that God is Truth. God, then, is a being to be known, not willed or felt.
And further, as in every discussion, definition is essential. We must say exactly what we mean, and stick to our meaning.
As for details: Your comment on p. 1, line 5 up is not clear to me. I am asking what action of man grasps God, not what actions of God grasps man. I am not raising the question of whether man needs God’s grace to come to Him, but clearly, assuming grace, how man can have the most intimate relation possible with God.
Your note on p. 2. The term feeling tone seems to me a little vague. As a matter of fact, modern psychology texts do not attempt to define emotion; so, wanting a better, I have adopted the historical definition of confused thinking. That God has no emotion is an article of faith. The Westminster Confession, II i, states that God is without body, parts, or passions. The original meaning of passion is any modification or change, or suffering, There is a good section on this problem in Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. I, pp. 170-178. To be sure, he does not verbally agree with me, in that he concedes God emotions, but only because he (fallaciously) identified absence of emotion with Spinozism (p/172) When I remove emotion from God, I certainly do not mean to say, as Shedd, infers, that God is indifferent. But though thus he differs from me verbally he grants my contention on p. 174 by stating that God does not experience fear, jealousy, grief, or repentance.
I must admit that my phrase on p. 9, that God does not aim, is very poor and must be recast. What I must say is that God never changes his aim.
The point of the illustration of holding the pencil, p. 10, is that the reaching is a motion, the holding is an activity which is not motion. Behind this is the thought that volition is change, intellection is unchanging activity.
P. 11, on static perfection, refers of course to the being of God. Without an immutable God we have radical dynamism, and therefore skepticism. Does not Hodge say that the glory which creatures ascribe to God does not increase God’s glory? What do you mean by saying that God’s glory is not static? It seems to me that if God changes, it must be either from the worse or to the worse.
I did not say, Truth is of primary value, as you suggest in your criticism of p. 12, because this phrase seems to me to classify truth under value, and that is exactly the Ritschlian position which I am combatting.
At the bottom of p. 12 I say that animals, as opposed to plants, have volition because they can initiate motion. The ancient distinction is, the nutritive soul for plants, the appetitive for animals, the intellect for man. Apparently your use of the word volition envisages the Aristotelian proairesis. But proairesis is distinctly intellectual, even syllogistic, and of course animals do not have it. But in keeping with the main burden of the paper, I was thinking of volition as the faculty of self-motion.
Now may I append some final remarks? How would you go about defending the primacy of the intellect? Do you believe that we can either will God or feel God?
If I should ask: does Rom. 10:9-10 make emotion necessary to salvation, you could reply with your article in the Bibliotheca Sacra. Two points: On p. 34, Jesus’ objections to a demand for signs does not prove that belief is not intellectual. The difference in meaning between John 4:50 and 53, is not the intellectuality of the belief, but the object of the belief.
Your article on pisteuo is an excellent summary of the usage of the word and I am glad to have read it. But it really attacks a different problem than the one now under discussion. On o. 29 you reject faith as intellectual assent, but do not give an explicit reason. The implicit reason seems to be that intellectual assent is unethical, non-moral. With this I should disagree. Our thinking is our chief moral problem. Every thought is either moral or immoral. And I heartily agree that faith is ethical. But I cannot draw the conclusion that therefore it is not intellectual.
Already I have tried your patience, and I may not press the discussion; but if you should care to reply you would help me considerably by answering these questions
1. How can one defend the primacy of the intellect?
2. Can man will God or feel God?
3. Why is not faith assent or intellection?
With many thanks,
--------------------------------------------------------------------
March 24th 1939.
Dear Dr. Buswell,
The book on the history of the doctrine of the work of Christ is safely returned. If you have time and inclination you may have the second volume also, though I do not think it so interesting.
The point which led me to mention this book was the problem whether the necessity of the Satisfactio, or of anything else, was absolute and rational, or hypothecated on God’s decree. It is a question I have as yet been unable to answer for myself.
You noted that Thomas Aquinas and Augustine stand against Anselm. Did you also note that Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin oppose Anselm on this point? Of course the Reformers accepted Anselm’s view of the Atonement as a satisfaction of God’s justice; Anselm deserves credit for being the first clearly to formulate the doctrine. But whether God could have willed otherwise is a separate question.
As for the other point: the nature of force. The reference in Leibniz is New System, 3. This is based, at least partially, on the fact that our only experiences of force comes through our willing to resist some motion; we have no other experience or concept of force. It also aids him in explaining inertia, which Descartes had trouble with.
A minor point. I am not aware that Descartes said “that God’s will might just as well have decreed that three angles of a plan figure bounded by three straight lines would be equal to more or less than two right angles.” I am always willing to learn; so, may I have the reference? In Meditation V he says, “the existence can not more be separate from the essence of God, than… the equality of its three angles to two right angles, from the essence of a triangle.” And a page later, “whenever I am desirous of considering a rectilinear figure composed of only three angles, it is absolutely necessary to attribute these properties to it from which it is correctly inferred that its three angles are not greater than two right angles.”
But I do know that given a hook, line, and fly, it does not follow by absolute rational necessity that a trout will bite.
Cordially yours,
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Hodge defines a Person as a self conscious self determining being. Spinoza’s God is a self determining, and possibly self conscious. Those who confound will and power hardly intend to deny that God has will – though Spinoza can be easily so understood.
Sixth set of objections. (1) For cogito ergo sum to be valid, it is necessary to know that I think and know that I know that I think ad inf. (2) When you say cogito, perhaps you are mistaken and instead of thinking, you are only moving. (3) Is not man as much a machine as are the animals (4) The atheist will insist that God could not deceive him in geom. God not nec. To support the truth of Geom. (5) God could deceive us – or allow us to deceive ourselves – as to an external world without injustice, perhaps to keep us humble, cf. I Cor. 8:2. (6) Descartes’s doctrine makes indifference an imperfection instead of making free will something noble. For clear and distinct knowledge would eliminate free will. God is not free.
Reply:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[link, pages 19-21, marginal notes, letter from Buswell, April 15, 1939]
[???] of necessity is irrelevant. The question is: is r could not be otherwise. Compromise like Duns Scot, 1, 2, 3, command nec, 4-10 unnec, is unstable, untenable
This is not conclusive because all [?] things depend on decree
Irrelevant
Augustinians
Biel – with Franks does not say this
Non sequitur
Must because decreed or willed
Under these condition
No because he says I could have overcome the law, but I chose not to
--------------------------------------------------------------------
April 27th 1939.
Memorandum of Descartes etc.
Dear Dr. Buswell,
Your lengthy, and yet for that reason all the more interesting material on our current discussion could very well stand a great deal of consideration. Without a Dictaphone and stenographer I must omit some details I should like to include.
The notion to which Hodge refers, that God could make a plan triangle with interior angles other than two rights, is found in answer to a series of objections. The particular objection is that Descartes’ doctrine make indifference an imperfection instead of making free will something noble; for, clear and distinct knowledge would eliminate free will, and hence God could not be free.
With the intention of showing what a minor part Hodge’s quotation plays, I shall translate the first half of Descartes’ reply.
“As to the liberty of free will, it is certain that the reason or essence of the kind which is in God is quite different from the kind in us, seeing that it is absurd that the will of God has not been from all eternity indifferent to everything that has been made or that ever will be made; for there was no idea of the good and true, of what one should believe or do or omit, that you can claim to have been the object of the divine understanding before God’s nature had been constituted such by the determination of his will. And I do not speak here of a simple priority of time, but much more I say that it is impossible that such an idea should have preceded the determination of the will of God by a priority of order or nature, or of reasoned reason (raison raisonnee) as they call it in the schools, with the result that that idea of good should have inclined God to elect one (choose on thing?) more than another. For example, it is not by having seen that it was better to create the world in time instead of from eternity, that he willed to create it in time; and he did not will that the three angels of a triangle should be made equal to two rights because he knows that it could not be otherwise, etc. But on the contrary, because he willed to create the world in time, therefore it is better than if it had been created from eternity; and seeing that he willed the angles of a triangle to equal necessarily two rights, for that reason the same is now true and it cannot be otherwise, and so on with everything.”
Descartes then goes on to show that this does not compromise the Romish doctrine of the merits of the saints; and concludes on the will of man and his freedom.
My conclusion, so far as Descartes is concerned, is that the notion that the nature of God depends on his will, and that a thing is good simply because God wills it, rather than that God wills it because it is good, is all very clearly expressed. But the example of the triangle is poorly chosen because the sentence reduces to nonsense syllables.
In fact, this will permit us to phrase our main problem; and if it can be properly phrased we have made an advance. Is this not the question: Is the nature of God determined by his will, or is his will determined by his nature? Of course Hodge, I p. 406, expressly denies Descartes position, but he gives no reason.
Hodge also, I p. 402, seems to me to misrepresent Descartes by saying that “According to this doctrine contradictions absurdities, and immoralities are all within the divine power.” This is exactly not the case. Hodge tacitly inserts one of his own premises, viz. that an act is immoral regardless of the divine will, and then concludes that Descartes says God can do something immoral. On the contrary, Descartes is sure that God can do no wrong; God only does right, for the simple reason that God’s doing it or willing it makes it right. For the same reason God can do nothing absurd, because he is the criterion of rationality, the creator of rationality, or if not creator, at least producer. Colloquially speaking Hodge and the Scripture as well teach that God can do the absurd, I. p. 413. For to change a stone into a human-being-has-descended-from-Abraham seems both absurd and also more plausible on Descartes’ view than on Hodge’s. In fact this Scripture passage is one of two or three factors which attract me to Descartes’ position. There are also opposing factors.
With the phrasing of the problem above, perhaps I can plunge into the discussion of your letter of April 15th, but with hesitation, because it is almost a theological treatise in itself.
The main line of your argument there seems to depend on the distinction between the two grounds of necessity. Now I am not an authority on Anselm, and you may very well be correct. But I should like to have your source for this distinction. I am not at all sure that Anselm is to be interpreted just that way. In Shedd’s History of Christian Doctrine, Vol. II, p. 274 bottom, we read, “Everything is referred to a metaphysical or necessary ground.” The following page speaks of both a rational necessity and a scientific rationality. To be sure the satisfaction in mind, does not dispel all doubt, but he continues near the bottom of p. 275 to say “…is required by a necessary and immanent attribute of the Divine Nature, then a scientific character cannot be vindicated for the doctrine; for nothing that is not metaphysically necessary is scientific.” Shedd’s words do not absolutely prove my interpretation, but they seem to support it, viz. that the motif in Anselm is rationalism, that everything is as it is because it can be deduced syllogistically from the Being of God. This ties in with his ontological argument. For Anselm, I think, nothing could be otherwise than as it is. He could never have accepted the hybrid notion of Duns Scotus that God could have imposed different commandments to take the place of numbers four to ten, but could not have commanded anything diverging from numbers one to three (Protestant numbering.) Hence, whenever your argument depends on the assumption of two distinct grounds of necessity, I must question the premise.
But if there be but one ground for necessity, viz. the rational Being of God, many of the paragraphs of your letter become irrelevant to the answering of the question as formulated above. For example, the quotation from the Westminster Confession states what Christ did, but it does not settle the question whether will or nature is basic. Or on p. 2 of your letter, the last four short paragraphs: the must, and could not, and was necessary, may very well be true in view of the actual will of God. Note near the bottom of page one of this effusion, that Descartes insists of the necessity of the theorem, but it is necessary because God willed it. Therefore these passages do not conflict with the doctrine of acceptatio.
As for the view of Calvin himself, of course Franks takes his stand; and from my reading of Calvin before I had read Franks I had thought the same thing. I have just now quickly glanced over the Institutes II xii ff. but the problem is hardly and vaguely mentioned in the first paragraph. I did not chance to see anything more definite in the discussion of the Atonement. The most definite passage, therefore, remains III xxiii 2. This sections still seems to me to substantiates Franks’ view. Calvin says, “…how exceedingly presumptuous it is only to inquire into the causes of the divine will; which is in fact, and is justly entitled to be the cause of everything that exists. For if it had any cause then there must be something antecedent (N.B. he says antecedent, not external) on which it depends; which it is impious to suppose. For the will of God is the highest rule of justice so that what he wills must be considered just, for this very reason, because he wills it.”
I must say, it is difficult to see a difference between that last sentence and the view of Descartes.
To conclude with a reference to yours of April 17th. In Calvin III xxiii 3, I do not find the notion of subjection of will to nature which you mention. To be sure, in the preceding section he repudiates the doctrine of absolute power, but in what respects and what exactly the doctrine is, he does not say; and he continues immediately to say that the will of God is the law of all laws. Perhaps you have some other section of Calvin in mind.
One thing, it seems to me, will have to be done before much more progress can be made, and that is to define the term nature. It must be defined so that it will not only fit into this discussion, but also so that it will fit in with Christ’s one person and two natures. I recall pondering over this problem a few years ago, but I did not succeed.
Well, if I Cor. 8:2 is discouraging, at least we also have I Cor. 13:12.
Very cordially yours,
P. S. Hodge I p. 406, 410, seems to agree with Leibniz that power or force depends on will power.
PPS. This evening I have just read a certain statement that “His ethics is hated by most of the alumni body.” No doubt you are aware that it is feared by the student body; but two alumni have told me that in their Christian work in the world they have found your theism and ethics the most valuable courses they took at Wheaton.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[link, pages 28-29, marginal notes, letter from Buswell, May 2, 1939]
Creation? Mature cow
God cannot will what He knows good [?]
OK irrelevant
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[link, page 30-31]
May 22 1939.
Dear Dr. Buswell,
In reply to memorandum of May 2nd.
The comprehensiveness seems to have prevented me from replying sooner, and now that summer is near I suppose that the exchange of views must cease for the present. It has been profitable: I now know more accurately what historical figures have said, and think I have the issues more clearly defined.
Paragraph 3 of the memorandum of May 2nd seems to me to be the correct interpretation of Descartes; and the same mode of procedure will solve your question in paragraph 4. That is: God ordains truth by thinking it. He makes rationality what it is. He cannot lie because if he said that water freezes only after alcohol has frozen, it would forthwith be true. And so on. I agree with you that this is a form of irrationalism: on this scheme the will of God and not the intellect of God would be absolutely basic. The picture then would be of a perfectly free God, volitional, and in contrast a man in which intellect is basic. We would have intellectualism for man, but voluntarism for God. It is objected that we cannot think of the law of contradiction being false. Quite true, because we are made that way; but the theory replies that God could make us otherwise. Could give us other categories by which to think, and under such conditions we could not think the possibility of the present law of contradiction. Sounds queer, doesn’t it; but I see no logical flaw in the argument.
That Jesus words on making sons of Abraham applies to spiritual and not to literal sons, I think quite correct. It still remains absurd, queer, or something of the sort, to think of human beings of Adam’s race (for must we not say this to take care of original sin?) being produced not from flesh and blood, but from stone. But let it pass.
The distinction you made in your previous note, and which you repeat on page two, paragraph two, between two necessities is certainly in the mind of many of the reformed theologians. In addition to previous references, see Shedd, Hist. of Doctrine, II 299-304, esp. notes 1 & 2 on page 302. Franks naturally does not consider this distinction, for it is subsidiary to his interest, His question is, Is God subject to any necessity? For Franks, therefore, it makes no difference to what kind of necessity God is subject. He notes that Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, are opposed to Anselm, on the ground that the former make God subject to no necessity. Shedd in the discussion of the Arminian view of this question sees clearly that neither view conflicts with the necessity of a satisfaction of divine justice in the plan of redemption actually in effect. He further minimizes the importance of this discussion by calling it merely academic; but I suspect that it is systematically important.
Another subject. George Bragdon relayed some of your and some of my remarks on Barth to the father of a graduate of the Biblical Seminary in N. Y., and the father sent the remarks to his son who is now studying either in Scotland or with Barth. A rather indignant letter came in reply. I have asked Bragdon to see you, and hope you can give him more actual quotations than I have done.
Cordially,
[Ed: Marginal note replying to Buswell’s return letter of the same date: “incorrect”]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
May 25 1942
Mr. Allan C. Emery
267 Summer Street
Boston, Mass.
Dear Mr. Emery,
With the exception of your omitting news of Allan, I am deeply appreciative of your kind reply to my long letter of a few days ago.
Since the administration committee is to discuss my case this week, I believe, and to report to the faculty the following Tuesday, there may be some point in your writing to Dr. Edman, though the wisdom of such a procedure is a matter for you to decide. You may quote my letter. I tried to state public facts that cannot be denied.
The reinstatement of the philosophy major, however – if the faculty decides to reinstate it – will, I fear, leave the basic problem unsolved. A section of the school holds that not merely must all of us accept the nine points of doctrine in the catalog, but that, further, no difference with the head of the Bible Department are to be tolerated. I am one of another group which believes that other views more in accord with historic Protestantism should be sympathetically represented. It is completely impossible for me to hear the reformed faith constantly attacked without saying something in its favor.
Since this is a matter of most basic policy, a clarification by the trustees, if you care to ask for it on June 13, would settle the perplexity of those who are interested. It would be a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak with you during your visit at that time.
Very truly yours,
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[link, pages 1-2]
June 5 1942
Rev. William R. McCarrell
334 S. Grove Ave.
Oak Park, Ill.
My dear Dr. McCarrell,
The other afternoon I phoned in an attempt to make an appointment with you. Your secretary at the church said it would be better for me to write, and following her suggestion I think it would be as well to lay before you here the matter I have in mind, and then if you care to discuss it further, I am at your service.
Though this letter may seem long, it will ultimately save time if I begin at the beginning.
When the members of the faculty were preparing the material for the present college catalog, Dr. Thiessen, the chairman of our department, told me that Dr. Edman wanted to see me about the offering of the philosophy major. Apparently war and finances required some retrenchment in the college; and I was already helping out in Greek because one of the young men had been taken by the army. I met Dr. Edman in the hall and he asked me to write him a letter giving my views at to retaining or dropping the major work. In that letter I showed one way in which the major could be retained, and there are other possibilities as well.
The next think I knew the catalog was published with the philosophy major missing. There had been not departmental recommendation, no committee action, no faculty approval. The copy handed in for the catalog contained the major, but someone had deleted it.
It seems elementary to me that all matters pertaining to the curriculum should pass through the faculty. To say, as has later been said, that no definite method of procedure had ever been adopted for the dropping of a major, is not a satisfactory excuse for ignoring both the department and the faculty. Therefore I asked in the faculty meeting how a major could be dropped without regular action. The faculty seemed to approve my views and instructed the administration committee to discuss the matter and bring back a recommendation. I have since heard that this secret method of altering the catalog has been used before.
Now a second factor enters the picture. In the administration committee it became clear that the war and the budget had virtually nothing to do with the matter, for I had some eighteen or twenty major students while others had less than five.
The real reason came to light in several accusations made against me. Their common core is that I do not agree one hundred per cent with the theology of Dr. Thiessen. There is no question of my acceptance of the doctrines of the college as printed in the catalog; it is a question of matters on which various denominations have long differed. And yet Dr. Thiessen demanded that I express no disagreement with him.
You may remember that last year Dr. Hoffman was dismissed from the college. I gather that the chief cause of his dismissal was theological disagreement with Dr. Thiessen. No Dr. Hoffman was an Arminian; I am a Calvinist. Dr. Thiessen is neither. He has a system of his own never adopted by any denomination so far as I know.
This basic charge against me was subdivided into several parts, and I can go into them with you if you care.
At any rate, in the committee meeting I tried to reply. I acknowledged, not with shame but with pride, my acceptance of the Westminster Confession of Faith: I really believe it, it is not just a form with me. Its doctrine is the doctrine of a dozen denominations, and while many of them are modernistic now, they have had a noble history. Further, Wheaton is ostensibly an interdenominational school, and if Calvinism is persistently attacked, as it is, it ought also to have a sympathetic presentation.
Therefore the demand to express no disagreement with Dr. Thiessen is a demand for my resignation. I am unwilling to resign without acquainting some of the trustees with the reasons. If the trustees wish to enforce the views of Dr. Thiessen, that will settle the matter; but it will result in a Wheaton purged of Calvinists and Arminians alike.
These are the facts and issues as I see them, and I am presenting them simply for your information.
Very truly yours,
--------------------------------------------------------------------
610 Howard Street
Wheaton Illinois
September 1 1942
Rev. Edwin H. Rian
Westminster Seminary
Chestnut Hill, Pa.
Dear Ed,
Thank you for your kindness in writing for me to several institutions and for your proposed mention of me when you visit Valparaiso. I am disappointed that nothing came of your attempt with Dr. Grier; I had hoped that the might have been able to stretch a point and come to my rescue; and further, it would be an excellent situation for our little girl, Lois – I mean the Presbyterian churches which are no doubt in the vicinity. Our church connections here are personally pleasant, but Lois would benefit by more methodical instruction in Sunday School and the general church atmosphere. Perhaps you have pressed Dr. Grier as much as is wise, but if not, you might try again during the winter if you happen to see him.
I have been preparing twenty seven inquiries to as many colleges (including Yale, no less), but the preceding dozen or fifteen have not produced much.
It is encouraging to know that you Federation- idea is taking hold, and I am looking forward to your visit to talk over possibilities.
So far as I know right now, I am to teach here for the coming season; but they may force me out at any time. For this reason, I want your advice on the matters below; and if you will, could you see my friend John Harper, 1018 Real Estate Trust Bldg., S. E. cor., Broad and Chestnut. He is a lawyer, and there may be need of legal advice. Also, he was once a Presbyterian, has drifted away from all religion, has an agreeable but totally uninterested wife. I took him to Bob Strong’s church last spring, and had Bob visit him. He is somewhat conversant with the beginnings of our Church, and it would do no harm is you should meet him. He is a school chum of mind – we went through both High School and College together; he knows all my affairs and you can talk to him on any subject without hesitation. Now to get back to the need for advice.
The report of the special committee to the trustees of Wheaton, from which I sent you excerpts says further:
(Recommendation) 2. That is asked his personal opinion as to the group of doctrines in question, he be frank but state the belief rather than expounding his reasons, - being equally frank in admitting his susceptibility to error and that his views in this respect have not been those of most Christian leaders.
Now briefly, I am academically opposed to this program, for it deprives the students of important historical information. These views are not merely mine, but have been held for three hundred and more years by eminent Christian leaders, even if by some system of counting they do not form a numerical majority.*
Next, by not giving my reasons, I am unable to serve as a philosopher, who above all must discuss reasons.
Third, these recommendations are incompatible with my vows of ordination to the eldership, which require that I teach the whole Confession regardless of opposition.
And, since the Confession is based on the Scripture, these recommendations are contrary to the Scripture which requires us to teach the whole counsel of God.
Therefore, if the Trustees adopt these recommendations, as no doubt they will, what should I do? I can elaborate the reasons above and resign immediately. Or I can state the reasons and say I refuse to obey them and let them fire me. This last procedure may be necessary if I should want to sue them. Whether I have a sound battle for suit, I do not yet know; for I have refrained from consulting any lawyer here until events required it. Too much gossip to do so earlier. The questions are, then, do I want to sue, or do I not. In either case, resign or be fired?
The report from which I have quoted says in another place “We do not find that Dr. Clark’s opinions differ materially from those which he frankly stated, and which were freely discussed, when he was employed six years ago. The above recommendations therefore constitute a change of policy. I never subscribed to them at the time of my employment or since; and had they been required then, I should not have accepted a position here. It seems to me that the committee made here an admission which would put them in a bad light before the law.
I am not anxious to go to law, particularly if I can get another position quickly and lose little in salary. When you come out here, I shall want to discuss the possibility of publishing the documents and adding comments on the theology here and the drift of the college. And I should also like to sound you out on an overture in the General Assembly warning student members of our Church of teaching here.
Sorry to cause you all this trouble. Hope I cannot do the same for you someday.
[Ed: * In the margins next to this paragraph, Clark writes, “diluted Christianity expunged Bible. Can’t even quote Scripture”]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[link, pages 10-11]
610 Howard StreetWheaton Illinois
Sept. 7 1942
Dear Ed,
I received similar letters from you and Harper after your conference. I shall carefully follow the advice.
The trustees will meet in October, and will probably adopt the report. In that case I should be ready to make a reply promptly. The enclosed is the sort of thing I have in mind. Can you go over it with a fine tooth comb.
The part of the report on which I base my remarks about condemning denominations is as follows:
“To your committee, the deductions are not entirely illogical, and the views themselves are unsound and for that reason dangerous. Some of your Committee feel that the part of the error arises from an effort to expand, by human reason and deduction, the doctrine of the person of God beyond what is definitely taught in the Scripture; and that to attempt to directly refute such error, similarly might be to presume by human wisdom to develop doctrines about God going beyond what He has seen fit to reveal to us.”
In one of your letters you mentioned the possibility of mentioning some of the items of the enclosed letter before the Trustees adopted the report. If there were a real chance of staying here comfortably, it would be worth while to make an effort to prevent them from adopting the report. But under the actual conditions, I am afraid my acquainting them these reasons ahead of time would result in their adopting a statment with the same effect minus the wording that can be pointed out as good reason for resigning.
I hope I am not wearying you by my letters; kindly remember that there is no one here to whom I can go for advice.
Cordially,
P.S. After resigning, to what extent should I make known my reasons to members of the faculty here? Or people elsewhere? Would that make me a trouble-maker as of point three of your last letter?
[Ed: In a handwritten note following this letter, Clark writes:
First paragraph six of the report explicitly condemns two doctrines of the Westminster Confession; yet it says that human wisdom is unable to refute – as well as to sustain – these doctrines. To condemn doctrine that cannot be refuted is irrational; to deny the legitimacy of valid deduction from Scripture is to imply that Christianity is irrational; and the whole therefore is anti-Scriptural (cf. I John 5:20 and I Peter 3:15).]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[link, pages 14-15]No. 13 1942
Rev. Edwin H. Rian
Westminster Seminary
Philadelphia, Pa.
Dear Ed,
Before coming to other matters, I wish to direct your attention to these items.
There is a magazine published on college publicity called, The College Publicity Digest. The editor is Floyd Tifft, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, N.Y. In its various issues there may be useful material for us.
Also there is a semi-useful article in The American Scholar of Spring 1942 by F. P. Keppel on Will the American College Survive. He brings out a number of factors which favor and which oppose the survival. Some of the factors can be controlled.
There are also legal problems. In Europe the faculty was usually the University. Here in America the trustee system has developed out of the system of judicial visitors. The result is that the faculty member is nothing but a hired man, perhaps with a contract; but he has no ‘freehold’ on his position. Some colleges have had competent trustees; but more frequently the trustees do not understand the needs. I suggest that if it is at all possible we revert to the European model; or at least have the full professors be or be on the board of trustees.
This and other legal matters relating to the troubles of a half dozen universities in the last two or three centuries is contained in a book, Academic Organization and Control, by J. E. Kirkpatrick, The Antioch Press, 1931. No doubt you can get copies of Pennsylvania laws on the subject. If you can get such easily, send me one sometime.
As for the Christmas lecture of the Guardian, don’t take the whole thing too seriously; my only idea is to keep it readable for the 12 year mentality. The testimonies of the students as to why they chose Westminster seemed good; a student here, Van Dyke, was greatly impressed with Tompkins’ and Jewett’s statements. Van Dyke expects to get to Westminster in Sept. 1944. I think we got another student for next September, one I hardly expected, comes out of Pentecostalism. There is another who might well come, if we can detach him from his girl. She want him to go to faith.
I want to think over the problem of having an anthropologist in our college and graduate school. Anthropology has not been a prominent subject in small schools. But this man can publish a great deal, can inspire students, and has boundless energy. On the other hand his energy impels him to ask too largely. We might make a written agreement on how much money (aside from salary) could be given him each year for books and exhibits. He no doubt would soon ask for a building for his subject. He is disgusted here, and would want to come. But I do not care to tell him much of anything unless there is a reasonable hope for him. He was born in the Caucasus, has studies in Berlin and Paris, was an officer in the Czar’s armies.
Since I am having the Cincinnati speech typed for Miss Shillito, I shall send you or Tom Birch a copy. If you are stuck for material, you could use some excerpts perhaps.
Cordially,
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[link, pages 19-21]
November 18 1942
Rev. Edwin H. Rian
Westminster Seminary
Philadelphia, Pa.
Dear Ed,
If we encourage between us a correspondence on university affairs, it will soon know no bounds. And yet by making carbons of these letters, I have a record of some ideas that may prove useful.
Before you set your mind of the form of legal organization, take the trouble to read some of Kirkpatrick’s book, mentioned in my last letter. You need to read no more of the history of Harvard and Yale than interests you, but some chapters on general principles about two thirds through the book contain important material. My Concern in this matter centers around the ability of non-resident trustees to appreciate professional ideals. And I am convinced that what we need is standards to which most Americans are not accustomed. I hope that we can make clear to ourselves exactly what our aims are, and the not deviate to club houses and subsidized athletics. Faculty, library, and laboratory are my goals.
In order to seem to have a wider denominational backing, can we not invite Robert Rudolph to participate. I know that the faculty of Westminster thinks their seminary a poor one and their denomination Arminian. This latter part is hardly so. At least Bob Rudolph is pretty solidly Calvinistic, and he is making his church more so. And in any case, his church is no worse than some from which you will choose men, the Canadian Presbyterian, for example. In fact, they called themselves Reformed Episcopalians.
I am very happy to see that you will call a meeting in January, and the larger meeting in March. Our spring vacation is set for April 9-20. In March I could leave for a day or two. I wish I could get to the first Philadelphia meeting, but it would be quite a strain. But tell them that Francis Turretin wants to be dean of the College.
As for dues in the Society, is one dollar too cheap-looking? Of course it is just a nice way of asking for contributions; but most people would be glad to pay five dollars a year.
I am working out details for the college. But the question of the anthropologist is a special problem. There are such distinct advantages and such distinct disadvantages to him. Undoubtedly he will publish a good deal. Undoubtedly he will stimulate students to work. Undoubtedly he will want more funds (not salary) than we can give him, and perhaps more space too. Then anthropology is not such a pedigreed subject as German and mathematics. There is also the question of theology. He claims to be Calvinistic; but he really does not know much about it. And aside from him, I think you must face the fact that there will be few professors of history and physics who can meet the requirements of the Westminster faculty for being reformed.
You refer to Hutchins book, page 106ff., on the faculties of a university. Hutchins, in my opinion, has some excellent ideas; and the book you mention ought to be read by the inner circle establishing our university. But he has not said the last word. The division of faculties you refer to, is not really a university organization. It is rather a substitute for departments in a college.
This raises all sorts of problems. Should we try to start with departments, or with the divisions of natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities. Should we drop out the freshman and sophomore years, and abandon the field to junior colleges? To this last question I say No, because the High Schools are doing a rotten job, and the Junior colleges will not do better. We need a stiff lower division curriculum to overcome bad preparation, to prepare for advanced work.
As for university organization, we must start with a college and a graduate school; the next, because least expensive, is a law school. Beyond that I do not see. In fact, that much is amazing; and how it can be financed is a mystery. In thinking out the affairs of the college, could you suggest the number of instructors with which we might reasonably start?
I do not want to deluge you with college detail, unless you ask for it; but one matter can well receive your attention from the beginning. That is a statement of purpose. You will have to try to make one for the university as a whole. Here is something of a tentative draft for the college.
Subsidiary to the general aim of the university, the purpose of the College of Arts and Sciences is to bring the student into contact with a faculty engaged in contributing to the sum total of knowledge; to provide the student with a fund of knowledge sufficiently extensive to enable him to appreciate the scope of conflicting world-views; and to initiate him more particularly in the knowledge and technique of one field so that later he may make original contributions to scholarship.
And finally, impress the preliminary meeting, and the second meeting in Cincinnati, that a year’s groundwork can well be spent before opening for students; at least a half year.
Cordially,
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[link, page 24]
Nov 26th 1942
Rev. Edwin H. Rian
Westminster Seminary
Phila., Pa.
Dear Ed,
I shall be delighted to go with you to Valparaiso on December 18. Shall I meet you in Union Station at 10 AM? I do not know the time of trains to Valparaiso, nor even the best railroad. When you make your appointment with Kretamann, get the information and let me know where we can meet.
In spite of rumors that the war may be over next June, it may not be – do not see how it can be, and for other reasons as well, our University may not get started next year. Therefore let us try to get me a hob at Valparaiso. It would give me a much better opportunity to learn the set up than an afternoon’s visit gives.
It is too bad that Hutchins did not reply more cordially. He rather shuts the door to further correspondence. Maybe you should have asked him a question or two.
Because it is more economical to have a fixed schedule for all students than to have too many electives; and because certain definite courses fit in with what Hutchins calls general education, I am working out a two year fixed roster (assuming as we must that the freshmen know no languages) that will prepare them for solid study in one field. Look over this outline. Some people will think it long on science and short on history and social studies.
Enclosed also is a carbon of my Cincinnati address. Perhaps you could use excerpts for the Guardian.
Cordially,
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[link, page 32]610 Howard Street
Wheaton Illinois
February 17 1943
Dear Ed,
On last Saturday the trustees adopted the report of their committee, [?] I was informed of their action on Tuesday, and I handed in my resignation today. The text of the resignation is only slightly changed from Harper’s suggested form, and I am enclosing a copy.
This raises the question of publicizing it. I have lacked Harper’s advice, and I should like to know what The Guardian wishes to do.
Publicity [?] reached Phila. of the great “revival” they have had here. It was what I judge Buchmanite [?]: lots of confession of sins, deprecation of doctrine, and so on.
At the same time the president of the ? USA Seminary [?] on the campus gathering applicants for his institution. The committee [?] college faculties should not be [?] to those who advocate controversial [?].
Although I have accepted the offer of the Home Missions Committee, and have applied for ordination, I do not think I am justified in ceasing to look for a college position. Bob Rudolph has located a possible mode of approach to Columbia University, through a friend of his. Hence I wrote to see what could be done.
And as for the Christian University, the matter of the library is still on my mind. Today a book catalog came with Lavisse et Rambaud’s history of France from the fourth century on, $35.00 for 12 volumes. This is the first time I have ever seen that set for sale. If it is the regular quarto edition, it is a bargain that cannot often be found. The bookseller is Wm. H. Allen about 31st and Walnut (or is it Chestnut?).
Cordially,
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[link, page 33]610 Howard Street
Wheaton Illinois
March 1 1943
Rev. Edwin H. Rian
Westminster Seminary
Phila., Pa.
Dear Ed,
It may be about time to think if and how The Guardian will publicize my resignation. No doubt it will publish the letter of resignation.
In this regard I have today from Dr. Edman the following note:
“Your letter of February fifteen addressed to the Trustees of the College and to me was presented at the latest meeting of the Executive Committee. By vote of that Committee your resignation to be effective at the end of the 1942-1943 school year (August thirty-one) was accepted. The action of the Committee refers solely to the resignation and does not imply acceptation of the reasons therein stated.”
What the legal or other effect of the last sentence is, I am not sure. I shall send a copy to Harper.
If an article should accompany the publication of my letter, would it be wise to recall that Buswell and I were the two most active persons fighting modernism on the Wheaton faculty. That the dismissal of Buswell has never been satisfactorily explained – a significant matter since his success was so outstanding. That questions were then raised in the public mind as to whether Wheaton was going modernistic. That the president who followed him was not known for his opposition to modernism, and that now he permitted the USA Seminary of Omaha to recruit student on the campus.
How is the meeting for the Christian University shaping up?
There were twenty four at Creed Club last night. After the regular two hour session, twelve of them stayed for another two hours. All in all, from five to nine.
Hope you are in good health and that everything is going smoothly.
G.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[link, pages 4-5]
March 23 1943President J. Oliver Buswell, Jr.
The National Bible Institute
New York, N.Y.
Dear Dr. Buswell,
Thank you for your recent letter. As you know (cf. your letter to me of May 4 1942), trouble for me has been brewing here.
Last August a committee that had investigated me wrote a report with certain recommendations. It lay without any action by the trustees until last December, when the executive committee, taking it up for the first time, adopted the report and fired me. Then after this delicate hint, it withdrew the firing action, reapproved the report, and let me resign. Enclosed is a copy of my letter of resignation.
In it I charge the trustees with a breach of contract because you, Dean Emerson, Mr. Dyrness, and Dr. Thiessen had a session with me discussing the third chapter of the Westminster Confession which explicit states the doctrine of reprobation. The trustees admit that the matter was thoroughly discussed. At that time I made it clear that I would not consent to accept a position in Wheaton if I could not at the same time be a Presbyterian. In evidence of which I could point to the fact that during your administration no complaint was addressed to me, on this subject or on any other. Now the trustees have altered the doctrinal position of the college by an explicit condemnation of chapters two and three of the Confession, or more exactly an explicit condemnation of the doctrine taught in these chapters, and they tried to compel me to deceive the students as to the historical facts, and I have resigned.
Of course Dr. Thiessen, who does not scruple to use quotations that cannot be located and who reverses the order of historical events in order to make a point against Calvinism, and who without departmental meeting, committee meeting, or faculty action, had the philosophy major dropped from the catalog, cannot be expected to remember anything that would favor my position.
I am sensible of your business behavior, of you adequate records of transactions; and I have always appreciated your above-board character – a type of character that Wheaton ought now to have at its head.
The present head of the school, under the cover of a carefully prearranged “revival” resembling a Buchmantic confession meeting, a revival that was thoroughly used for publicity, brought in the president of the Omaha U.S.A. seminary to recruit candidates for that church.
I trust that this information will bring you up to the current situation. If it is not sufficiently full, let me know and I shall answer your questions.
Cordially yours,
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[link, page 9]
March 29 1943President J. Oliver Buswell, Jr.
The National Bible Institute
New York, N.Y.
Dear Dr. Buswell,
As you request I am sending you a copy of the report of the committee. Kindly return it to me. The college did not furnish me with copies for distribution, in fact Dr. Edman never has shown me a copy as it was finally adopted by the committee and later by the trustees. He only gave me a tentative report. I understand that on the final report one word was changed. Instead of saying that I teach God is the author of sin, they used the word ‘originator’ of sin. As you will see by following through the usage of the word ‘author’ in the Confession, it means ‘approver.’ Of course I do not hold that God approves sin; on the contrary he punishes sin and makes it the legal basis of condemnation.
Making sin the legal basis of condemnation, however, does not remove from the Confession the doctrine of reprobation. God from all eternity foreordained some to everlasting life and also foreordained some to eternal death. Read carefully chapter three, section three. If that is not reprobation, then you must be using a definition I do not know.
As for permissive decrees, I have never found anyone willing to define permission. And Calvin himself shows the folly of trying to escaping the teaching of Scripture by inventing permissive decrees. Cf. Institutes III, xiii, 8 and II iv, 3.
It is always pleasurable to have a theological discussion with you, but time is short now. The point of the present trouble is that I made my position clear when I came here, even submitting a published article on Determinism and Responsibility, and that no requirements were made of me beyond those published in the catalog. The trustees, at the first meeting in which they discussed my case, altered the doctrinal position of the college and fired me. Then they rescinded the firing and hoped for my resignation. It looks to me like a breach of contract.
Cordially yours,
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[link, pages 36-37]
March 31 1943Rev. Edwin H. Rian
Westminster Seminary
Phila., Pa.
Dear Ed,
I am returning your article, and these are the comments.
The main points to be made and the length of the article are for you to decide. Some of my suggestions may lead too far afield on both these scores.
On page one, paragraph two: “So acceptable was” etc. Would it be better to say that after a year’s scrutiny of my position, it was found acceptable. There was not exactly a promotion from Visiting Professor to Associate, except in a very technical sense. And I think the point should be stress that my views were well known. At the bottom of the page you say that this point is of importance, but you do not say why.
In this connection you might stress the fact that the college has altered its doctrinal position.
On page three, you might comment explicitly on the words of the catalog that the student is to study both sides of the question, while the trustees report forbids it. You imply this of course; it is merely a choice of emphasis.
Page three, three lines from the bottom: the tentative report sent to me reads as you have quoted. I was never given the final report; but I have discovered they changed the word ‘author’ to ‘originator.’
On page four, middle, we should avoid giving the impression that the particular beliefs are wrong. They are inadequate particularizations. You might say that the trustees carefully avoided using any of my quotations from the Confession in their report. And by all means, included, as you have done, the wording of the Confession.
In your final paragraph, you might add the note that since the trustees have now dismissed the two men who more than any others in their employ have fought against modernism, it is not so much Dr. C. who is under scrutiny etc.
Page four, middle paragraph, line 3, “that is sin,” and page 5 lines 9 and 8 from the bottom, ought to be reworded for clarity.
As you no doubt mailed your letter before my last one arrived, I shall ask again whether you or Wooley have written to the North Central Assn, or the A. A. U.
Has Stonehouse or anyone reviewed Thiessen’s book on N. T. Introduction? Not having read it (just a week or so ago) I do not know whether it contains blunders similar to those in his Theology.
Cordially,
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[link, page 39]
April 12 1943Rev. Edwin H. Rian
Westminster Seminary
Phila., Pa.
Dear Ed,
You are on hundred per cent right in omitting mention of breach of contract in your article about Wheaton in the Guardian.
But whether for this reason you should not write to the North Central Association and the A. A. U. is another matter. In this latter possibility it is not so much an alleged breach of contract as it is the fact that under the requirements that the trustees tried to lay on me, a liberal arts college cannot function. I stress the breach of contract to preserve my reputation, to make it clear that I never worked under any such restrictions. The accrediting agencies would probably not be interested in my individual case, nor would they consider the legal merits of a breach of contract, but they might be interested in the policies of the trustees.
A letter from Buswell on April 5 says, “When the board of trustees put me out of the college, in effect they repudiated my ideas of academic freedom, of individual responsibility for the purity of the church, and of other important matter.”
What harm it would do to present the trustees report to the agencies and my resignation, I do not see. I do not think I should do it; and if you still are of the opinion that you should not, I’ll let the matter drop, for while I cannot see any harm in doing so, I do not see any good resulting from it either.
When you get time, let me know how the university is progressing. Reactions beginning to filter in on my resignation indicate some desire for a Christian college of high standards. Of course I hear largely from those inclined towards me, so it must all be discounted, but I judge there is some call for a new institution. I think your article will increase that call.
Cordially,
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[link, page 10]
April 12 1943
President J. Oliver Buswell, Jr.
The National Bible Institute
New York, N.Y.
Dear Dr. Buswell,
I take it that your letter of April 5 is an admission that I was employed on the understanding that my views should have an open hearing in the college, and in particular that I was not employed subject to any such restrictions as those set down in the report of the special committee, later adopted by the executive committee and by the trustees as a whole.
May I merely repeat that I had submitted my article on Determinism and Responsibility before my employment; that I openly advocated Calvinism, both during my year as Visiting Professor and after my election to Associate Professor; that I made clear to you that if Dr. Thiessen’s wish to stifle Calvinism were to be granted I would not accept the appointment at Wheaton. Such in my mind were the terms of employment. Of course it was all verbal – I thought I could trust men who were so vocal in their profession of Christianity; if I had suspected the true character of the trustees I would have asked for a written contract. And I am always ready to admit that you kept the terms of the verbal contract. I have no complaint to make against you.
Your letter gives me another complaint against the trustees. If they repudiated the policies under which I was employed by dismissing you, they ought to have made the change of policy known to the faculty. In not doing so, they acted, in my opinion, dishonestly. And I am quite convinced that they are guilty of breach of contract. If our conversations did not constitute a contract, then there has been no contract at all, for I was employed by word of mouth. There was no written document signed by two parties.
Thank you for your kind regards and earnest prayers.
Cordially yours,
--------------------------------------------------------------------
July 14, 1943
My dear Gray,
First, I want to thank you for your letter of July 9 with its enclosure (which I am returning) and for your interest in the matter. Your letter came while was away on a speaking trip, and hence the delay in reply.
Perhaps it would be well for me to give you some of the background, even if it requires a lengthy letter. And because I do not like to write long letters, try to give the information to any others who might want me to write it out again.
Dr. Thiessen at the first, which I came here in 1936, tried to have me stopped from preaching Calvinism. He failed. I was employed on the definite understanding that nothing beyond the platform was to be required of me. If you will read over the report of the committee that examined me last June, you will notice that they admit my views had not changed since 1936, and that they were well known then, and had been thoroughly discussed. I claim therefore that their imposition of the very requirements which I rejected in 1936 constitutes a virtual breach of contract. Dr. Buswell holds that legally the trustees have the right to change any requirements and can fire a man for any reason at all. The exact legality of the matter is not the point I am trying to make. It is the fact that they have broken a promise and a business arrangement.
Dr. Thiessen apparently continues to scheme to get me out. But so long as Dr. Buswell remained, he could do nothing. After Buswell was fired (ask the trustees to explain that! - and ask how it is the two men who were the most prominent of all at Wheaton in a fight against modernism have been forced out) Thiessen, Dyrness, and Edman dropped the philosophy major from the catalog without a departmental meeting, without a committee meeting, and without faculty approval. The first I learned of it was from a student who had seen the printed catalog. I tried to bring this matter to the trustees, but they categorically denied me permission to say anything against Thiessen. I had brought the matter to the faculty. Edman put the matter off; and I raised the question three times in faculty, and finally after about three months, Edman allowed the faculty to vote on the matter, and the major was restored to the catalog by faculty vote the very last faculty meeting June 1942. In the three months no doubt the had decided to put me out.
Glenn Andreas wrote to Dr. Edman and asked what issues were involved. Three days before the trustees committee examined me on my theological views (and found they were the same as six years before) Edman wrote the Andreas and said “Quite possibly there has gone abroad a misconception of the situation in regard to a philosophy major at Wheaton. For some years there has been a marked decline in the enrollment in that department. Under the uncertain conditions of war days, we are expecting teachers to branch out into other fields familiar to the, if there should be need. At the time the catalog was published, it was uncertain as to just how much philosophy could be offered, in view of the fact that Dr. Clark is helping with elementary Greek. As soon as possible this uncertainty was clarified; and on recommendation of the administration, the philosophy major has been continued.”
Note that this was the trouble three days before the trustees met to examine me in theology.
Note further that as a matter of fact there was no marked decline in the enrollment in philosophy. Even the major students numbered twenty when the major was dropped; and yet majors with two or three students were kept in the catalog. And it is distinctly false that it was uncertain how much philosophy could be offered. For at least three months before the catalog was printed, I had submitted a schedule preserving the philosophy major and keeping room for Greek. Well, just think over the facts.
Now perhaps I should take up the letter Edman sent to you in reply to the protest. In its first paragraph it asks you not to circulate it. This is in keeping with the underhanded practices of the college. Circulation would certainly hurt the college among thoughtful people; I do not see that it would hurt me at all.
The second paragraph to my mind is entirely false (except that they know of no other faculty member except O’Brien). The trustees have certainly discriminated against the Reformed faith. And the evidence is that they force me out and keep Thiessen who constantly attacks the Reformed faith. He attacks it even to the extent of making quotation from Calvin which cannot be found in Calvin, and in twisting the sequence of historical facts is Calvin’s life; and in give the impression that supralapsarianism asserts that God foreordains evil but that infralap. does not hold that God foreordains evil. He denies that man is dead in sin, but says that he is sick and must go to the drug store for medicine; ad inf. See Jewett – he knows Thiessen’s positions very well. You might ask the trustees why I resigned, if the Reformed faith had the same welcome as Arminianism. And how about the constant stream of Arminian chapel speakers, and the almost complete absence of Calvinists.
Third paragraph: the language of the report definite requires me to deceive the students. And I wish above all things that you would make a very forceful reply to the charge that I am not in agreement with the ministers of our church on the points involved. I accept thoroughly the third article of the Confession. Read it over again. Then compare it with the summary of my beliefs as worded by my friends the enemy. They asked me if I believed that God foreordains all things. Does he? I said yes. Then does he ordain that someone is born an imbecile etc. The answer is that this is one of the all things and therefore, yes. So they put it in the report that God ordains some to be born imbeciles. Is God immutable? I say yes. Are emotions upsets in a calm state of mind. I say yes, as you can see in my article on Intellectualism in the Westminster Journal. Does God have emotions? Of course he does not. There is no change in God’s mind; no succession of thoughts or stats. And so they print that statement. And they says these doctrines are untrue and dangerous. They do not state in words that they reject the Westminster Confession; they merely attack every one of its applications.
Four: no question of classroom procedure was raised in the committee meeting. They wanted my views. How much times I spent on them in the class room was never mentioned. But my support of the Creed Club on Sunday afternoons came in for severe condemnation. And further, since when is the problem of evil not a part of the regular course in philosophy. They asked me to keep to my subject and they order me not to teach my subject.
Paragraph one on page two comes in for the same sort of comment. How can anyone be prepared to meet the unbelieving world without a position of predestinatoion? And the end of the paragraph betrays their insincerity. Free Methodists and others advocate the second blessing. Baptists advocate immersion, and some students from Presbyterian homes are immersed while at college; but more important than these two points is the constant class room attack on Calvinism by Thiessen and his dishonesty in the procedure. He may attack me before the trustees, but I may not complain about him. I must deceive the students on Calvinism to its hurt, and he is free to deceive the students to its hurt. I suppose that gives us equal rights to deception.
The middle paragraph on page two is of course so much twaddle. Evangelistic fervor is the very big thing the complain about in my case. I am too interested in preaching the whole gospel; and so they say I am not interested in preaching the gospel. I am not spiritual because I object to Buchmanite confession meetings, the was Edman has introduced them; and so on.
The next paragraph again shows their unwillingness to come out in the open. They want it all kept secret. So much for their reply to your (may I say) inadequate protest.
Now as for chapel speakers and others who come to talk to the FMF etc. One of the latter, a C&MA man, spoke of F. Stanley Jones as a great man of God – of course we do not agree with his theology, but theology is unimportant. Fully half the chapel speakers stress the fact that theology is unimportant (except Calvinistic theology, which is dangerous); and Edman in a conversation with Elwyn Smith (a former student) asserted that theology and true piety have little to do with each other – certainly theology has no more to do with ‘spirituality’ than does chemistry. Then too the president of the Omaha (USA) seminary was on the campus and furnished with a room to get students to his seminary; though it has since been extinguished or something. Lindsay (instruct in Bible) is a USA man and at least a semi Barthian. But it is hard to get good evidence without taking down stenographically the words of the various speakers, and of course often their words are a little too vague to prove much in court. The drift however is unmistakable. Edman has spent some rather definite effort in cultivating the USA church; and the trustees can hardly deny that Buswell’s fight against modernism had a good bit to do with his being fired.
To come back to my own case: they speak of having tried to be helpful to me. The tentative report of the committee was sent me. I wrote a protest against its accuracy. The final committee report to the trustees was never given to me, though I found out what it said from another channel. The first time the report was taken up for action by the trustees, they fired me. Note they terminated my connection with the college before informing me of the contents of the final report and before informing me of their acceptance of the report. Then after firing me, they told me they would rescind the dismissal and expected me to resign. Some of the Westminster men advised me to refuse and be fired over again. Others at Westminster, and a very good friend, a lawyer, said I might as well resign. I did the latter; I may have been wrong, but things were happening fast, and I chose the advise that gave its reasons rather than the advice that was given without reasons.
Mr. Hamilton has been here and has investigated the throwing away of our literature by the post office in the college. There is not sufficient evidence to prove that the girl did it under orders from above; but the postal inspector from Chicago came out and apparently talked turkey to her and maybe her superiors.
As for my application for ordination, I was quite disturbed at the refusal of the committee to bring my case before Presbytery; but I am pursuing the matter on the advice of Presbytery. What disturbs me more now is that Mrs. Kuiper says (to people at Quarryville) that I do not believe in miracles, and therefore do not even believe in God. This, if she said it as reported to me by a person who claims she said it to her, is slander. I not only believe in miracles – I believe that every event in the Scriptures occurred exactly as they say they occurred, but I wrote a defense of miracles in the Evangelical Quarterly some years ago. For the record, I believe that Christ raised Lasarus from the dead by calling out to him and by whatever exercise of power was necessary; and so on with the loaves and fishes, the opening of the eyes of the blind, the Virgin Birth, and all the rest. Now Hamilton believes that Elijah was fed by Arabs instead of ravens. This is a question of what the text says and what pointing is correct. There may be several such doubtful cases; but whatever the Scriptures mean I believe occurred. Most of the cases are not doubtful. What I refused to admit before the committee was that these miracles which occurred were the acts of creation. The Scripture and the Catechism define creation as the work of six days; there is no mention of additional acts of creation; therefore I do not see why it is necessary to assert that a miracle is a creative act, calling something into existence ex nihilo. Therefore I classify miracles as works of providence. Now this is in strict conformity with the confession. The Confession does not say that miracles are acts of creation. It speaks first of God’s ordinary acts of providence and then continues (chapter five, section three,) “yet God is free to work without, above, and against them (means), at his pleasure.” Therefore I would conclude that miracles are extraordinary acts of providence.
There is this further to be said. I am not sure what the framers of the Confession meant by the word ‘means’. In the case of the feeding of the five thousand, the five loaves and two fishes were used and they are therefore means. In opening the eyes of the blind men, spittle and mud were used, and are therefore means. In fact, I do not know of a miracle in the Bible where means were not used. Strictly if God does something without any means at all, it is an act of creation for in creation there is absolutely nothing but the word of his power. If on the other hand, means signifies a given law of physics, such as that of the inverse squares, then God can and I believe has accomplished miracles without that means and contrary to it. What the word ‘above’ in the Confession means, I do not know. And of course I cannot assert my belief in a phrase whose meaning I do not know.
But it should be abundantly clear from my article published sometime before I applied for ordination that I believe and defend the position that Christ turned five loaves and two fishes into a meal to satisfy a great multitude and that basketfuls were gathered up afterward. And you will note in the article that there is no question of point a Hebrew text, and that the modernist idea that the boy brought out his lunch that his act inspired the others to take out their lunches is a tawdry dishonesty.
To be perfectly fair, I wish to say that I have not communicated with Mrs. Kuiper to determine whether she said I did not believe in miracles; I learned of this report only today; it comes from the or a person who says she heard her say it. So if you repeat the contents of this letter, make sure that I am not yet at least accursing Mrs. Kuiper of anything.
The committee also judged that I did not have a call to the ministry. Whether they were within their rights in making such a judgment remains to be seen. But I will not discuss the matter, except to say that I have in my own way been preaching the gospel for the past six years at least, and it is that that has got me into trouble. And I shall continue to preach the gospel in the way I can do it best whatever the committee, Presbytery, or General Assembly does or does not do. I feel I could accomplish more if I were ordained.
What a long letter this has turned out to be. You will do me a great favor by giving the facts such publicity as you think they deserve. I have nothing to hide, and while this letter is not composed in a literary style fit for printing, you may quote it, show it around, and do whatever you want to do.
Cordially yours,
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[link, page 27]3552 Elmley Ave.
Baltimore 13, Md.
March 24, 1944
Dr. V. R. Edman, President
Wheaton College
Wheaton, Illinois
Dear Dr. Edman:
Would you do me the favor of allowing me to quote, perhaps in print, from your letters of last September and October? These letters suggested that certain suspicions I had regarding the orthodoxy of Dr. Cairns were unfounded, and that you would be glad to present Dr. Cairns with a list of questions, and forward to me his answers. I would have been only too glad to see Dr. Cairns get a clean bill of health in this matter. When the list arrived, you acknowledged it, but said that the business of Homecoming was pressing, and that things would be delayed somewhat.
If the ASTP program is canceled at Wheaton, would Dr. Cairns be retained? This question is beside the main point, but if he were to leave, no doubt the storm concerning him would blow over. But the real point is this: can Wheaton afford to allow suspicions regarding the soundness of a professor remain unchallenged? The man’s case history is all I have to go on right now, but he has taught without apparent friction at an institution where his fellow professors in theology have through sound doctrine to the winds. He might be personally sound, but unwilling to speak out for the Lord at Omaha. Again, he might have repented of such a course since coming to Wheaton. If so, I would like to hear about it. A history professor is not a neutral somebody. Nor are soldiers to be regarded as beyond the reach of the gospel in a history classroom.
There is an unhealthy fog over the East wing which I would like to see dispelled. You are in excellent position either to anoint my eyes or dispel this. The panoply of Ephesians is equal to this task. We should have no zeal but that which is founded on the Word. What is the good name of the college compared to this? A curriculum which has a strange foundation should not be eyes with complacency.
In 1837 there was a split in the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A. Two churches of the same name continued side by side until 1870. One was the “Old School”, and the other was the “New School”. Both church had the same constitution, and the same subscription formula. But there was a huge difference. The men in the Old School actually meant it when they subscribed to the confessional statement. This was not always true in the New School. After the Southern church split off from the Old School, the two Northern Schools of thought made the mistake of uniting. Hinc illae lacrimae. The New School, further corrupted into modernism, captured the church, and their method of subscription is now the rule. It takes close questioning to observe a man’s position. Of what school is Dr. Cairns? And what is he did subscribe to Wheaton’s standards? He has subscribed even to better standards, doubtless. Can you clear this matter?
Sincerely yours
No comments:
Post a Comment