Valuable Archive

The OPC has provided a treasure chest of back issues of The Presbyterian Guardian.   You can browse individual issues at their website or download the entire archive from 1935 – 1975 which is almost a full gig of material.  There are quite a few articles and material related to Gordon Clark and the infamous “Clark” case that readers of this blog will certainly be interested in.  Tom over at Trinity Foundation pointed me to the June 10, 1944 issue dealing with the controversy.  Also in that same issue is a report of move at the OPC GA to bring Westminster Seminary under church oversight and control that was beaten.  The importance of this little tidbit is that one of John Robbins central claims in his piece, Can the OPC be Saved?,  and in response to the misinformation being promulgated by Vantilian and OPC historian John Muether, is  that one of the underlying issues driving the Clark case was the attempt by the WTS faction to block a takeover of the seminary by the church.  Dr. Robbins writes:

Muether’s allegation that what was at stake in the controversy was whether the OPC’s ecclesiology would be Evangelical or Reformed is also unsupported by any documentary evidence Muether cited. The ecclesiological issue in the controversy was whether the parachurch institution, Westminster Seminary, would be subject to Church oversight. It was the WTS faction that opposed such ecclesiastical oversight, making them, not Dr. Clark, the advocates of an un-Reformed ecclesiology.  The official OPC Historian is not reporting history, but writing propaganda. Until the leaders of the OPC are willing to come to grips with history and acknowledge their errors of both teaching and practice, the denomination will continue its descent into apostasy.

Also, for those who are interested, I strongly recommend reading both The Complaint that C. Van Til and the WTS faction filed against the ordination of Gordon Clark along with The Answer Clark and associates provided in response to the complaint.  Reading each of these critical documents point by point is guaranteed to be an eye-opener as they illustrate what a critical watershed the Clark/Van Til controversy really was in P&R history and why the issues debated generations ago are still vitally important today.   (*If you want to read these online rather than just printing them out, you’ll have to change the orientation when viewing them in your Adobe reader).

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: Gordon Clark, Theology, Van Til

23 Comments on “Valuable Archive”

  1. Drake Says:

    Thanks Sean!
    This is fantastic I have been looking for these documents for months. You saved me a headache here. Much appreciated. I wanted to get an answer from you from the last blog though. Please don’t forget, just whenever you get a chance. I think I made the last comment.

    Drake
    a.k.a
    Hildebrand Vonbosnick


  2. Parts of “The Complaint” literally made my jaw drop. Particularly the quote from Vos:

    “To wish to explain Romans 9 from Romans 10 is rationalistic exegesis.”

    This is *Reformed*? This is to be *preferred* to Clark maintaining that Scripture is “harmonious in all its parts”?

    Unbelievable. I had heard these things before, but reading them for myself nauseates me.

  3. Hugh McCann Says:

    To Sean’s summer reading list above, I’d add the wonderful little book from Trinity Foundation, _The Clark Van Til Controversy_ by Herman Hoeksema.

    http://www.trinitylectures.org/product_info.php?cPath=21&products_id=67

    I’d hope jaundiced OPC-ers could read it and THINK about the issues, jettisoning petty personality propaganda and losing all pathetic personal pejoratives.

    But then this’d be less “fun,” and more seriously, one side would actually be found to be unbiblical. (Hint, it’s not ours!)

    Phew!
    (No, Hugh…)

  4. Wanda Wilkening Says:

    Thank you, Sean! As soon as The Presbyterian Guardian came online, I started reading for information about Dr. Clark’s ordination controversy.

    Do you also have a copy of the transcript made of Clark’s Presbytery examination? It is mentioned as being sent to all the members of the General Assembly.

  5. Sean Gerety Says:

    No, I don’t have a copy of Clark’s pres exam. However, if you come across a copy, keep me in mind. 🙂

  6. Wanda Wilkening Says:

    Another question for you, Sean. I know that John Robbins felt the whole question of whether the OPC would have oversight over the seminary was a crucial factor in the controversy over Clark’s ordination. However, do you think that a comparison between Dr. Clark’s article in the Presbyterian Guardian, “An Appeal to Fundamentalists” (March 10, 1943) and Rev. Paul Woolley’s “Discontent!” (July 25, 1944) gives any support to the proposal that it was also a battle between the “evangelicals” and the “reformed?” Which ‘vision’ for the denomination would prevail?

  7. Sean Gerety Says:

    Hi Wanda. Thanks for the question. I think the proposal that the Clark controversy was also a battle between the “evangelicals” and the “reformed” is laughable. I take it you have not read John’s piece linked above? In it he makes direct reference to “An Appeal” and rightly notes that John Muether’s and D. G. Hart’s claim that Clark “hoped the church would become more evangelical than Reformed” is “patently false.” As John notes:

    They misrepresent Dr. Clark’s 1943 essay as compromising, disloyal to both the Reformed faith and the OPC. They know better. And as the reader now knows as well, Dr. Clark actually invited fundamentalists to leave their impotent, independent congregations, their truncated view of Christianity, and their leaders who were leading them astray, and to join a “sound, aggressive denomination” that, at that time, “preached the Bible in its entirety.” He even urged them to study Charles Hodge’s three-volume Systematic Theology. The basis of their joining the OPC was not the broad mission of opposing Modernism, as Hart and Muether say, but “all the doctrines of the original Reformers,” as one can easily see by reading Dr. Clark’s essay. The purpose or goal of asking fundamentalists to join the OPC was to oppose all forms of unbelief, including Modernism.

    If anything, Clark unambiguously stood for an uncompromising and vigorous Reformed faith and strongly opposed the anemic and broadly defined “evangelicalism” that had fractured the church as should be obvious from the following:

    First of all, the scattered, independent congregations of devout and humble Christians need ministers who have renewed their grip on the fundamentals. Both ministers and people should take Charles Hodge off the shelf and learn what the deity of Christ, the atonement, the person and work pf the Holy Ghost, really mean. Next the minister should lead the way beyond the fundamentals to the essentials: total depravity and its implications, unconditional election, and irresistible grace. In short, he should possess himself of all the doctrines of the original Reformers. A close study of Calvin’s Institutes and the confessions of the Reformed churches would be a long step toward the recovery of a lost heritage. Then when faithful preaching gives the people a fair understanding of these divine truths, the prospects of the church of Christ will look bright indeed. — “An Appeal to Fundamentalists”

    If there was any discontent or movement within the OPC that was seeking a more broadly evangelical and less distinctly Reformed church, it wasn’t a position that Clark took in either “An Appeal” or in any other work I’ve ever read by him. Quite the reverse. OTOH it is amazing how men like Muether and Hart can continue to spread such bald-faced lies when the facts are so clearly against them. I imagine they thought no one would take the time to actually track down some old 1943 article when reading their distorted history of the OPC. While they’re probably right, I honestly don’t know how they can sleep at night? Thankfully, now everyone can read “An Appeal” just as it appeared in 1943 and judge for themselves.

  8. Jaco Says:

    T’nx for this info, Sean. Also, not to side track anything, I would just put a flag up for any South Africans that do venture to your blog. It would be great to get into contact with some fellow Clarkians back here. myburgh(underscore)jaco(at)yahoo(dot)com. T’nx.

  9. Wanda Wilkening Says:

    Thanks, Sean!

  10. Jim Butler Says:

    Sean,

    Thank you very much for making the Complaint and the Answer available. I look forward to reading them.

    jim

  11. Annoyed Pinoy Says:

    I’m looking for a quotation of Dr. Clark that I lost. It’s about a paragraph long where he basically argues for the necessity of starting with axioms otherwise we would end up with an infinite regress of needing to provide and argument for every premise (of every argument). He ends the the point by saying something like, “If you cannot begin the argument, then you certainly cannot finish it.” Can anyone post that quote for me (and maybe some of the surrounding sentences)? Or at least tell me where the quotation can be found if you recognize it? Thanks :-))

  12. drake Says:

    Annoyed Pinoy,

    Try A Christian View of Men And Things (Unicoi, Tennesse.: The Trinity Foundation, 1952, 1980, Fourth edition 2005),28-30 especially page 29

  13. Wanda Wilkening Says:

    Sean,

    Have you read this? It’s an interview of Cornelius Van Til concerning Westminster Seminary’s firing of Norman Shepherd. I don’t know what’s more eye opening – Van Til’s odd responses or Lillback’s leading questions. However, one of the main topics is how Norman Shepherd thought his being forced to leave Westminster was a victory for Gordon Clark and how now the Seminary is going “evangelical!”

    http://www.trinity-pres.net/essays/ns06-InterviewWithJimPaytonJackSawyerPeterLillback.pdf

  14. Sean Gerety Says:

    Yes, I did. I don’t really know what to make of it? Van Til (assuming the transcript is accurate) was completely incoherent and rambling. Could be attributed to his age and declining mental state.

    I thought Jim Payton’s quote was revealing:

    “Norman Shepherd feels that the apologetics of Gordon Clark are triumphing in his demise at Westminister. And Van Til’s whole point of view has been eased out. And that it’s becoming clearly in focus in his own situation in his mind. He’s[sic] called it the triumph of Gordon Clark.”

    Again, not sure what to make of it, and I could only wish Van Til’s whole point of view has been “eased out,” but that doesn’t seem to be the case. OTOH it does seem that those who are the most intimately involved in the spread of the Federal Vision see clearly the link between their doctrines and Van Til’s “point of view.” You’d think that would be a red flag for most Vantilians. Reminded me of James Jordan’s tirade posted on the Greenbaggins blog some time ago that the attack on the false gospel of the Federal Vision is “the Clark controversy with feet on it.” Clark is an easy scapegoat for neo-legalist. After all, a man as far gone as Doug Wilson thinks the Federal Vision is simply a re-affirmation of the historic Reformed faith that had been corrupted by a “Hellenistic” (read rational) mindset. Even Scott Clark thinks to reject Christianity as a rational faith is to preserve the historic Reformed Creator/creature distinction against the imagined “rationalism” of Gordon Clark.

    Seems to be a repeating theme among Vantilians of all stripes. Christianity as a rational faith is a compromise with “evangelicalism,” whereas a Christianity conceived as an aggregate of disjointed, conflicting and contradictory “truths” is “Reformed.” Do you think that could be the message?

  15. dewisant1 Says:

    “a Christianity conceived as an aggregate of disjointed, conflicting and contradictory “truths” is “Reformed.” Do you think that could be the message?”

    It is indeed the message, and when I read the Guardian article I also found & began reading O. Palmer Robertson’s Justification Controversy and Robbin’s Companion to it – I found that here again up was down and black was white at Westminster. I was surprised by how many men at Westminster were so misled (and these our leaders) as to spew nonsense. Sometimes contradicting themselves in a matter of a few weeks or even in the same meeting.

    I am keenly aware of and even share the frustration felt by those who were valiant for truth in all of these controversies, but as for me – I am mostly just saddened by it all.

  16. Benjamin Wong Says:

    Dear Sean:

    – Thank you for the links to [The Complaint] and [The Answer]. : – )

    God bless.

    Benjamin

  17. Benjamin Wong Says:

    Dear Sean:

    – In case some of the readers of your Blog is
    interested, [The Presbyterian Guardian] pdf file is
    searchable.

    – I downloaded the 900 MB version of the file and
    open it using Adobe Reader 9.

    Edit -> Search Entire Portfolio

    I entered ‘clark’.

    After some time, Adobe Reader 9 reported:

    Found 7 documents with 688 instances.

    – Hope this is useful.

    Sincerely,

    Benjamin

  18. Paijo Says:

    Thanks for valuable documents Sean.

    God Bless

  19. Eric Spunde Says:

    The Complaint thoroughly lost me when it stated that, ‘Only the Son has a ‘knowledge of the Father that is on a level with the Father’s knowledge of ·the Son; only the Son’s knowledge of the Father is accordingly exhaustive knowledge; the knowledge which men may come to possess of the Father and of the Son is knowledge on a lower level, apprehension but not comprehension, for otherwise mere men would have to be accorded a place alongside of Christ who alone “knows the Father” (Mt. 11 :27; Lk. 10:22. Cf. also Romans 11 :33; Deut. 29:2 9).’ First, again and again, the complaint makes a difference betwixt apprehension and comprehension, they both have the root word ‘prehendere’ which means to grasp, so what is the point? Second, how could they arrogantly have stated that only the Son can know the Father, if 1 Corinthians 2:10-11 speaks of the Holy Ghost knowing the ‘deep things of God’? In this view they risk turning the Trinity into a Binary God-Head.

  20. Hugh McCann Says:

    John Gill says something similar (hopefully more clearly!):

    Essence, which is the same thing with nature, is ascribed to God; he is said to be “excellent in essence”, (Isa. 28:29) for so the words may be rendered, that is, he has the most excellent essence or being; this is contained in his names, “Jehovah”, and “I am that I am”, which are expressive of his essence or being, as has been observed; and we are required to believe that he is, that he has a being or essence, and does exist, (Heb. 11:6) and essence is that by which a person or thing is what it is, that is its nature; and with respect to God, it is the same with his “face”, which cannot be seen, (Exo. 33:20, 23) that is, cannot be perceived, understood, and fully comprehended, especially in the present state; and, indeed, though in the future state saints will behold the face of God, and “see him face to face, and as he is”, so far as they are capable of, yet it is impossible for a finite mind, in its most exalted state, to comprehend the infinite Nature and Being of God.

    …The nature of God is, indeed, incomprehensible by us; somewhat of it may be apprehended, but it cannot be fully comprehended; “Canst thou by searching find out God? Canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection?” (Job 11:7). No: but then this does not forbid us searching and inquiring after him: though we cannot have adequate ideas of God, yet we should endeavour to get the best we can, and frame the best conceptions of him we are able; that so we may serve and worship him, honour and glorify him, in the best manner.

    {A Body of Doctrinal Divinity, Bk 1, Ch 4: ‘Of the Nature of God’}

  21. Sean Gerety Says:

    Benjamin Wong at the Scripturalist Yahoo Group site did quite a bit of searching and compiled the following index of Clark related material from the Pres Guardian archive linked above.

    Thanks Benjamin!

    A Preliminary Tally of the Articles in The Presbyterian Guardian
    Related to Gordon H. Clark

    Dear All:

    – I learned from Sean’s Blog (God’s Hammer) that the entire archive
    of The Presbyterian Guardian was available for download as a pdf
    file.

    – I downloaded the file and have done a preliminary tally of the
    articles related to Gordon Clark by doing a keyword search on
    ‘clark’.

    – The following is the preliminary tally with some quotations.

    The tally is divided into 2 sections:

    ‘A’ is Articles related to the Clark-Van Til Controversy.

    ‘B’ is Other Topics.

    – I think this tally is too long to post to the comment section of
    Sean’s Blog, so I make it available here.

    Sincerely,

    Benjamin Wong

    ———————————————————————-

    A. Articles related to the Clark-Van Til Controversy

    A.1 ‘The Eleventh General Assembly: The Clark Case’ by Thomas R.
    Birch. Volume 13, No.11 (June 10, 1944): 171-174.

    A.2 ‘Dr. Clark is Licensed by Philadelphia Presbytery’ (unsigned).
    Volume 13, No.14 (July 25, 1944): 225-226.

    A.3 ‘Clark Ordination’ (unsigned). Volume 13, No.18 (October 10,
    1944): 288.

    A.4 ‘Editorial: Let’s Look at the Record’ by John P. Clelland. Volume
    13, No.20 (November 10, 1944): 317.

    A.5 ‘Editorial: Issues and Convictions’ (unsigned). Volume 13, No.22
    (December 10, 1944): 349-351.

    ——————————————————————

    Benjamin: This Editorial took a stand for Van Til and against
    Clark in the matter concerning the incomprehensibility of God
    (p.350):

    THE PRESBYTERIAN GUARDIAN judges that in a matter of such great
    moment it has a responsibility not only to inform its readers but
    also to take a positive stand. We are dedicated to historic
    Presbyterianism, and we are committed to be a guardian of that
    truth. In that respect our position is the same as that of The
    Orthodox Presbyterian Church and of Westminster Theological
    Seminary. We are a part of a movement which includes both of
    these. While not the official spokesman for either, yet we
    confess that the faith they hold is, the faith to which we
    adhere, and that our principal reason for existence is to speak
    for that faith.

    Believing, therefore, that we have an independent obligation in
    this matter, we must express our conviction that the position
    represented by the complainants, as outlined above, is
    substantially true and valid. It is our judgment that the views
    complained against are not in accord with the Scriptures or with
    the subordinate standards to which we are committed. It is our
    judgment that the proclamation of such views cannot but affect
    distressingly the witness of our church.

    ——————————————————————

    A.6 ‘Phila. Presbytery Hears Complaint in Clark Case’ (unsigned).
    Volume 13, No.22 (December 10, 1944): 354-355.

    A.7 ‘Two Communications on the Clark Case’ by Gordon H. Clark and
    Robert Strong. Volume 13, No.23 (December 25, 1944): 360-361.

    A.8 ‘Editorial: Have We Changed?’ by John P. Clelland. Volume 14,
    No.1 (January 10, 1945): 7-9.

    A.9 ‘Blest River of Salvation’ by Gordon H. Clark. Volume 14, No.1
    (January 10, 1945): 10, 16.

    A.10 ‘Editorial: The Clark Protest’ (unsigned). Volume 14, No.2
    (January 25, 1945): 25-26.

    A.11 ‘Notice: The Proposed Reply in the Clark Case’ (unsigned).
    Volume 14, No.6 (March 25, 1945): 89.

    A.12 ‘Philadelphia Presbytery Considers Clark Case’ by Thomas R.
    Birch. Volume 14, No.7 (April 10, 1945): 108-112.

    A.13 ‘More Deliberation on the Clark Case’ by Thomas R. Birch. Volume
    14, No.8 (April 25, 1945): 115-116, 128.

    A.14 ‘An Interpretation of The Answer’ by Floyd E. Hamilton. Volume
    14, No.8 (April 25, 1945): 119-120, 127.

    A.15 ‘Editorial: Doctrine and the Clark Case’ by Ned B. Stonehouse.
    Volume 14, No.8 (April 25, 1945): 121-123.

    —————————————————————–

    Benjamin: An Interesting tidbit. [The Complaint] was
    distributed freely by The Presbyterian Guardian but [The Answer]
    was distributed freely but privately. [Volume 14, No.8 (April
    25, 1945): 121]:

    COPIES of the complaint against the actions of the Presbytery of
    Philadelphia relative to the ordination of Dr. Clark may now be
    had free of charge, upon application to the office of The
    Presbyterian Guardian, 1505 Race Street, Philadelphia 2, Pa.

    Copies of the answer prepared by presbytery’s committee are
    available free upon request to Dr. Robert Strong, 707 Lincoln
    Avenue, Willow Grove, Pa.

    —————————————————————–

    A.16 ‘Editorial: The Coming Assembly’ by John P. Clelland. Volume 14,
    No.9 (May 10, 1945): 135.

    A.17 ‘Editorial: The Docket’ by Thomas R. Birch. Volume 14, No.9 (May
    10, 1945): 135.

    A.18 ‘Orthodox Presbyterian Church News: Philadelphia Presbytery
    Meets at Wilmington’ (unsigned). Volume 14, No.10 (May 25,
    1945): 159.

    A.19 ‘The First Three Days of the General Assembly’ by Thomas R.
    Birch. Volume 14, No.11 (June 10, 1945): 162, 169-176.

    A.20 ‘The Concluding Days of The General Assembly’ by Thomas R.
    Birch. Volume 14, No.12 (June 25, 1945): 182-184, 186-191.

    A.21 ‘Editorial: Assembly’ by Thomas R. Birch. Volume 14, No.12 (June
    25, 1945): 185.

    A.22 ‘A Protest’ by Clifford S. Smith. Volume 14, No.13 (July 10,
    1945): 196.

    A.23 ‘Orthodox Presbyterian Church News: Presbytery of Ohio’
    (unsigned). Volume 14, No.21 (November 25, 1945): 332.

    A.24 ‘Editorial: Thirteenth General Assembly’ (unsigned). Volume 15,
    No.9 (May 10, 1946): 136.

    A.25 ‘The Thirteenth General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian
    Church’ by Edmund P. Clowney. Volume 15, No.11 (June 10, 1946):
    169-172.

    A.26 ‘To the Editors of The Presbyterian Guardian’ by Richard W.
    Gray. Volume 15, No.14 (July 25, 1946): 215-216.

    A.27 ‘University Association Meets, Adjourns to December 12’ by
    Leslie W. Sloat. Volume 15, No.20 (November 10, 1946): 315-317.

    A.28 ‘Orthodox Presbyterian Church News: Philadelphia Presbytery
    Meets’ (unsigned). Volume 16, No.3 (February 10, 1947): 41-42.

    A.29 ‘Philadelphia Presbytery Meets’ (unsigned). Volume 16, No.7
    (April 10, 1947): 108-109.

    A.30 ‘Overtures to the Assembly’ (unsigned). Volume 16, No.9 (May 10,
    1947): 144.

    A.31 ‘Orthodox Presbyterian Church News: Philadelphia Presbytery
    Meets’ (unsigned). Volume 16, No.10 (May 25, 1947): 157.

    A.32 ‘General Assembly Report. Part 1: The First Three Days’ by
    Leslie W. Sloat. Volume 16, No.11 (June 10, 1947): 163-168.

    A.33 ‘General Assembly Report. Part 2: Concluding Sessions’ by Leslie
    W. Sloat. Volume 16, No.12 (June 25, 1947): 179-182, 184.

    A.34 ‘Editorial: The Assembly’ (unsigned). Volume 16, No.12 (June 25,
    1947): 183-184.

    A.35 ‘Editorial: Taking Inventory’ by Ned B. Stonehouse. Volume 17,
    No.1 (January 10, 1948): 3-4.

    A.36 ‘Testimony Being Circulated’ (unsigned). Volume 17, No.1
    (January 10, 1948): 14.

    A.37 ‘Fifteenth General Assembly of The Orthodox Presbyterian Church’
    by Leslie W. Sloat. Volume 17, No.10 (June 10, 1948): 153-155,
    159-165.

    A.38 ‘Editorial: No Mistake in 1936!’ by John P. Clelland. Volume 17,
    No.14 (October, 1948): 227.

    A.39 ‘Orthodox Presbyterian Church News: Dr. Clark Dismissed to U.P.
    Church’ (unsigned). Volume 17, No.15 (November, 1948): 260.

    A.40 ‘Hamilton to Korea Under Independent Board’ (unsigned). Volume
    18, No.2 (February, 1949): 30.

    A.41 ‘Editorial: Reflections on the Seventeenth Assembly’ by John P.
    Clelland. Volume 19, No.6 (June, 1950): 104.

    —————————————————————–

    Quotation [p.104]:

    … We regret that the conflict has ended in the departure of
    Dr. Clark and a number of his most ardent supporters from the
    Church. But we rejoice in the zeal shown by our young Church for
    the truth and in the measure of agreement which has been reached.

    —————————————————————–

    A.42 ‘Fred H. Klooster: The Incomprehensibility of God in the
    Orthodox Presbyterian Church Conflict’. Book review by D.E.
    Bradford. Volume 22, No.2 (February 16, 1953): 37, 40.

    A.43 ‘The Overly Prickly Church’ by John Mitchell. Volume 35, No.3
    (March, 1966): 44-45.

    —————————————————————–

    Quotation [p.44]:

    So a new church was founded, the result of expulsion and
    antagonism. Did the new denomination live peacefully and happily
    ever after? Hardly! Scarcely a year had passed before we were
    separated from that group of sincere and zealous Christians who
    became the Bible Presbyterian Church. And later on we succeeded
    in rubbing each other so raw in the “Clark case” that we lost
    other valuable congregations and ministers. Since then we’ve
    stewed and simmered over the “Peniel problem,” destroying one
    congregation in the process, losing a few more ministers, and
    irritating many of our loyal members elsewhere.

    —————————————————————–

    A.44 ‘Debate on Proposed Basis of Union: OPC General Report
    Continued’ by The Editor (Robert E. Nicholas). Volume 38, No.9
    (September, 1969): 106-108.

    A.45 ‘Have the separatists done all that bad?’ by G. Aiken Taylor.
    Volume 43, No.1 (January, 1974): 3.

  22. Sean Gerety Says:

    PART B

    A Preliminary Tally of the Articles in The Presbyterian Guardian
    Related to Gordon H. Clark

    Dear All:

    – I learned from Sean’s Blog (God’s Hammer) that the entire archive
    of The Presbyterian Guardian was available for download as a pdf
    file.

    – I downloaded the file and have done a preliminary tally of the
    articles related to Gordon Clark by doing a keyword search on
    ‘clark’.

    – The following is the preliminary tally with some quotations.

    The tally is divided into 2 sections:

    ‘A’ is Articles related to the Clark-Van Til Controversy.

    ‘B’ is Other Topics.

    – I think this tally is too long to post to the comment section of
    Sean’s Blog, so I make it available here.

    Sincerely,

    Benjamin Wong

    ———————————————————————-

    B. Other Topics

    B.1 ‘Independency’ by Gordon H. Clark, Volume 1 (February 3, 1936):
    140.

    B.2 Clark was one of the name defendants in the lawsuit filed by the
    Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. against The Presbyterian Church
    of America (later the Orthodox Presbyterian Church).

    B.3 ‘David S. Clark’ (unsigned). Volume 6, No.4 (April, 1939): 72.

    – Obituary of Gordon Clark’s father.

    – David S. Clark was a constitutional member of the Board of
    Trustees of Westminster Theological Seminary.

    B.4 ‘Politics, Agriculture and Politics’ by Gordon H. Clark. Volume
    6, No.9 (September, 1939): 164.

    B.5 ‘Twelfth Annual Commencement Exercise of Westminster Theological
    Seminary’ (unsigned). Volume 9, No.10 (May 25, 1941): 153-154.

    – Clark delivered the 12th annual commencement address at
    Westminster Theological Seminary on May 6, 1941.

    – The title was ‘A Protestant World-View’.

    B.6 ‘An appeal to Fundamentalist’ by Gordon H. Clark. Volume 12, No.5
    (March 10, 1943): 65-67.

    B.7 ‘Dr. Clark Resigns from Wheaton College Faculty’. Volume 12, No.6
    (March 25, 1943): 86.

    – With full text of Clark’s letter of resignation to The
    President and The Trustees of Wheaton College.

    B.8 ‘The Christian Task’ by Gordon H. Clark. Volume 12, No.6 (March
    25, 1943): 93.

    B.9 ‘How Firm a Foundation’ by Gordon H. Clark. Volume 12, No.16
    (September 10, 1943): 252.

    B.10 ‘The Next War’ by Gordon H. Clark. Volume 13, No.5 (March 10,
    1944): 71-72.

    B.11 ‘Education Today and Tomorrow’ by Gordon H. Clark. Volume 13,
    No.7 (April 10, 1944): 101-102, 114-115.

    B.12 ‘One Decade: A Memorandum on the Anniversary of the Orthodox
    Presbyterian Church’ by Edmund P. Clowney. Volume 15, No.11
    (June 10, 1946): 163-164.

    —————————————————————–

    Interesting tidbit: Clark nominated Machen as the first
    moderator of the OPC [p.163]:

    Dr. Machen was elected moderator of the Assembly by a unanimous
    vote, thunderous applause greeting his nomination by Dr. Gordon
    H. Clark.

    —————————————————————–

    B.13 ‘What Is Our Philosophy of Education? A Book Review’ by Henry
    J.G. Van Andel. Volume 16, No.6 (March 25, 1947): 89.

    – Review of A Christian Philosophy of Education (1946) by Gordon
    H. Clark.

    B.14 ‘Plans for Evangelical Theological Society’ (unsigned). Volume
    18, No.12 (December, 1949): 238.

    B.15 ‘E.T.S. to Meet At Westminster’ (unsigned). Volume 25, No.10
    (November 15, 1956): 146.

    B.16 ‘Nicole Gives Payton Lectures at Fuller’ by Edwards E. Elliott.
    Volume 28, No.8 (April 25, 1959): 120.

    B.17 ‘Evangelical Theological Society Annual Meeting’ (unsigned).
    Volume 29, No.2 (January 25, 1960): 32.

    B.18 ‘The Fulfillment of a Vision’ by Robley J. Johnston. Volume 30,
    No.5 (May, 1961): 83-85.

    B.19 ‘For Collegians. International Library of Philosophy and
    Theology: Modern Thinkers Series. Ed., David H. Freeman’, review
    by Robert D. Knudsen. Volume 30, No.8 (August, 1961): 142-143.

    B.20 ‘Evangelical Theological Society Meets in St. Louis’ (unsigned).
    Volume 30, No.12 (December, 1961): 214.

    B.21 ‘Editorial: Karl Barth’s Theology’ by Robert E. Nicholas. Volume
    32, No.1 (January, 1963): 9-10.

    B.22 ‘EP-RP Churches Vote to Unite in 1965’ (unsigned). Volume 33,
    No.4 (April, 1964): 61-62.

    B.23 ‘Theological Society Meets in Nashville’ (unsigned). Volume 34,
    No.11 (November, 1965): 147.

    B.24 ‘A Proposed New Translation of the Bible’ (unsigned). Volume 37,
    No.10 (October, 1968): 105-106.

    B.25 ‘Reformed Seminary Winter Theological Institute’ (unsigned).
    Volume 45, No.1 (January, 1976): 10.

    End of section B.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: