by Theodore Plantinga
Joe Barnhart, Jim and Tammy (Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1988), p. 51. Return to text of Essay 4.
While I was writing this series, it was announced that G.C. Berkouwer's "Studies in Dogmatics" (18 volumes) is available on a CD via Logos Bible Software. Cornelius Van Til was made available on a CD years ago. Return to text of Essay 4.
Perhaps I am being too hard on Beversluis here, but his main publication, entitled Christian Philosophy of Education (Grand Rapids: National Union of Christian Schools, 1971), seemed to me to come down nowhere on the significant issues that divided Dutch Reformed intellectuals in North America. While I believe in having friends in various camps, I do not claim to be in theoretical agreement with all of those with whom I am on friendly terms. Return to text of Essay 4.
James Bratt, Dutch Calvinism In Modern America: A History of a Conservative Subculture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984). Return to text of Essay 4.
See "The Dutch Schools," in Reformed Theology in America, ed. David F. Wells, p. 146. Return to text of Essay 4.
See Transcendental Criticism and Christian Philosophy (Franeker: T. Wever, 1961), p. 123. Return to text of Essay 4.
See Transcendental Criticism (note brummer33), pp. 209 and 210. Return to text of Essay 4.
"Is 'n transendentale kritiek religieus bepaald?" in Truth and Reality (note stoker33), pp. 24-25. Brümmer also took issue with Dooyeweerd -- but in a milder way -- in "The Dilemma of a Christian Philosophy," in Philosophy and Christianity: Philosophical Essays Dedicated to Professor Dr. Herman Dooyeweerd (Kampen: J.H. Kok, and Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1965, no editor listed), pp. 166-177. Dooyeweerd articulates the difference between transcendent and transcendental criticism as follows: "A transcendent critique has nothing to do with the inner structure of the theoretical attitude of philosophical thinking and its necessary conditions. Much rather it criticizes the results of a philosophical reflection from a viewpoint which lies beyond the philosophical point of view. A theologian, for instance, may criticize the Kantian view of autonomous morality from the viewpoint of the Christian faith. But this critique remains dogmatic and worthless from the philosophical viewpoint so long as the inner point of connection between Christian faith and philosophy remains in the dark and the autonomy of philosophical thought is granted as an axiom." See In the Twilight of Western Thought: Studies in the Pretended Autonomy of Philosophical Thought (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1960), pp. 4-5. As for a transcendental critique, it is "... a radically critical inquiry into the universally valid conditions which alone make theoretical thought possible, and which are required by the inner structure and nature of this thought itself." [Page 4] But Heinrich Rickert (1863-1936), in a book announcing itself as an "introduction to transcendental philosophy," proceeds to bring together "transcendent" and "transcendental" in a way that would make Dooyeweerd uncomfortable. Rickert writes: "An investigation that deals with the transcendent in such a way that it looks into its meaning for the objectivity of knowledge or inquires into the transcendent objects as the ultimate criteria for knowledge we call transcendental; consequently, a philosophy of knowledge that takes its point of departure in the problem of transcendence can best be characterized as transcendental philosophy." See Der Gegenstand der Erkenntnis: Einführung in die Transzendentalphilosophie, sixth edition (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1928), p. 22. For Kant, who did much to promote the idea of transcendental philosophy, the word "transcendental" entails "a reference of our cognition, i.e., not to things, but only to the cognitive faculty." See his Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, last paragraph in Section 13. But when Dooyeweerd uses the term "transcendental," the emphasis falls on stipulating the conditions that make thought -- rather than cognition -- possible. Return to text of Essay 4.
"The Perils of Prosperity: Neo-Calvinism and the Future of Religious Colleges," available at www.iapche.org/insert_3_01.html. This paper was included in The Future of Religious Colleges, ed. Paul J. Dovre (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002). Return to text of Essay 4.
Clouser managed to get enough students to sign up for a senior seminar on Dooyeweerd to actually run a class -- in a non-Christian institution! During a visit to Redeemer some years ago, he told us that he sometimes gets asked what is Christian about Dooyeweerd as presented in such a setting. Clouser's main publication is The Myth of Religious Neutrality: An Essay on the Hidden Role of Religious Belief in Theories (Notre Dame and London: University of Notre Dame Press, 1991; a second edition was published in 2005). Return to text of Essay 4.
See Charles Colson and Nancy Pearcey, How Now Shall We Live? (Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, 1999). Their reference to Wolters comes on p. 295, and their footnote to that reference appears on p. 516. Return to text of Essay 4.
I am among those who prefer to translate Dooyeweerdian terminology as simply and directly as possible: thus "wetsidee" becomes "law-idea." Among some reformationals there is a tradition of using circumlocutions far from the Dutch original terminology in an effort to pack in even more meaning, so to speak. The result is what we might call terminological expansion. Yet in the case of "law-idea" versus "cosmonomic idea," it should be noted that Dooyeweerd himself warranted the latter. He wrote: "From the start, I have introduced the Dutch term wetsidee (idea legis) for the transcendental ground-Idea or basic Idea of philosophy. The best English term corresponding to it seems to be `cosmonomic Idea,' since the word `law' used without further specification would evoke a special juridical sense which, of course, cannot be meant here." See New Critique, Vol. 1, p. 93. Return to text of Essay 4.
See Alan Dershowitz, Chutzpah (Boston, Toronto & London: Little Brown & Company, 1991), p. 12. Return to text of Essay 4.
The Dooyeweerd Centre and the Redeemer Philosophy Department sponsored a small conference devoted to this theme on April 7, 2006, with invited presentations by Danie Strauss, Lambert Zuidervaart, James Olthuis, and John Kok. The presentations made by Zuidervaart and Olthuis are available in my "Reading Room": www.redeemer.ca/~tplant/rr/. Strauss later sent a paper on the subject which I have posted as well; I am still hoping for a written submission from Kok. Glenn Friesen was not present, but he has addressed this matter at some length in his article "Dooyeweerd versus Vollenhoven: The Religious Dialectic within Reformational Philosophy," published in Philosophy Reformata, Vol. 70 (2005), pp. 102-132, and available online at www.members.shaw.ca/hermandooyeweerd/Dialectic.html. His website also features some more recent material by way of response to the conference at Redeemer. Return to text of Essay 4.
In this regard, there is a curious disparity between Jellema, on the one hand, and Dooyeweerd and Runner on the other. Members of the Dooyeweerd family have played a key role in the effort to get the writings of their revered father translated into English and have been deeply involved with Redeemer's Dooyeweerd Centre. The children of Evan Runner are also strongly committed to their father's legacy and take an interest in the effort now underway to publish and republish writings of their father (Kerry Hollingsworth and John Hultink play a central role in this endeavor). I am involved in both these enterprises. But one hears of no such effort in connection with the children and grandchildren of Jellema (he had six children in all). Yet there are some unpublished personal materials in an archive at Calvin College, which I consulted in August 2006 as part of my research for this essay. I also urged a couple of Calvin professors to do something by way of making those materials more widely available, perhaps via a website. The materials include lecture notes (some typed and some handwritten) and also study notes prepared for student use. Jellema's essay on Calvinism and higher education is available in my "Reading Room" (see note differences33). Return to text of Essay 4.
New Critique, Vol. 1, p. 526. Return to text of Essay 4.
De Wijsbegeerte der Wetsidee, Vol. 3, pp. vii-viii. Return to text of Essay 4.
See "Het wijsgeerig tweegesprek tusschen de Thomistische Philosophie en de Wijsbegeerte der Wetsidee," published in two parts in Philosophia Reformata, Vol. 13 (1948), pp. 26-31 and 49-59. The quotations are from pp. 26 and 31. Return to text of Essay 4.
See George Puchinger's interview, in Is de gereformeerde wereld veranderd? (Delft: W.D. Meinema, 1966), p. 98. Return to text of Essay 4.
He writes: "For it is philosophy alone which can provide us with a theoretical insight into the inner structure and mutual coherence of the different aspects or modes of human experience. The only question is whether these philosophical fundamentals will be subject to the biblical religious basic motive, or to some non-biblical religious basic motive, originating from a complete or partial apostasy." See In the Twilight of Western Thought (Presbyterian and Reformed edition of 1960), p. 152. Return to text of Essay 4.
See New Critique, Vol. 1, p. 61. Return to text of Essay 4.
The interview was published in Acht civilisten in burger, ed J.M. van Dunné, P. Boeles and A.J. Heerma van Voss (Zwolle: W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink, 1977), p. 38; it is available in Glenn Friesen's English translation at www.members.shaw.ca/hermandooyeweerd/Interview.html. Return to text of Essay 4.
In his Foreword to the first volume of the New Critique, Dooyeweerd also passed up an opportunity to acknowledge how much Vollenhoven had contributed to the new philosophy. He deals with the matter in a single sentence in which he communicates two facts: first, that Vollenhoven came to his side, and second, that Vollenhoven's name came to be joined with his (Dooyeweerd's). This sentence, which must be considered in terms of what it does not say, reads as follows: "I am also very thankful that from the outset I found at my side my colleague Dr. VOLLENHOVEN, professor of Philosophy at the Free University of Amsterdam, whose name has been inseparably joined to my own." See p. vii. Return to text of Essay 4.
See "Introduction by the Editor in Chief, Prof. Herman Dooyeweerd," published in The Idea of a Christian Philosophy: Essays in Honor of D.H.Th. Vollenhoven (Toronto: Wedge Publishing Foundation, 1973), p. 15. The contents of this book were published simultaneously in periodical form as an issue of Philosophia Reformata. The quotation comes from p. 13. Return to text of Essay 4.
See Puchinger's interview with Dooyeweerd (note dooyeweerd46), p. 96. Return to text of Essay 4.
New Critique, Vol. 1, p. 95. Return to text of Essay 4.
See Acht civilisten (note dooyeweerd55), p. 56. Return to text of Essay 4.
The collection of writings we call the Bible is much abused; so is the collection of writings we call the works of Dooyeweerd. Copying errors that seem to have crept into the Bible probably account in part for the cavalier way people treat what is actually written there as they choose to use the Bible as a study peg on which to hang their opinions. Copying errors of the sort that can undermine the credibility of the text we actually possess are also to be found in Dooyeweerd. Early in my copy of his Twilight book (note brummer55), Dooyeweerd assures us solemnly: "Neither Kant, the founder of the so-called critical transcendental philosophy, nor Edward Hesserl, the founder of modern phenomenology, who called his phenomenological philosophy the most radical critique of knowledge, have made the theoretical attitude of thought into a critical problem." [Page 5] The existence of such egregious errors (e.g. writing "Edward Hesserl" in place of "Edmund Husserl") does militate against the plea I am making in this essay to read Dooyeweerd with scrupulous care. And there are more such errors in Dooyeweerd (also in the Dutch original). Richard Van Holst, working on behalf of the Dooyeweerd Centre at Redeemer, has been rooting them out of late; whether they stem from Dooyeweerd himself or from his typesetters is not easily ascertained. The process by which the original texts of Dooyeweerd have come down to us is worthy of some sustained scholarly attention and has been getting it of late: see Paul Otto's article on the various versions of the Twilight book in Philosophia Reformata, Vol. 70 (2005), No. 1, pp. 23-40. Return to text of Essay 4.
See Friesen's article on the term "apostasis" in his Linked Glossary of Terms, online at www.members.shaw.ca/jgfriesen/Definitions/Apostasy.html. Return to text of Essay 4.
Students are also expected to know their place. Glenn Friesen reports the following incident from his Free University days: "When I questioned van Riessen about what he had said about the nature of things, he grew very angry, said that what I was questioning was a matter of `common sense,' slammed his books shut and left the classroom." Personal communication of February 6, 2006. Return to text of Essay 4.
Significant source material regarding the 1960s discussions pitting Dooyeweerd against Vollenhoven has recently been translated and made public by Glenn Friesen via his website: http://www.members.shaw.ca/hermandooyeweerd/1964Lecture.html. Return to text of Essay 4.
Friesen writes: "Michael Morbey refers to what Austin Farrer once said of C.S. Lewis: `We think we are listening to an argument, in fact we are presented with a vision; and it is the vision that carries conviction.' That is what Dooyeweerd's philosophy is: a vision. It is not a series of logical syllogisms. Just take a look at how the New Critique opens. It jumps into the middle of his vision. Theory itself is a mystical act, for the concept of dis-stasis must be brought back by means of our intuition into a synthesis with our supratemporal selfhood. What Dooyeweerd is after (and the essence of my own `project' as you call it) is nothing less than a new vision of God, self and cosmos." Personal communication of November 30, 2005. Return to text of Essay 4.
Gadamer was also on Runner's agenda, it appears. Some time after Runner's retirement I happened to buy one of Gadamer's lesser-known books at a used bookstore in Toronto (the famous Atticus). It was in mint condition. When I took it home and began leafing through it, out fell a card indicating that it had been purchased originally via the Calvin College Bookstore: it was a special order for Evan Runner! Return to text of Essay 4.
See H.G. Geertsema, "The Inner Reformation of Philosophy and Science and the Dialogue of Christian Faith with a Secular Culture: A Critical Assessment of Dooyeweerd's Transcendental Critique of Theoretical Thought," in Christian Philosophy at the Close of the Twentieth Century: Assessment and Perspective, ed. Sander Griffioen and Bert M. Balk (Kampen: Uitgeverij Kok, 1995), p. 19. Egbert Schuurman believes that no one was ever brought to see the error of his philosophical ways by the transcendental critique (personal communication of October 24, 2006). Nicholas Wolterstorff observes: "In his lifetime there was almost no one who engaged [Dooyeweerd] at a fundamental level. There was potential for a dialogue of profundity, but no such dialogue ever took place." See "Herman Dooyeweerd: An Appreciation," online at www.redeemer.ca/~tplant/rr/nw-hd.pdf. Return to text of Essay 4.
See "The Inner Reformation" (note geertsema33), p. 19. The publications of the critics to which Geertsema refers here are as follows: Hendrik Van Riessen's book Wijsbegeerte (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1970); D.F.M. Strauss's dissertation, entitled Begrip en Idee (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1973), along with a Philosophia Reformata article of 1984 entitled "An Analysis of the Structure of Analysis"; and Hendrik Hart's essay "Dooyeweerd's Gegenstand Theory of Theory," in The Legacy of Herman Dooyeweerd, ed. C.T. McIntire (Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1985). Return to text of Essay 4.
I was not the only Groen Clubber who wondered just how far Plantinga and Wolterstorff would get with their program. Gerben Groenewoud, a Groen Clubber of the 1960s, reports as follows on his thoughts and experiences of those days: "When I was still at Calvin College, I took a course with A. Plantinga, who in the meantime has become more or less the best known philosopher of religion in the United States. Within the `Groen Club' we were inclined to look down on this young analytic philosopher. We did not expect much from him. I shared that opinion. Instead we looked up to Runner." Groenewoud went to the Free University for graduate study and stayed in the Netherlands. His reflections (in Dutch) were formerly available at www.aspecten.org/beweging/series/mijnfilosofie.html. Return to text of Essay 4.
See "The AACS in the CRC -- Response," in Reformed Journal, March 1975. The quotations are from pp. 26-27. Return to text of Essay 4.
See Search for Community in a Withering Tradition: Conversations Between a Marxian Atheist and a Calvinian Christian, written jointly by Hart and Nielsen (Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1990), pp. x-xi. Dooyeweerd had spoken of an "Archimedean point," but Hart seems reconciled to a world in which there is not much left to hold on to. He explains: "Though as a Calvinist I was raised in an intellectualist tradition I have never felt entirely comfortable in that tradition precisely because Calvinism has also always had powerful reason-relativizing impulses." [Page 162] Hart was born in the Netherlands in the days when verzuiling (see Essay 3 in this series) was the answer; it does not seem to have done the trick for him. The discussion between Hart and Nielsen is carried further in Walking the Tightrope of Faith: Philosophical Conversations about Reason and Religion (Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi, 1999), edited by Hart and Nielsen along with Ronald A. Kuipers, who was then a Hart student and is now an ICS professor. Kuipers contributes an essay, as do various other thinkers, but Hart and Nielsen dominate the book, contributing two and three essays respectively. Return to text of Essay 4.
See Hendrik J. van Eikema Hommes, Inleiding tot de wijsbegeerte van Herman Dooyeweerd (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1982). The quotations are from pages 12 and 13. Return to text of Essay 4.
Ronald Jager, "Dooyeweerd and the Irony of Rationalism," Parts II and III, in Reformed Journal, October 1964, page 21. Part I of Jager's discussion of Dooyeweerd appeared in the September issue. Return to text of Essay 4.
See "Herman Dooyeweerd," in Philosophia Reformata, 1978 (Vol. 43), p. 17. Was Kuypers exaggerating? There is indeed some warlike language to be found in Dooyeweerd: "Our transcendental critique wages a merciless war against the masking of supra-theoretical prejudices as theoretical axioms which are forced upon the opponent on penalty of his being viewed as an outsider in philosophical matters." See New Critique, Vol. 1, p. 70. Return to text of Essay 4.
Jellema's main published work was an essay on Calvinism's bearing on higher education (about 11,500 words in length). It appeared in a rather obscure book of essays by various authors entitled God-Centered Living (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1951, pp. 105-128); for more information on this book's contents, see the CPRT Index. As for the essay itself, it is now online in my "Reading Room." Return to text of Essay 4.
See Theorie der geschiedenis, voornamelijk met betrekking tot de cultuur (Amsterdam: H.J. Paris, 1931), p. 3. Return to text of Essay 4.
Barth's letter to Berkouwer, dated September 11, 1951, is reproduced in Dirk Van Keulen, Bijbel en dogmatiek: Schriftbeschouwing en schriftgebruik in het dogmatisch werk van A. Kuyper, H. Bavinck en G.C. Berkouwer (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 2003), pp. 640-641. Return to text of Essay 4.
"Neocalvinism . . . No: Why I am not a neocalvinist," in Comment (published by the Work Research Foundation), June 2006, pp. 41-42. Online at www.wrf.ca/comment/article.cfm?ID=185. Return to text of Essay 4.
In "Een beminnelijk mens, een eminente geleerde: Vraaggesprek met Prof. Dr. J. Klapwijk," an interview conducted by K. van der Zwaag (note scripture 33). Klapwijk also deals with these matters -- but then in a broader context -- in an essay entitled "Honderd jaar filosofie aan de Vrije Universiteit," published in Wetenschap en rekenschap: Een eeuw wetenschapsbeoefening en wetenschapsbeschouwing aan de Vrije Universiteit (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1980, no author or editor listed). See pp. 558ff on the contrast between Dooyeweerd and Vollenhoven. Return to text of Essay 4.
See "Progressive and Regressive Tendencies in Christian Apologetics," in Jerusalem and Athens: General Discussions on the Theology and Apologetics of Cornelius Van Til, ed. E.R. Geehan (Nutley, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1971), p. 275. Return to text of Essay 4.
Robert Knudsen observes: "It has become widespread, even fashionable, among some who believe themselves to stand within the tradition of Dooyeweerd, to minimize, or even to eliminate, the transcendental critique of thought." See "Dooyeweerd's Doctrine of Science" (originally a lecture delivered at a meeting of the American Scientific Affiliation), available at www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1979/JASA12-79Knudsen.html. Return to text of Essay 4.
See "Hauled Aboard the Ark," available at www.peterkreeft.com/topics/hauled-aboard.htm. John Hesselink attributes broad influence to Jellema: he tells us that the fame of Calvin College has much to do with Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstorff and "a host of other distinguished former students of the late W. Harry Jellema" (presumably including Kreeft). See "Some Distinctive Contributions of the Dutch-American Reformed Tradition," in Toward the Future of Reformed Theology: Tasks, Topics, Traditions, ed. David Willis and Michael Welker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), p. 441. But Jellema is like Runner in that both were influential through students who praised them for years and years while departing from the master's example in interesting ways. Runner complained in private about such departures; whether Jellema did so is not easily ascertained. A fine thesis project for an enterprising graduate student would be an exploration of the intellectual coherence (or lack thereof) between the various Christian philosophers who claim Jellema as their primary philosophical inspiration (this series of essays is in part an exploration of the same question in relation to Runner). Such a project would need to discuss -- among other things -- the changes in Alvin Plantinga's thinking between the time he left Calvin College as an undergraduate in 1953 and the time he returned as a professor (1963), after completing a Ph.D. at Yale and undergoing a philosophical conversion of sorts at Wayne State University in Detroit, where he taught before coming back to Calvin. He comments on these matters to some degree in his autobiographical writings. When I was an undergraduate I once asked him what his Ph.D. thesis was about and he responded that he didn't remember. When I pressed him on this matter he admitted that what he really meant is that he was no longer building on the work he had done in that thesis. The thesis dealt with the metaphysical foundations of ethics and was supervised by Paul Weiss. Return to text of Essay 4.
During the 2005-06 academic year an interdisciplinary course on this very theme was offered for graduate credit at the ICS (and therefore was made available as well to students at the graduate-level Toronto School of Theology). The course was taught by Ron Kuipers, Nik Ansell and Doug Blomberg. Its title was "Dialogue and Difference: Dooyeweerd's Transcendental Critique." It was advertised as follows: "Detailed study of the theory of dialogue of a leading 20th century Christian philosopher, Herman Dooyeweerd. In the context of postmodern `incredulity toward metanarratives,' an important question will be whether Dooyeweerd's approach can allow a plurality of voices to engage one another without any one of these (the Christian included) succumbing to the charge of being an oppressive, totalising narrative." Return to text of Essay 4.
See The Meaning of Heidegger: A Critical Study of an Existential Phenomenology (New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1959). Langan and Etienne Gilson together wrote Modern Philosophy: Descartes to Kant (New York: Random House, 1963). They added Armand A. Maurer to the team for the writing of Recent Philosophy: Hegel to the Present (Random House, 1962). Return to text of Essay 4.
Lynch was the author of A Christian Philosophy (New York: Scribner, 1968), which originated as radio lectures delivered in the CBC's "University of the Air" series. Some years later I brought Lynch and Thomas Langan into contact with leaders in the development of what became Redeemer University College. The main item on the agenda for discussion was whether the proposed new college should seek affiliation with some secular university, which was the general pattern in Ontario (St. Michael's is itself an affiliate of the University of Toronto). Their advice was an emphatic no. It was followed: Redeemer is an independent institution. Return to text of Essay 4.
See J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, no date, first published in 1923). Return to text of Essay 4.
Bryan Magee, Confessions of a Philosopher: A Journey through Western Philosophy (London: Phoenix, 2000), pp. 251-252. Magee also compares Popper to a blowtorch and complains that his conduct in discussion was out of step with his political philosophy (see pp. 231-232). Return to text of Essay 4.
H. Henry Meeter, The Basic Ideas of Calvinism. My own copy is listed as "fourth edition revised" (1956) and was published by Grand Rapids International Publications (with distribution through Kregel's). The book was originally published by Zondervan of Grand Rapids under the title Calvinism: An Interpretation of Its Basic Ideas (1939). The updated version, edited by Paul Marshall and published by Baker Book House of Grand Rapids in 1990, fills out the book especially in the area of application to political matters. Return to text of Essay 4.
Issue of January 18, 1937, Second Section, p. 15. Comparing Machen to William Jennings Bryan, who was even better known for his efforts to defend Christianity (e.g. the Scopes trial in Dayton, Tennessee, in the year 1925), Mencken wrote further: "Dr. Machen himself was to Bryan as the Matterhorn is to a wart. His Biblical studies had been wide and deep, and he was familiar with the almost interminable literature of the subject. Moreover, he was an adept theologian, and had a wealth of professional knowledge to support his ideas." Return to text of Essay 4.
See F.H.von Meyenfeldt, "Enige algemene beschouwingen, gegrond op de betekenis van het hart in het Oude Testament," in Wetenschappelijke bijdragen door leeringen van D.H.Th. Vollenhoven aangeboden ter gelegenheid van zijn 25-jarig hoogleraarschap aan de Vrije Universiteit (Franeker, T. Wever, 1951), pp. 52, 54, 62. Return to text of Essay 4.
"The Philosophy of Dooyeweerd: A Transcendental Thomist Appraisal," in Faith and Philosophy, Vol. 20 (2002), p. 268. Alvin Plantinga seems to have formed a similar impression of the Dooyeweerdian attitude toward apologetics. He writes: "But isn't the very idea of apologetics, whether negative or positive, contrary to the basic Reformed insight of Kuyper and Dooyeweerd? If all thought has religious roots, then the thing to say about attacks on Christianity is just that they too have religious roots -- nonChristian religious roots; thus they do not require an answer. Faith cannot reason with unbelief: it can only preach to it." See "Christian Philosophy at the End of the Twentieth Century," in the book of the same name (note geertsema33), p. 37. Return to text of Essay 4.
A Christian Approach to Facts (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1957). Monsma is also the author of an interesting book entitled The Trial of Denominationalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1932). The critical note he strikes is reminiscent of the reformationals of my youth who were inspired by Runner to denounce various Christians in other camps. In discussing "liberals," Monsma tells us that "... though we appreciate the character of the men behind the endeavors of liberalism, yet they are to us enemies of the cross of Christ, and this makes fellowship impossible. ... Indeed, they are brethren to us, but they are erring brethren." [p. 72] Return to text of Essay 4.
Personal communication of April 15, 2006. Herman Hoeksema was perhaps the supreme antithetical in the Christian Reformed tradition; many scholars find it hard to sympathize with him or to see any good in what he was up to. But Mouw has a soft spot in his heart for the Hoeksema crowd and takes the issues they have raised very seriously: see He Shines in All That's Fair: Culture and Common Grace (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2001), especially the second chapter (pp. 9-29). John Bolt, a Runner admirer in the antithetical vein, has also done a good deal to mend fences with the Protestant Reformed and to make their position better understood in broader Reformed circles. Return to text of Essay 4.
Personal communication of October 15, 2005. Return to text of Essay 4.
Jesus once said to one of the scribes: "You are not far from the kingdom of God." See Mark 12:34. Return to text of Essay 4.
"Too often [the Christian community] has been under the influence of thinkers who were in the grip of an unbiblical two-realm a priori. These thinkers endeavored to harmonize the Truth of the Word of God and some other total view of reality (by definition apostate). They tried to tie together two views which, because they are mutually exclusive, can only seek to destroy each other." See "Must the Church Become Secular?" in Out of Concern for the Church: Five Essays, by John Olthuis et al. (Toronto: Wedge Publishing Foundation, 1970), p. 121. Return to text of Essay 4.
Olthuis told this story at the Redeemer conference of April 7, 2006, that was organized to discuss the differences between Dooyeweerd and Vollenhoven, and he also told it to me once in a private conversation. Return to text of Essay 4.
This was not the happiest chapter in my career. I had been recruited with three other up-and-coming younger conservatives, who were expected to join forces and give the periodical a new face; the others were Cornel Venema, Robert Godfrey and John Sittema. As the only non-clergyman and non-theologian in the bunch, I was to bear considerable responsibility for the wider kingdom of God, which the people behind the paper certainly acknowledged in theory. I was a bit surprised that they actually wanted philosophically-flavored stuff in the paper, and I even wrote to the board of the Reformed Fellowship (which sponsored the paper) to press them on this point before making a decision. I got the assurances I was looking for. But the problem was that the two editors who actually ran the paper and made decisions about which articles to place -- and when -- did not seem to be on board with such thinking. It turned out that the church was much more important than the broader kingdom after all. In time I drifted away from Outlook involvement. I did not consult Runner prior to accepting this assignment, nor did he ever comment to me on my Outlook writings. Return to text of Essay 4.
Personal communication of September 28, 2005. Return to text of Essay 4.
Personal communication of September 28, 2005. Return to text of Essay 4.
Personal communication of March 27, 2006. Return to text of Essay 4.
See "Christian Philosophy at the End of the Twentieth Century," in the book of the same name (note geertsema33), pp. 401-41. In this essay he acknowledges the long-standing Reformed suspicion of apologetics as such: "The twentieth century in the west has not been hospitable to positive apologetics. Reformed thought has concurred in this lack of hospitality: it is rather characteristic of Reformed Christian philosophy to view theistic arguments with suspicion, and to some degree with good cause." [p. 39] Return to text of Essay 4.
Personal communications of September 28, 2005, and August 1, 2006. Plantinga's assessment is based partly on what he experienced and partly on subsequent reflection. He writes: "I'll be happy to tell you what I know about the Jellema/Runner relationship, and also, going beyond what I know, about what I think happened between them. First of all, Jellema never spoke of Runner in his classes, and never spoke ill of him in my hearing. I don't recall hearing that he spoke ill of Runner in any other students' hearing either. Henry Stob was less restrained. Henry had been one of Runner's main advocates before he came; Jellema was a bit less enthusiastic, and in fact suspicious of Runner. Stob was originally, at least, very enthusiastic about Dooyeweerd, and Jellema also made approving references to Dooyeweerd both in and out of the classroom. A bit later, though, both Jellema and Stob were distinctly unhappy with Runner." Plantinga then makes an epistemic shift, as it were, and continues as follows: "Now I make the transition to what I think but don't know actually happened between Runner and Jellema. It is my impression that the genuinely sad situation at Calvin, with that deep division between two groups of Christians, and vitriol and misrepresentation on both sides, was precipitated by actions of both Jellema and Runner; I might be inclined to think Jellema was a bit more at fault, because he was older, more mature, and should have been able to deal with Runner much better than he actually did. As I see it, what happened was that Jellema was initially -- i.e., before Runner came to Calvin -- not terribly well disposed to Runner but was persuaded by Stob and others that Runner should be appointed at Calvin. When Runner came, he make no secret of the fact that he thought Jellema and Stob were not proper Kuyperians, or Christian philosophers, or maybe not Christian philosophers at all. One of his earliest publications was a piece in the [Torch and Trumpet] entitled `Het Roer Om', which everyone took (I don't remember what it actually said) to be a condemnation of Jellema and Stob as not knowing anything at all about Christian philosophy. Naturally enough, this didn't sit well with Jellema, who was much older than Runner and thought of himself as a Kuyperian. I believe Runner did in fact behave bumptiously, and with quite a bit of hubris." Return to text of Essay 4.
"Publisher's Preface," in Pledges of Jubilee (note wolterstorff55), p. x. Return to text of Essay 4.
George Puchinger, Een theologie in discussie (Kampen: Kok, 1970), p. 29. Return to text of Essay 4.
Return to text of Essay 4.
Runner also seemed to come close to equating these two, even though rationality (in the form of "the logical") was nicely assigned its place in the modal scale. Characteristic of Runner was his complaint about "... the futile and arid rationalistic form of argument which just recently appeared again in American fundamentalistic circles in the book of Professor [Edward J.] Carnell, An Introduction to Christian Apologetics." This comment appears in his review of Dooyeweerd's book Transcendental Problems of Philosophic Thought.
In his review of Dooyeweerd's book Transcendental Problems of Philosophic Thought: An Inquiry into the Transcendental Conditions of Philosophy (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948). Return to text of Essay 4.
Runner: "... the concept of Reason belongs to the realm of apostate Antithesis ...." See The Relation of the Bible to Learning, fifth revised edition (Jordan Station, Ontario: Paideia Press, 1982), p. 97. Elsewhere he writes: "Apostate principles of total-structuration have had an influence nothing short of calamitous upon social development and our social studies." [Page 76] Perhaps the term was thrown around a bit too freely by the reformationals. In an autobiographical piece, Glenn Friesen tells us: "In 1972, I briefly attended the Institute for Christian Studies in Toronto. I bought a set of Dooyeweerd's New Critique, and the first of many underlinings and notations began at that time. Unfortunately, I was again on the wrong side. After I gave a class presentation, Henk Hart announced to the class that I was `a prime example of apostate thought,' because of the analytical philosophy I had picked up at university. His observation was probably true, but not particularly helpful to me at the time. What I had been trying to do was to relate Frege's idea of sense and reference to Dooyeweerd's distinction between central and peripheral." See "Life as a Search," online at www.members.shaw.ca/jgfriesen/Mainheadings/LifeSearch.html. Return to text of Essay 4.
In his review of Dooyeweerd's Transcendental Problems. Return to text of Essay 4.
In his article on Dooyeweerd, written just after his death in 1977 and published in The Banner in 1977 and available online at www.isi.salford.ac.uk/dooy/ext/runner.on.dooy.html. Return to text of Essay 4.
For an indication of what Runner was thinking in those early days, see his 1963 speech delivered to commemorate the tenth anniversary of the Groen Club. Available in the documentary series at www.redeemer.ca/~tplant/m/MCS.HTM. Return to text of Essay 4.
Published in The Banner, May 14, 1954. Return to text of Essay 4.
Review of Dooyeweerd's Transcendental Problems. Return to text of Essay 4.
See Scriptural Religion and Political Task (Toronto: Wedge Publishing Foundation, 1974), pp. 111ff. It is worth noting that when Valentijn Hepp, that stern opponent of the reformationals, undertook to write his "Dreigende Deformatie" series, in which he criticized some of his Free University colleagues, he did not name names either. See Essay 1 in this series. Return to text of Essay 4.
Online at www.freewebs.com/richardarussell/Richard_Russell_Where_is_Francis_Schaeffer_going.pdf. Return to text of Essay 4.
Stob was not only a figure of suspicion in the eyes of Groen Clubbers. The "sacred seven" (a group of conservative seminary students, which included Cecil Tuininga and Harry van Dyken) created major headaches for him and accused him of soft-pedaling the antithesis, propounding non-Reformed positions, and so forth. The main episode, which took place during the 1954-55 academic year, has been described by Stob in the second (unpublished) volume of his memoirs (note stob69). The students registering official complaints at that time (with some support in high places) declared, according to Stob's account "... that they had `serious misgivings concerning Dr. Henry Stob's teachings.' They felt that `the matter is of such a weighty nature' that they would be neglecting their `God-given duty' should they keep silent. My teachings, they said, `lacked a positive Reformed emphasis.' The views I expressed in my apologetics course `make the antithesis between believer and unbeliever irrelevant and nullifies the Christian warfare.' I had in the course in Basic Ethics elicited their `serious misgivings' when I posited the existence of a `natural love' and when in commenting on Reprobation I had made `several statements of a questionable nature.' My method of teaching left much to be desired. The students, they said, `are given no definite principles to guide their thinking along Reformed lines.' My `method of pedagogy is unreformed, and dangerous for the future of our church, since it harbors within it the dangerous practice of speculative thinking outside of the context of Scripture and our Reformed Confessions.'" These complaints are not unrelated to what Groen Clubbers once thought regarding Stob and may well have influenced the Groen Clubbers to some degree in their assessment of Stob. Return to text of Essay 4.
My knowledge of these matters draws mainly on the recollections of Egbert Schuurman, who used to attend those meetings. I also asked him whether Dooyeweerd and Vollenhoven used to read and criticize one another's writings prior to publication. His answer was no. Return to text of Essay 4.
See Schuurman's Technology and the Future: A Philosophical Challenge, trans. Herbert Donald Morton (Toronto: Wedge Publishing Foundation, 1980). The comment appears on p. 3 and the note to the comment on p. 377. Return to text of Essay 4.
Jacob Klapwijk talks about the differences between Dooyeweerd and Vollenhoven when it comes to the proper use of Scripture in an interview with K. van der Zwaag which was published in one of the 1992 issues of the periodical Beweging. Return to text of Essay 4.
Personal communication of November 9, 2005. Return to text of Essay 4.
Seerveld told me this story when I discussed these matters with him on November 9, 2005, and he told it as well at the conference on the differences between Dooyeweerd and Vollenhoven held at Redeemer on April 7, 2006. Return to text of Essay 4.
Smith writes: "In the hallowed halls of the Calvin Philosophy Department, I'm seen not in the genealogy that runs from William Harry Jellema to Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstorff, but rather the more suspect `antithetical' line that runs from Evan Runner through Richard Mouw to myself. (Our department has a `Jellema Room' which is the center of the department; I keep plugging for at least a `Runner Closet.' No luck so far.)" See "Neocalvinism ... Maybe: A Peek into My Neocalvinist Toolbox," in Comment, (June 2006), p. 33. Return to text of Essay 4.
See his "Foreword" to the Jellema festschrift, entitled Faith and Philosophy: Philosophical Studies in Religion and Ethics, ed. Alvin Plantinga (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), p. vii. Return to text of Essay 4.
See Stob's memoirs, entitled Summoning Up Remembrance (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), pp. 263ff. The quotation is from pp. 263-264. Return to text of Essay 4.
See Summoning (note stob38). On the interest in studying Dooyeweerd and Vollenhoven on the part of Calvin professors, see pp. 213-214 and 218. On the efforts of the Calvin Board to get Stob to study in Amsterdam, see p. 167. Stob was reluctant, but he gave in. His reaction to Amsterdam was as follows: "... during the fall term [of 1938] I faithfully attended the lectures and seminars delivered and conducted by Professors Vollenhoven and Dooyeweerd. But I was not particularly happy with the program on which I had embarked. The lectures were not always germane or suited to my purposes, the seminars were often a futile attempt to fit a philosopher into a preconceived slot ...." [Page 191] Return to text of Essay 4.
Stob, Summoning (note stob38), p. 318. Return to text of Essay 4.
Summoning (note stob38), pp. 312-313. Return to text of Essay 4.
"The Word of God and Philosophy," in The Word of God and the Reformed Faith (Grand Rapids: Baker's Book Store, 1943), pp. 107-108. This book consists of addresses presented at the Second American Calvinistic Conference, held at Calvin College and Seminary in June of 1942; no editor is listed. What Stob says in this same essay about "the heart" and "functions" and man being religious at the very core of his being would seem to qualify him for an honorary membership in the Groen Club: "Living, feeling, willing, thinking are merely so many functions of man, so many aspects of his being. His being or essence lies under and beyond. The central thing in man is neither body nor spirit as such, nor any specific function of either, but that deeper Something of which the functions are the functions. It may be called the `core' or the `heart' of man, but the name we give it is relatively unimportant. The important thing is not to confuse it with any of its expressions or activities. In any case, it is here, in his heart, at the point which sustains and underlies all his intra-cosmic relations that God impinges on man. Here, at the deepest, all-determinative level of his existence, man's fundamental nature is constituted by the specific character of the relation he sustains to God. Here, at the core of his being, man is religious." [Page 109] In an essay written decades later, dealing with "the antithesis," Stob signaled that he was not so far removed from the reformational kingdom as some imagined. He wrote: "... I share with Kuyper, Herman Dooyeweerd, [Cornelius] Van Til, and many other Christian thinkers the view that all knowledge is embraced at its edges by an all-encompassing Weltanschauung [worldview]. This means that all apprehension and reflection takes place within a global perspective in terms of which the data of experience are thought-molded and fitted into a frame. ... It should be noted, too, that there are fundamentally only two choices available to man. One can view the cosmos from some point within the cosmos, or from some point outside it. To take one's stand within the cosmos is to absolutize the cosmos, more particularly some aspect of it. Here, as Dooyeweerd points out, [is] the origin of all the `isms' of immanentistic philosophy and the ground for their mutual incompatibility. To take one's stand outside the cosmos is, however, to see it for what it is -- a creature made and framed by God and dependent for its being and meaning on his continuing care and governance." See "Observations on the Concept of the Antithesis," in Perspectives on the Christian Reformed Church: Studies in Its History, Theology, and Ecumenicity, edited by Peter De Klerk and Richard R. De Ridder (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983); the essay in question covers pp. 241-258; the quotation comes from pp. 252-253. Richard Mouw therefore draws a conclusion that would have startled a Groen Clubber of old: "On a purely philosophical level it is difficult to find items of significant disagreement between ... Stob and Runner." See "Dutch Calvinist Philosophical Influences in North America," in Calvin Theological Journal, Volume 24, Number 1 (April 1989), p. 108. Return to text of Essay 4.
In the second, unfinished volume of Stob's memoirs we read: "It appeared that a degree of tension still existed in the department of philosophy at the college, for after having served since September of 1951 Evan Runner was given only a two-year reappointment in view of `his inadequate course coverage and his difficulty in adjusting himself to the departmental program.'" See Chapter 16, covering the years 1953-55. And in Chapter 18, covering the years 1956-58, Stob reports further: "The issue of Evan Runner's incumbency was again before the February Board. It was reported that Runner's adaptation to the curricular order was irregular, that he did not cover the field assigned to him, and that he failed to follow the sequences and observe the requirements laid down by the department of philosophy. In the light of these representations the Board reappointed Runner for a term of one year and instructed its Executive Committee `to study the total problem of Dr. Runner's place and continued presence at Calvin College.'" This material is available online at www.stobfamily.com/HJStob.html. Return to text of Essay 4.
It should be borne in mind that Stoker was no pipsqueak in the world of reformational philosophy. Albert Wolters ranks him "on a par with Vollenhoven and Dooyeweerd." See "Dutch Neo-Calvinism: Worldview, Rationality and Philosophy," in Rationality in the Calvinian Tradition, edited by Hendrik Hart, Johan van der Hoeven and Nicholas Wolterstorff (Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1983), p. 119. Return to text of Essay 4.
Dooyeweerd's contribution is entitled "Sociology of Law and Its Philosophical Foundations," in Truth and Reality: Philosophical Perspectives on Reality Dedicated to Professor Dr. H.G. Stoker (Braamfontein, South Africa: De Jong's Bookshop, 1971), pp. 55-73. Some other contributors to this festschrift did pay Stoker the compliment of interacting with his work. On the other hand, when a festschrift was planned for Cornelius Van Til on the understanding that contributors would write about Van Til, with the expectation of a response from Van Til, Dooyeweerd cooperated. The Van Til festschrift is entitled Jerusalem and Athens (note knudsen33); for Dooyeweerd's essay and Van Til's response to it, see pp. 74-127. Return to text of Essay 4.
John J. Timmerman's tribute is therefore worth considering: see Promises to Keep (note zylstra33), pp. 55-56. Timmerman stressed that Jellema's appeal was not limited to philosophy students (Timmerman's field was English). He wrote that Jellema "... was always regarded as an extraordinary teacher, whose influence at Calvin was not restricted to gifted philosophy majors, but permeated the temper of the student body and counted heavily in the councils of the college. He achieved this by a strikingly winning personality, profound vision, and imaginative and magnetic teaching, not by a corpus of learned books, a sacrosanct system of thought, or disciples with badges and trumpets." Return to text of Essay 4.
See Timmerman, Through a Glass Lightly (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), p. 90. Likewise, in his memoirs Henry Stob speaks of "Jellema's dislike for the new Dutch philosophy": see Summoning (note stob44), p. 286. The faculty of Calvin Seminary was somewhat more open-minded. Stob reports that in September 1958 (presumably at about the same time as the Castle Lake retreat), "... the faculty took advantage of Professor Dooyeweerd's presence in the country by engaging the distinguished Dutch philosopher in a friendly and instructive colloquium that lasted all afternoon." See the second volume of Stob's memoirs (note stob69), Chapter 22. Stob also reports that he introduced the members of a seminary student club to the thinking of Vollenhoven and Dooyeweerd (see Chapter 15). Return to text of Essay 4.
Through a Glass Lightly (note timmerman33), p. 93. Robert Morey also complains that Dooyeweerdians are hard to argue with: they claim that you can't possibly understand because you have a wrong ground-motive. See The Dooyeweerdian Concept of the Word of God, (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1974, no place of publicaton listed), p. 15. Return to text of Essay 4.
See his Philosophia Reformata article entitled "In Memoriam: Dirk Hendrik Theodoor Vollenhoven," published in Vol. 43 (1978), Nos. 3-4, p. 94. Return to text of Essay 4.
See Tol's Foreword to Vollenhoven's Introduction to Philosophy, edited by Tol and John H. Kok and translated by Kok (Sioux Center, Iowa: Dordt College Press, 2005), p. ix. Return to text of Essay 4.
Douma's book is entitled Another Look at Dooyeweerd (Winnipeg: Premier Printing, no date). This title is a bit misleading. His Dutch title (in English) was: "Critical Annotations to the Philosophy of the Law-Idea." It was published in book form by De Vuurbaak of Groningen in 1976. Troost's response was entitled "Theologie of filosofie?" (Theology or Philosophy?) and was published in Philosophia Reformata, Vol. 42 (1977), pp. 115-193 and was also published under that title in book form (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1978). A few years later Troost returned to the subject in an article entitled "Theologische misverstanden inzake een reformatorische wijsbegeerte" (Theological Misunderstandings Concerning a Reformational Philosophy), published in Philosophia Reformata, Vol. 47 (1982), No. 2, pp. 179-192. Return to text of Essay 4.
Van der Hoeven's doctoral dissertation (University of Leiden) was entitled Kritische ondervraging van de fenomenologische rede (Critical Interrogation of Phenomenological Reason, published by Buijten en Schipperheijn of Amsterdam in 1963). I was studying phenomenology in the 1960s and therefore got hold of it, but I did not sense much reformational substance within it. The book ends with a summary in English, and the summary in turn points to some reformational substance yet to come in a "subsequent volume" in which "... we hope to present an outline of a truly transcendental (both existential and scientific) critique of `reason.'" [Page 352; see also pp. 340-342] That "subsequent volume," in which Dooyeweerd was presumably slated for discussion, never appeared. Yet Jacob Klapwijk gives Van der Hoeven credit in terms of putting Dooyeweerd's transcendental critique to work in his various studies of recent and contemporary thinkers, beginning with his dissertation. See "Honderd jaar filosofie aan de Vrije Universiteit" (note klapwijk33), p. 577. Eventually Van der Hoeven came out with two English-language publications under reformational auspices: The Rise and Development of the Phenomenological Movement, which originated in three lectures given at a 1964 ARSS study conference (Hamilton: Association for Reformed Scientific Studies, 1965), and Karl Marx: The Roots of His Thought (Toronto : Wedge Publishing Foundation, 1976). Return to text of Essay 4.
See "Christian Philosophy at the End of the 20th Century," in the book of same name (note geertsema33), p. 58. James Olthuis maintains that Dooyeweerd's transcendental approach "... in modernist fashion, treats the question of personhood as fundamentally an epistemological question and makes it difficult -- if not impossible -- all intentions to the contrary -- to honor fully the complex self-experience of actual living and dying, suffering and celebrating human beings. Ironically, given Dooyeweerd's commitment to honor naive experience, the emotional, political, ethical, gendered, and faith contexts of naive experience in all their diversity, tension, and rupture end up to a large extent overshadowed and bracketed." See "Of Webs and Whirlwinds: Me, Myself and I," in Contemporary Reflections on the Philosophy of Herman Dooyeweerd, ed. D.F.M. Strauss and Michelle Botting (Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen Press, 2000), p. 36. Return to text of Essay 4.
See The Society of the Future, ed. and trans. David Hugh Freeman (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1952), p. 73, italics omitted. Return to text of Essay 4.
Henry R. Van Til, The Calvinistic Concept of Culture (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1959). In reformational terms the book is appropriately nuanced in that it offers separate substantial chapters on Kuyper and Schilder, after first introducing the general problem in the historical section of the book by way of chapters devoted to Augustine and Calvin. Van Til's footnote references demonstrate considerable knowledge of the Dutch literature devoted to these matters; he cites, among others, Zuidema, Berkouwer, Vollenhoven, and Dooyeweerd. Return to text of Essay 4.
Marcel Verburg, Herman Dooyeweerd: Leven en werk van een Nederlands christen-wijsgeer (Baarn: Ten Have, 1989), pp. 87 and 89. Return to text of Essay 4.
See Vollenhoven's book De noodzakelijkheid eener christelijke logica (Amsterdam: H.J. Paris, 1932). It is only in the last ten pages or so that Vollenhoven gets to issues in logic as ordinarily understood. Even then he is still busy distinguishing "the logical," as a modal aspect, from other such aspects, such as "the historical" and "the linguistic." The Dutch terms used here are "historische" and "linguistische"; I mention this fact because some reformationals make an issue of the English words to be used for those aspects and prefer "lingual" and even "historial." See, for example, my notes on Evan Runner's Introduction to Philosophy lectures. In defence of Vollenhoven, it should be recognized that in the earlier parts of the book he does deal with issues that suggest a different understanding of logic's task in relation to the task of epistemology (which is also what we find when we examine what Indian philosophy calls logic). See, for example, what he says about the relationship between judgments and the persons who make judgments when he discusses the phenomenon of contradiction on p. 27; see also p. 47. In addition Vollenhoven addressed issues in logic in a lengthy Philosophia Reformata article of 1931 entitled "Hoofdlijnen der logica" (see Vol. 13, pp. 59-118). This piece has something of the character of a textbook-in-genesis and sticks closer to the ostensible subject-matter than the 1932 book. In 1948 he returned to the subject by publishing a monograph entitled Hoofdlijnen der logica (Kampen: J.H. Kok), but at the end he again confessed that he had not covered all he had set out to cover: the pressure of other duties impelled him to release what he had managed to put on paper to date. The 1948 work also reflects his interest in topics that are not a standard part of North American logic courses, including the connection between logic and epistemology. Return to text of Essay 4.
This episode is related and placed in context by David Edmonds and John Eidinow in their book Wittgenstein's Poker: The Story of a Ten-Minute Argument Between Two Great Philosophers (London: Faber and Faber, 2001). When Popper was pressed for an example of a moral rule, he is alleged to have responded: Not to threaten visiting lecturers with pokers! Return to text of Essay 4.
See "Dutch Neo-Calvinism" (note stoker22), p. 119. As for the "common philosophy" claim, Wolters writes: "During the decade of the 1920s, the two elaborated together the basic outline of their common philosophy, widely known as the 'philosophy of the cosmonomic idea' ...." See his introductory comments to his revised translation of Jan Veenhof's "Nature and Grace in Bavinck," which is a section of Veenhof's book Revelatie en Inspiratie, published in Pro Rege, Vol. 34, No. 4 (June 2006), p. 11; this translation is also available from Dordt College Press as a separate monograph. Return to text of Essay 4.
See p. 119 of the second edition of Creation Regained, which was published by Eerdmans of Grand Rapids, as was the original edition (1985). Return to text of Essay 4.
Wolterstorff's observations about Jellema are to be found in some shorter writings, which have been collected in two volumes that were both edited by Gloria Goris Stronks and Clarence Joldersma. See Educating for Life: Reflections on Christian Teaching and Learning (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), pp. 65-75 and 78-79, and Educating for Shalom: Essays on Christian Higher Education (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), pp. 16-18, 73-75, 278, 295-296. He salutes Jellema as "my most influential teacher" (Shalom, p. 295). Return to text of Essay 4.
In the periodical Veritas, Spring 2001 issue, p. 4. Return to text of Essay 4.
"Letter to a Friend," in Pledges of Jubilee: Essays on the Arts and Culture, in Honor of Calvin G. Seerveld, ed. Lambert Zuidervaart and Henry Luttikhuizen (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), p. xii. But Wolterstorff the professional philosopher came to see a distinct value in apologetics. Yet he insisted that it should be specific to persons and situations: "... apologetics must always be person-specific. It must always be contextual. An apologetic satisfactory to all comers is impossible." See "Is Reason Enough?" published in Reformed Journal, April 1981; reprinted in Terrence Reynolds, ed., The Phenomenon of Religious Faith (Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2005), p. 306. Return to text of Essay 4.
Reason Within the Bounds of Religion, second edition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984; first edition published in 1976). Return to text of Essay 4.
See "`Aspects' and `Functions' of Individual Things," in Philosophia Reformata, Vol. 68 (2003), p. 1, note 1. Return to text of Essay 4.
See II Corinthians 6:14, which continues: "... for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?" Also relevant here is I Corinthians 7:39. Return to text of Essay 4.
Zuidervaart wrote: "When H. Evan Runner joined the college's philosophy department in 1951, legendary battles began between the `Jellemanians' and the `Dooyeweerdians.' ... Most of the original faculty at ICS had studied with Runner at Calvin College and received their graduate training at the Vrije Universiteit. By contrast, several founders of the Society of Christian Philosophers were students of Jellema or of Jellema's own students, including Alvin Plantinga, Nicholas Wolterstorff, and Kenneth Konyndyk. Although I never studied at Calvin College, I taught there from 1985-2002 and enjoyed excellent collegial relations with the `Jellemanians.'" See "The Great Turning Point: Religion and Rationality in Dooyeweerd's Transcendental Critique," in Faith and Philosophy (Vol. 21, No. 1, January 2004), p. 83, note 6. Return to text of Essay 4.
"The Great Turning Point" (note zuidervaart33), p. 68. Return to text of Essay 4.
The dissertation was entitled Reformed Thought and Experience in a New World: A Study of the Christian Reformed Church in Its New Environment 1890-1918 (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1973). Return to text of Essay 4.
See "Liberalism and Dogma," in Testament of Vision (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958), p. 143. Zylstra died suddenly and unexpectedly while serving as a guest professor at the Free University. The Calvin College community was stunned. John J. Timmerman's tribute to him in Promises to Keep: A Centennial History of Calvin College (published jointly by Eerdmans and Calvin in 1975) is worth reviewing: see pp. 120-121. To the best of my knowledge, Henry Zylstra was not related to Bernard Zylstra. Return to text of Essay 4.
The Dutch title of his trilogy was Christus in zijn lijden, published by Kok of Kampen (1930). It ran more than 1500 pages in length! The English volumes were Christ in His Suffering (1938), Christ on Trial (1940), and Christ Crucified (1940), all published by Eerdmans of Grand Rapids. Return to text of Essay 4.
Return to text of Essay 4.