"Understanding Gordon H. Clark", E Calvin Beisner

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 23 січ 2025

КОМЕНТАРІ • 24

  • @tjhallett
    @tjhallett Рік тому

    Really appreciated this lecture.

  • @Spider_7_7
    @Spider_7_7 4 роки тому +3

    It's a shame that this video doesn't have more views.

  • @Habackuk24
    @Habackuk24 8 років тому +10

    Lecture on Clark starts at 12:17.

  • @jimmyjosester143
    @jimmyjosester143 9 років тому +1

    super... thank-you very much for this upload

  • @jessevandermolen3266
    @jessevandermolen3266 2 роки тому +1

    So this is why theonomy went gay and woke. Amazing.

  • @Thomas_Clements
    @Thomas_Clements 9 років тому +7

    Brilliant sermon, very well done. But he shouldn't of said that armenians are going to heaven - that was clearly wrong.

    • @gregb6469
      @gregb6469 7 років тому +4

      That's not your call to make.

    • @justbecause9219
      @justbecause9219 4 роки тому

      Greg B but it’s the speaker’s call to make that Arminians are going to heaven?

    • @Thomas_Clements
      @Thomas_Clements 4 роки тому

      @@gregb6469, it is my opinion to make actually. I just started my opinion.

    • @Thomas_Clements
      @Thomas_Clements 4 роки тому

      @@justbecause9219, you're confused. An Armenian by definition is some who believes the false Gospel, and only those who believe in the real Gospel are saved. God decided who he wouldn't and would make believe the real Gospel since the beginning.

    • @gregb6469
      @gregb6469 4 роки тому +3

      @@Thomas_Clements -- Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. There have been some (likely more than we think) Arminians who did/do believe that, and are thus saved, even if they were/are mis-taught viv-a-vis the Calvinism/Arminianism debate. Let's not make the path to salvation narrower than God does.

  • @Gijreb
    @Gijreb 7 років тому

    The major problem in Dr. Clark's philosophy is that he did not have a valid definition of the word Truth.
    This shortcoming results in an epistemology that is not solidly grounded. Whenever the word 'truth' is used, then, in this lecture, and by extension by Clark, the speaker does not know what 'truth' means, making his conclusions of no effect.
    In addition, the oft repeated "definition" of knowledge as "Justified true belief" (X), is not a definition at all.
    This confusion is due to the fact that (X) has not been grammatically analyzed as to the correct meaning of the copula in the proposition. When correctly analyzed, it turns out that (X) is not a definition of 'knowledge'.

    • @LG-bi2ed
      @LG-bi2ed 3 роки тому +3

      That third paragraph makes no sense. Read The Johannine Logos.