Author Archives: MikeB

Watson: On Responding to the Gospel (Part 2)

Posted on by
Reply

Richard Watson explores what makes the difference between those who accept the Gospel and those who reject it. See part 1 here.

By User:Mattes (Own work) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

By User:Mattes (Own work) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

In the last post we concluded with the question – what grace, if any, was given to an individual who rejected the Gospel? The following three options were given by Watson:

  1. no grace was given.
  2. grace sufficient to be saved was given.
  3. grace that was insufficient to be saved was given.

Watson continues by evaluating the impact of each answer. Continue reading →

Watson: On Responding to the Gospel

Posted on by
2

In chapter 26 of his Institutes Volume 2, the British, Arminian theologian Richard Watson (1781–1833) explores the response of an individual to the Gospel. Using 1 Corinthians 4:7 as a starting point, Watson first presents the case from the Calvinist point of view of a Mr. Scott.

By Frank Vincentz (Own work) [GFDL or CC-BY-SA-3.0], via Wikimedia Commons

By Frank Vincentz (Own work) [GFDL or CC-BY-SA-3.0], via Wikimedia Commons

“Let the blessings of the Gospel be fairly proposed, with solemn warnings and pressing invitations, to two men of exactly the same character and disposition: if they are left to themselves in entirely similar circumstances, the effect must be precisely the same. Continue reading →

The Cyrus Cylinder and testable theories

Posted on by
Reply

Karl Popper pondered the question “When should a theory be ranked as scientific?” and came up with the following criteria (summarized from the article):

  • confirming a theory is easy.
  • a scientific theory should be falsifiable.
  • testing a theory means trying to prove it is false.
  • testing a theory means verifying its predictions are observed.

While not everyone holds to Popper’s philosophy of science the criterion of testability, falsifiability and predictability are considered important for any scientific theory. In fact the claim that is often leveled against “religion” is that it can’t do any of these things and thus can easily be dismissed by the scientific community. Continue reading →