Towards an Understanding of the Ontological Conditions issuing from Original Sin

The aim of this paper is to explore in the light of recent scientific discoveries, coupled with a return to biblical orthodoxy, the question of the Fall (Augustine and Paul, Gen. 3, Rom. 7), and the apparent intergenerational conditions of original sin. This is the human condition – East of Eden. Invoking Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection from random mutation as a means of repudiating the existence of original sin can no longer be sustained, scientifically; the biology of horizontal gene transfer (HGT), transgenerational epigenetics (TGE), accelerated evolution (AE) and biological plasticity (BP) has rendered Darwinism grounded in a Naturalistic methodology an inadequate explanation. If humanity is ‘born this way’ – mired in sin – have we condemned ourselves and our children to this status? How does this affect the relationship between biology and free will, between a form of predestination and decision‐making? Therefore, this paper is towards an understanding of the ontology of the original, or first, sin, and is a biblical and scientific exploration of postlapsarian humanity's self‐willed state, ‘East of Eden.’     

Barth's First Commentary on Romans (1919): An Exercise in Apophatic Theology?

Abstract:  Barth's first commentary on Paul's Epistle to the Romans is paradigmatic of his use of apophatic language and theology in the development away from the liberal neo-Protestant theology of his teachers. This negation is for a purpose – the assertion of the truths of the human condition and God's solution in Christ that were posited by the apostle Paul. Methodologically this is a supplementary apophatic–cataphatic dialectic (within which is a further dialectic: Diesseits – Jenseits ), comparable with the way eternity reaches into and transforms the fallen and broken human world. The evidence for negation in Römerbrief¹ is examined, showing how Barth seeks to refute the domestication of God in the self-satisfaction of our language, allowing for biblical-Christian truth to stand.     

Self‐Categorization and Bystander Non‐intervention: Two Experimental Studies1

This paper outlines a new approach to the study of bystander intervention. Using insights derived from self‐categorization theory (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987), we explore the social category relations among those present in the context of physical violence. The paper describes two experiments that manipulate the social category relations between (a) bystander and fellow bystanders, and (b) bystander and victim. Analysis indicates that fellow bystanders are only influential when they are in‐group rather than out‐group members. Furthermore, bystanders are more likely to help victims who are described as in‐group as opposed to out‐group members. Overall, the findings suggest an important role for a self‐categorization perspective in developing strategies to promote bystander intervention.     

‘God … or a Bad,or Mad,Man’: C.S. Lewis's Argument for Christ – A Systematic Theological,Historical and Philosophical Analysis of Aut Deus Aut Malus Homo

The proposition that Jesus was ‘Bad, Mad or God’ is central to C.S. Lewis's popular apologetics. It is fêted by American Evangelicals, cautiously endorsed by Roman Catholics and Protestants, but often scorned by philosophers of religion. Most, mistakenly, regard Lewis's trilemma as unique. This paper examines the roots of this proposition in a two thousand year old theological and philosophical tradition (that is, aut Deus aut malus homo), grounded in the Johannine trilemma (‘unbalanced liar’, or ‘demonically possessed’, or ‘the God of Israel come amongst his people’). Jesus can only be understood in the context of the Jewish religious categories he was born into; therefore, for Lewis, Jesus is who he reveals himself to be. Jesus' self‐understanding reflects his identity, his triune salvific role; this is for Lewis, the transposed reality of divine Sonship. Reason and logic are paramount here, reflected in the structure of Lewis's argument. Lewis's trilemma is not so much a proof of God's existence, but a question, a dilemma, where each and every person must come to a decision. For all its perceived faults, its simplistic language, Lewis's trilemma still is a very successful piece of Christian apologetic, grounded in a serious philosophical and theological tradition.