What is Sin?

Cyprian was raised and study under a pagan culture. He was not a studied man of Scripture and the writings of those in the early church. Most of his life was lived directly under pagan influences. He obviously delved into pagan practices wholeheartedly, for he found himself much like Augustine, trapped in the licentiousness of pagan culture, and felt so engulfed by such licentiousness practices that he felt it absolutely impossible to break free from the wickedness he was engaged in. It was not until he was approx 35 that he was introduced to Christianity, and again had lived his life up until that point as a wicked pagan NOT living a life for God nor trained in the doctrines or practices of the church.

Cyprian was a rich man from a rich an influential family. Upon coming to faith at the age of 35, he evidently gave away some of his wealth to the poor around him, causing many to hold him in high esteem, and naturally so having received of his wealth. Immediately following his conversion he was elevated to the position of a Bishop in the church despite much opposition to that appointment. It does not take a rocket scientist to see why he climbed the ranks in the Church so quickly, being wealthy and possessing great influence. Who, as a faithful follower of Jesus Christ, would not have been concerned by his rise to such power and prominence in the Church especially in light of he pagan background? Who could not se why the hierarchy in the church and those that received of some of his wealth, would not desire to place him in position of power and authority? Many clearly objected to such an appointment, but who were they to resist the powers that be? So despite reasonable objections to his new position in the Church, he gained in power and prestige. Who said money talks and rank has it's privileges?

Why would not those studious in Church doctrine and history be alarmed at this pagan gaining such prominent influence so quickly after his conversion? Why would not one clearly realize that Cyprian had not had the time to properly understand church doctrine and practices and was not a proper candidate for any role to lead the Church in his newly acquired beliefs of a Christian having been a studied and practicing pagan for 35 years? He was bound to bring into the church things clearly not before partaken of, infant baptism, a pagan rite, being just one of them.

One has to realize it was a pagan notion that sin lied in the constitution of the flesh and not in the will. It was a pagan notion, which denied the accepted belifs of the ECF believing in free will, that one in the flesh was simply a helpless slave to the master of the flesh. To the contrary, the ECF had clearly taught and believed in free will, without the slightest indication that humanity was a mere helpless mass of necessitated wickedness. Scripture everywhere indicated that man was a willing rebel, not merely necessitated by his nature as pagans taught, and that every man was guilty before God, not simply for acting in accordance to some necessitated nature, but due to their ability to do right yet their willing refusal to act in accordance to their God given abilities.

In light of these truths, it is clear why the newly converted, studied pagan, Cyprian, would introduce the pagan rite of infant baptism into the church, and evident, in light of the pagan notion of sin lying in the constitution of the flesh and not in the will, (hence evil necessitated by their nature) why he deemed it appropriate to be brought into the Church to be accepted and practiced by Christians.

It is no wonder why devout Christians from their earliest childhood, like Pelagius who was to come on the scene a short time subsequent to this novel doctrine being instituted in the Church, and after being raised a Christian and greatly studied in Scripture and the early patristic writings of the early Christian fathers, would try and rid the Church of such pagan practices? Herein was the focus of the Pelagian/Augustine controversy.

It is interesting to note that some historians say that it was not so much the beliefs of Pelagius that Augustine so objected to, but rather Augustine feared that if Pelagius would sway some to recognize the pagan origin and influence on infant baptism etc, that the Church might be split as a result of such teachings. Can one start to see the power and influence wielded by the ones profiting the most by a united Catholic Church, and the losss both of monetary means as well as the loss of power, control, and prestige that would come by any division? Can one see why Augustine exhibited such hatred against a man even he saw as a holy and devout believer? Could have Augustine's real motivation against Pelagius have been to simply keep the wheels of the Catholic machine well greased and unified in the actions Augustine took against Pelagius? To me it is a no brainer.

No DHK, original sin, together with infant baptism as understood and introduced to Christianity by former pagans such as Cyprian and especially Augustine in his demands it be established as dogma, was not taught in the Church prior to their introductions of such beliefs. Neither is it supported by Scripture, neither in the OT/Jewish culture, nor in the NT and early Church.

DHK your remark that infant baptism was always a practice of the Early Church was far from the truth. It is good to see you relinquished such a position in your last post. That gives me hope that you will also see in time the pagan influence upon Cyprian, and Augustine in particular making it dogma, as to why they held to infant baptism, i.e., the false pagan notion that sin lied in the constitution of the flesh and not in the will.

No one will ever understad the Augustine/ Pelagius controversy apart from some of the truths presented here.

 

HP: You flatly contradicted yourself with these two distinctly different remarks. Which one is it you believe to be true? Maybe you do not believe the Christian church started until Cyprian or Augustine or until the first infant was baptized, in accordance to pagan practices and whenever you say that might have happened, in the Church? Who knows?

 

HP: True or false?

 

When you decide, post your response.:thumbsup:

 

HP: I would ask you kindly again. Was your remark a true remark or a false one? Don't tell me it is false but it may be true. True and false are at antipodes with each other, not two sides of the same coin.

 

Just one. Plain English will do. Either yes, it was in accordance to truth,.....or no, it was not in accordance to truth. :thumbsup: