An Article on free will

and there is more

It’s good to read books you might not agree with. Sometimes they help strengthen your current view. Other times they change your view altogether. In either case, they give you something to think about—they put a stone in your shoe.

I recently read through The Spiritual Condition of Infants: A Biblical-Historical Survey and Systematic Proposal by Adam Harwood. And it’s got me thinking.

The thesis of Harwood’s book directly relates to an important question: What happens to infants when they die? Describing his project, he says, “For those readers who have been reading through this book waiting for a declarative statement on the spiritual condition of infants, here it is: Infants are sin-stained, not guilty. Infants are not sinless because they inherit a sinful nature. But infants are not guilty because God judges our thoughts, attitudes, and actions, not our nature.”

So, Harwood’s book challenges the notion that infants are guilty before God.

Harwood makes a distinction between inheriting a sinful nature from Adam and inheriting guilt from Adam. He believes only the former is taught in Scripture.

Harwood agrees that everyone has a sinful nature—including infants (Ps. 51:5). This is different from Pelagianism, which holds that people are born without sin. Pelagius argued that people were not born with an inherited sin nature, and, therefore, could avoid committing sin. Harwood contends that inherited sin makes it impossible not to sin.

Those who believe in inherited guilt usually cite Romans 5 as a key text. Harwood devotes a chapter to how he understands Romans 5:12–21.

For the purpose of this synopsis, let’s look briefly at Romans 5:18–19. Paul writes, “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous” (Rom. 5:18–19).

Many take this passage to mean that Adam’s guilt is immediately inherited to all men—including infants. However, others disagree. For instance, in How Shall They Be Saved? systematic theologian Millard Erickson says, “Until the first conscious or responsible moral action or decision by a person, there is no imputation of the Adamic sin, just as there is no imputation of Christ’s righteousness until there is a conscious acceptance of that work.”

In both cases, Erickson argues, human ratification is necessary. Indeed, this is part of the parallel between the work of Adam and the work of Christ. Harwood states, “Just as it is necessary for humans to ratify the work of Christ by appropriating the salvation offered by Christ, it is likewise necessary to ratify the sin of Adam in order to fall under condemnation and guilt.”

If Harwood is correct, and there is no inherited guilt, then why do infants die? It’s a great question. For Harwood, infant death is not a judgment for an infant’s guilt; rather, it’s a consequence of Adam’s sin.

There seems to be a biblical principle that people are not held guilty for the sin of another person—even though they may suffer certain consequences from another person’s actions.

Speaking through the prophet Ezekiel, God says, “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself” (Ezek. 18:20). God is communicating how justice is supposed to work.

Working from this justice principle, Harwood says,

So a person is not held responsible for the sins of another person, but only for his own transgressions. That means that a person would not be held guilty for the sin of Adam in the same way that he is not held guilty for the sin of his parents or grandparents. Are there consequences of the sins of others that can affect us? Yes. But that is not the same thing as being counted guilty of sin solely because of the actions of another person.
Furthermore, Harwood makes a distinction between those who are able to make moral judgments and those who cannot. He cites Deuteronomy 1:39–40, which states,

And as for your little ones, who you said would become a prey, and your children, who today have no knowledge of good or evil, they shall go in there. And to them I will give it, and they shall possess it. But as for you, turn, and journey into the wilderness in the direction of the Red Sea.
Harwood says,

Although not held guilty for the sins of their fathers, the younger generation nevertheless experienced some of the negative consequences or wages of sin. They wandered in the desert, unable to inherit the Promised Land until the last person of the older generation died. In a similar way, infants today are not held responsible for the actions of previous generations, up to and including Adam.
According to Harwood, one of those negative consequences—or wages—of Adam’s sin is death.

What makes an infant guilty before God? The Bible describes our guilt before God in terms of sinful actions, attitudes, and thoughts. Paul says, “He will render to each one according to his works” (Rom. 2:6) and that “each of us will give an account of himself to God” (Rom. 14:12). Therefore, people are accountable to God for their deeds. The book of Revelation says that each will be judged “according to what they had done” (Rev. 20:13).

Salvation is based on God’s grace. Judgment is based on our works. But what works does an infant commit that render him guilty before God?

This seems like a silly question. After all, an infant hasn’t done any sinful actions. As a result, some believe infants are judged according to their sinful nature.

According to Harwood, the Bible never says human beings are judged according to their sinful nature. A sinful nature is not the same as a sinful thought, or sinful actions, or a sinful attitude. The nature leads to actions, thoughts, and attitudes, but it is not identical to them.

Harwood contends that only sinful actions, thoughts, and attitudes make someone guilty. For example, the propensity to murder is not the same as the desire to murder or the act of murder.

Most pastors and theologians believe that some infants—possibly all infants—go to Heaven. As justification for this view, some have cited 2 Samuel 12:23, which seems to indicate that David would go to be with his son (presumably in Heaven).

The question is, how do these infants get to Heaven given that they are not capable of putting their faith in Christ?

There seems to be two options. Either faith in Christ is not necessary for infants because they can be saved without explicit faith in Christ, or faith is not necessary for infants because they are not guilty.

The first option entails some variation of inclusivism. Inclusivism is the belief that Christ’s death is necessary for salvation, but explicit faith in Christ is not necessary. However, the Bible clearly teaches faith in Christ is a necessary condition for salvation. The apostle Paul states, “f you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Rom. 10:9). John says, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (Jn. 3:16)

So, salvation requires faith. But biblical faith is trust in Christ for the forgiveness of sins, which requires certain cognitive and moral faculties. Since one-week-old babies lack all the faculties necessary to put their trust in Christ, one must adopt inclusivism (or accept the view that all guilty infants go to Hell).

If you reject inclusivism (as unbiblical), Harwood’s thesis provides another option. He writes,


The argument of this book allows you to maintain both an exclusivist view and a consistent doctrine of salvation. God forgives guilty sinners who explicitly call upon him for salvation. God’s condemnation does not come only to people for hearing of and rejecting Christ. Rather, people are condemned when they act out of their inherited, sinful nature after they become responsible moral agents. The result is that an infant who dies apart from hearing the gospel is safe because he was never under God’s condemnation. However the man who has never heard the gospel remains lost because he met the two conditions above for condemnation.”
If you’re interested in the question of infant salvation, you will want to read Harwood’s book. You may not agree with it, but it is guaranteed to put a stone in your shoe. https://www.str.org/w/adam-harwood-s-argument-against-original-guilt
 
I’m well acquainted with that, my friend—read Genesis 1 through 3 and the book of Romans, and allow the Scriptures to speak for themselves, rather than filtering them through fallible human autonomy.

J.
I have and believed the lie invented by augustine- I was dooped for 40 years believing that false doctrine, the same with PSA and the rest of tulip.
 
Written by Augustine, St John Chrysostom, St Cyril of Alexandria and others but not in Scripture.
You read Romans 5 and somehow conclude that we’re born sinless-how, in all seriousness, are you reading the Scriptures?

I don’t need Augustine, Chrysostom, or Cyril to interpret the text for me; the doctrine of original sin is embedded in the fabric of Scripture itself-unless, of course, you consider Genesis a myth and Adam a mere symbol rather than a historical person.

J.
 
That’s what I focus on—that while in flesh bodies, we all sin. If we stop and consider our thoughts, emotions, etc., it’s apparent. Yes, all humans sin.

1 John 1:8-10 (NKJV) 8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.
The fact that all sin does not say anything about inherited guilt for the sin of another.
 
I’m well acquainted with that, my friend—read Genesis 1 through 3 and the book of Romans, and allow the Scriptures to speak for themselves, rather than filtering them through fallible human autonomy.

J.
then stop quoting secondary sources when it comes to the original languages. They are not the authority scripture is.
 
You read Romans 5 and somehow conclude that we’re born sinless-how, in all seriousness, are you reading the Scriptures?

I don’t need Augustine, Chrysostom, or Cyril to interpret the text for me; the doctrine of original sin is embedded in the fabric of Scripture itself-unless, of course, you consider Genesis a myth and Adam a mere symbol rather than a historical person.

J.
Rom 5:18 ....., so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

That is how we come into this world. Whatever you think the first part of that verse says, the last part negates it.
 
I’m well acquainted with that, my friend—read Genesis 1 through 3 and the book of Romans, and allow the Scriptures to speak for themselves, rather than filtering them through fallible human autonomy.

J.
here from Jeremiah and many other books in the bible all in agreement about the innocence not guilt of children/infants.

Upon Christ the solid Rock I stand all other ground in sinking sand.

Jeremiah 19:2 and go out to the Valley of the Son of Hinnom at the entry of the Potsherd Gate, and proclaim there the words that I tell you…4 Because the people have forsaken me and have profaned this place by making offerings in it to other gods whom neither they nor their fathers nor the kings of Judah have known; and because they have filled this place with THE BLOOD OF INNOCENTS…6 therefore, behold, days are coming, declares the Lord, when this place shall no more be called Topheth, or the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter.

God judged them by having the Babylonians doing to them what they did to their children. The Jews Slaughtering their innocent children and God had them slaughtered by the Babylonians.

Psalm 106:34 They (the Israelites) did not destroy the peoples (the Canaanites), as the Lord commanded them, 35 but they mixed with the nations and learned to do as they did. 36 They served their idols, which became a snare to them. 37 They SACRIFICED THEIR SONS AND THEIR DAUGHTERS TO THE DEMONS; 38 they poured out INNOCENT BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THEIR SONS AND DAUGHTERS, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, and the land was polluted with blood.

conclusion: how many time does God/Jesus have to say children are INNOCENT not guilty before you will believe ?

Jesus affirms the above in the N.T. Woe to those who cause any little ones to stumble.

And more scripture from Jesus

Matthew 18:2-5

And He called a child to Himself and set him before them, and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven

Matthew 18:10
“See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that their angels in heaven continually see the face of My Father who is in heaven.

Matthew 18:14
So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones perish.

Matthew 19:13-14

Then some children were brought to Him so that He might lay His hands on them and pray; and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.

Mark 9:36-37

Taking a child, He set him before them, and taking him in His arms, He said to them, “Whoever receives one child like this in My name receives Me; and whoever receives Me does not receive Me, but Him who sent Me.”

Mark 10:13-16
And they were bringing children to Him so that He might touch them; but the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw this, He was indignant and said to them, “Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinder them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.

Luke 9:47-48
But Jesus, knowing what they were thinking in their heart, took a child and stood him by His side, and said to them, “Whoever receives this child in My name receives Me, and whoever receives Me receives Him who sent Me; for the one who is least among all of you, this is the one who is great.”

Luke 18:15-17
And they were bringing even their babies to Him so that He would touch them, but when the disciples saw it, they began rebuking them. But Jesus called for them, saying, “Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.”

conclusion :There is no transmission of a fallen nature, a sin nature that originated with augustine. Lets see what God declares about sin.

Ezekiel 18:4
For everyone belongs to me, the parent as well as the child—both alike belong to me. The one who sins is the one who will die

Ezekiel 18:20
“The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son.”

Deuteronomy 24:16
Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.

2 Kings 14:6
Yet he did not put the sons of the murderers to death, but acted according to what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, where the LORD commanded: "Fathers must not be put to death for their children, and children must not be put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin."

Jeremiah 31:30
Instead, each will die for his own iniquity. If anyone eats the sour grapes, his own teeth will be set on edge.

And we have the wisdom of Job below who knew had he died as a child he would be at peace with the Lord as an innocent and not condemned in hell as guilty as some falsely teach/believe. Job knew there was no torment and suffering if he had died as a child.

Job 3:11 “Why did I not die at birth, come out from the womb and expire?…13 For then I would have lain DOWN AND BEEN QUIET; I WOULD HAVE SLEPT; THEN I WOULD HAVE BEEN AT REST.

CONCLUSION :The Bible is in one accord on the innocence of children and that there is no guilt of sin.


hope this helps !!!
 
So I have Scripture ( both testaments ) and early church history on my side in opposition to the false doctrine invented by augustine the real heretic.

hope this helps !!!
 
You read Romans 5 and somehow conclude that we’re born sinless-how, in all seriousness, are you reading the Scriptures?

I don’t need Augustine, Chrysostom, or Cyril to interpret the text for me; the doctrine of original sin is embedded in the fabric of Scripture itself-unless, of course, you consider Genesis a myth and Adam a mere symbol rather than a historical person.

J.
I do not consider Genesis a myth and Adam a mere symbol. I have never said that, so please do not accuse me of it. There is absolutely nothing in Genesis that says that mankind inherited Adam's guilt.
 
The icing on the cake below :)

Exposing the errors of Gnosticism that crept into the church.

1 John 3:4- Everyone who sins also commits lawlessness. Sin is lawlessness.


Ezekiel 18:20,
"The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.”

Matthew 18:3, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven."

Matthew 19:14, "But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”

If children are born sinners as TD and original sin teaches then Jesus teaches that to be His disciples we must be corrupt like the little children which is an oxymoron.

The teaching above by Jesus, Ezekiel and John confirms I’m correct and original sin is not. One becomes a sinner when they sin and become guilty of that sin not before. Babies are born innocent, not guilty. There is no DNA gene making one a sinner that is folklore.

The errors of the Gnostics
were continually rejected by the Early Church, but the Gnostics continued to try to penetrate the Church with their views. The Gnostics even wrote their own gospels, known as the Gnostic Gospels today, where they stole credible names like Mary and Thomas to try to give validity to their teachings.

While many of the attempts of the Gnostics to infiltrate the Church failed, and many of their views are widely rejected today, it seems that their particular view of human nature, free will, and the nature of sin has found wide acceptance in the Church today.

On Free will

Regarding the term “free will,” John Calvin admitted “As to the Fathers, (if their authority weighs with us,) they have the term constantly in their mouths…”[31]He said, “The Greek fathers above others” have taught “the power of the human will”[32] and “they have not been ashamed to make use of a much more arrogant expression calling man ‘free agent or self-manager,’ just as if man had a power to govern himself…”[33] He also said, “The Latin fathers have always retained the word ‘free will’ as if man stood yet upright.”[34] It is a fact that cannot be denied even by those who most ardently oppose the doctrine of free will, that the doctrine of free will and not that of inability was held by all of the Early Church.

Walter Arthur Copinger said, “All the Fathers are unanimous on the freedom of the human will…”[35]Lyman Beecher said, “the free will and natural ability of man were held by the whole church…”[36] And Dr Wiggers said, “All the fathers…agreed with the Pelagians, in attributing freedom of will to man in his present state.”[37] This is a very important point because whenever a person today holds to the belief that all men have the natural ability to obey God or not to obey Him, or that man’s nature still retains the faculty of free will and can choose between these two alternatives and possibilities, he is almost immediately accused of being a heretical “Pelagian” by the Calvinists. This accusation is being unfair to the position of free will since all of the Early Church Fathers held to free will long before Pelagius even existed.

On Original sin

Harry Conn said, “Augustine, after studying the philosophy of Manes, the Persian philosopher, brought into the church from Manichaeism the doctrine of original sin.”[51]

The corruption of our nature, or the loss of our free will, Augustine credited to the original sin of Adam. Augustine said that the “free choice of the will was present in that man who was the first to be formed… But after he sinned by that free will, we who have descended from his progeny have been plunged into necessity.”[52] “By Adam’s transgression, the freedom of’ the human will has been completely lost.”[53] “By the greatness of the first sin, we have lost the freewill to love God.” And finally he said, “by subverting the rectitude in which he was created, he is followed with the punishment of not being able to do right” and “the freedom to abstain from sin has been lost as a punishment of sin.”[54]

Consider the following facts:

  • All of the Early Christians, before Augustine, believed in man’s free will and denied man’s natural inability.
  • The Gnostics in the days of the Early Church believed in man’s natural inability and denied man’s free will.
  • Augustine was a Gnostic for many years, in the Manichaeism sect, and converted to the Church out of Gnosticism.
  • After joining the Church and being appointed a Bishop, Augustine began to deny the free will of man and to affirm the natural inability of man
  • The Church, under Augustine’s influence, began to believe in the natural inability of man, which it never before held to, but which it formerly would refute.

The reason that John Calvin rejected all ancient theologians and dismissed all of their writings on this matter, except for Augustine, is because all ancient theologians affirmed the freedom of the will in their writings, except for Augustine. Gregory Boyd said, “This in part explains why Calvin cannot cite ante-Nicene fathers against his libertarian opponents…. Hence, when Calvin debates Pighuis on the freedom of the will, he cites Augustine abundantly, but no early church fathers are cited.”[80] That is why George Pretyman said, “…the peculiar tenets of Calvinism are in direct opposition to the Doctrines maintained in the primitive Church of Christ…” This we have clearly seen, but he also said, “…there is a great similarity between the Calvinistic system and the earliest [Gnostic] heresies…”[81]

The Reformers sought to return the Church to early Christianity, but actually brought it back to early heresies, because it stopped short at Augustine. The Reformers did not go far back enough. Rather than returning the Church to early Christianity, the Reformation resurrected Augustinian and Gnostic doctrines. The Methodist Quarterly Review said, “At the Reformation Augustinianism received an emphatic re-enforcement among the Protestant Churches.”[82] The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics said, “…it is Augustine who gave us the Reformation. For the Reformation, inwardly considered, was just the ultimate triumph of Augustine’s doctrine… the Reformation came, seeing that it was, on its theological side, a revival of Augustinianism…”[83] The Reformation was to a great extent a resurrection or revival of Augustinian theology and a further departure and falling away from Early Christianity.

Gnosticism, Augustinianism, Lutheranism, and Calvinism have much in common. Augustinianism, Lutheranism, and Calvinism teach Gnostic views of human nature and free will but under a different name. It’s the same old Gnosticism in a new wrapper. Other doctrines also seem to have originated in Gnosticism, from Basilianism, Valentianism, Marcionism, and Manichaeism, such as the doctrines of easy believism, individual predestination, constitutional regeneration, a sinful nature or a sinful flesh, eternal security or once saved always saved, and others. But no Gnostic doctrine has spread so widely throughout the Church, with such great acceptance as the doctrine of man’s natural inability to obey God. https://crosstheology.wordpress.com/augustine-gnostic-heretic-and-corruptor-of-the-church/

hope this helps !!!
 
then stop quoting secondary sources when it comes to the original languages. They are not the authority scripture is.
And who are you to dictate what I should or shouldn’t believe-or what I can and cannot post? You are overstepping your boundaries into mine.

J.
 
If my posts today are not enough to wake someone up from their slumber, then remain in the darkness/sleep regarding original sin and free will.
 
And who are you to dictate what I should or shouldn’t believe-or what I can and cannot post? You are overstepping your boundaries into mine.

J.
then don't ask me to quote only scripture since you don't do that yourself.

historical facts are just that historical facts and I qouted church history exposing where the false doctrine of original sin was invented by augustine. History doesn't lie it gives us facts/evidence of what happened during different periods of time.
 
if a someone believes they are doomed from the womb, born sinners, then by default all born sinners are guilty of sin and condemnation.

And we know a person cannot be saved until they hear and believe the gospel. So all infants are either saved or lost. If they are lost in a condition of sin then they are hell bound. If they are not born a sinner then they are saved.

You cannot have it both ways and as an FYI- thats the whole purpose of infant baptism their salvation. Lutherans have a confirmation for teenagers to confirm their salvation as an infant. I know I was born one and went through it myself.

What a crock of boloney. Its doubletalk from the other side of the fence. Infant baptism was a doctrine invented by the church so their infants would be saved, covered for their sinful nature. One doctrine upon another was invented to cover over the mistakes/beliefs of previous doctrines. Much like tulip came before PSA. PSA was invented after as a doctrine to go with tulip. One error upon another. This is not different with original sin/ guilt and infant baptism. One false doctrine to cover another.

hope this helps !!!
 
The icing on the cake below
--is

Ezekiel 18:20 states: “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father…” This is part of a legal polemic against Israel’s complaint that they were unjustly suffering for the sins of previous generations (cf. Ezek. 18:2). The passage addresses judicial punishment and the principle of individual moral accountability under the Mosaic covenant, not the deeper theological anthropology concerning inherited corruption.

The context is covenantal justice, not Adamic anthropology. It does not address how sin originates or whether the nature of humanity is inclined to sin. It answers a complaint: “Why should we die for our fathers’ sins?”

The text does not negate inherited sinfulness; rather, it asserts God’s fairness in judgment. This is perfectly compatible with passages that affirm universal corruption from birth (cf. Ps. 51:5; Job 14:4; Rom. 5:12–19).

Ezekiel affirms that each person dies for his own sin, but it does not imply that each person is born without a sinful nature. That is a category error—confusing legal guilt in the civil sphere with ontological corruption.

II. Misuse of Matthew 18:3 and 19:14: Children as Moral Archetypes, Not Doctrinal Proofs of Innocence

Matthew 18:3 – “Unless you become like little children…”
The phrase refers to humility and receptivity, not ontological purity. Jesus says nothing about the inherent sinlessness of children. The comparison is to attitude, not moral status. Your interpretive jump from "become like children" to "children are morally innocent" is exegetically unsustainable.

Matthew 19:14 – “Let the little children come to me… for to such belongs the kingdom”
Again, the comparison is analogical—to the kind of trust, simplicity, and dependence children show. Jesus is not making a claim about their intrinsic moral nature. One might just as easily interpret the statement to say that salvation is by grace precisely because even children need to be brought to Christ.

Psalm 51:5 and Psalm 58:3 speak of sinfulness from the womb: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity…” and “The wicked are estranged from the womb…” These texts cannot be casually dismissed without doing violence to the entire Old Testament anthropology of human corruption.

III. Original Sin in Scripture: Rooted in Romans 5, Not Invented by Augustine

Romans 5:12–19 is unambiguous: “Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned…”

Paul contrasts Adam and Christ as representative heads (federal headship).


The Greek ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον (“because all sinned”) indicates a solidarity in Adam’s transgression.

The repeated use of the one man’s sin/death/judgment being imputed to the many cannot be reduced to imitation without unraveling Paul’s parallelism between Adam and Christ.

Romans 5:19: “By the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners”—the verb κατεστάθησαν (were constituted) speaks to a change of legal/moral status, not merely a chain of bad examples.

This is not Augustinian invention but Pauline theology. Early Jewish writings (e.g., 2 Esdras 3:7, 2 Baruch 54:19) also reflect the notion of Adam’s sin affecting his descendants. Augustine merely systematized what was already clearly embedded in the biblical witness.

IV. Selective and Misleading Use of Patristic Sources on Free Will and Original Sin-that's you civic.

It is true that many Early Church Fathers spoke frequently of free will, but they did not uniformly deny original sin.

Irenaeus, Cyprian, and Ambrose affirmed inherited corruption.

Origen, while affirming free will, also acknowledged the depravity of human nature resulting from Adam.

Tertullian: “The whole human race transgressed in the loins of Adam.” (On the Soul, 40)

Ambrosiaster, a 4th-century commentator often confused with Ambrose, directly teaches that "in Adam all sinned."

Your claim that “all the Fathers agreed with the Pelagians” is ahistorical.
Pelagianism was condemned as heresy not only by Augustine, but by the Councils of Carthage (418) and Ephesus (431)—long before any Reformation polemics.

Yes, the term “free will” was widely used, but libertas (freedom) does not entail autonomy. Many Fathers distinguished between natural freedom and the enslavement of the will due to sin. Their views were nuanced and should not be retrofitted to modern libertarian assumptions.

V. False Association of Original Sin with Gnosticism
Gnosticism taught that matter is inherently evil, and that the soul must escape the body through secret knowledge (gnōsis).

Original sin, by contrast, affirms the goodness of creation (cf. Gen. 1:31) and the corruption of the will through moral transgression, not through matter or physical descent.

Gnostics denied the humanity of Christ, the resurrection of the body, and affirmed dualism—none of which are present in the doctrine of original sin.

To equate original sin with Gnosticism is historically and theologically indefensible.


Your rejection of original sin in favor of a tabula rasa anthropology fails to account for the comprehensive scriptural testimony of inherited sinfulness, from Genesis 3 to Romans 5 and beyond. The misuse of Ezekiel and the Synoptic Gospels stems from an atomized, non-contextual hermeneutic. Patristic consensus is far more complex than the selective citations suggest, and the association with Gnosticism is historically inaccurate.

To deny original sin is not to return to biblical anthropology—it is to reconstruct it on the basis of Enlightenment humanism cloaked in theological nostalgia.
If children are not born sinners, Christ died not for what we are, but only for what we might one day become—a concept foreign to the gospel itself.

J.
 
Calvin himself calls infants RATS

“John Calvin wrote–and it was an unguarded statement, to be sure–but he wrote that ‘Babies are as depraved as rats.’ I just wish he never wrote that, it’s one of the few places I disagree…’cause it’s such a gross insult to those rats. those poor rats are just chasing cheese, running away from cats, doing the best they can…but that baby is a blasphemer.”
From Theology & Books with R. C. Sproul,
 
here from Jeremiah and many other books in the bible all in agreement about the innocence not guilt of children/infants.

Upon Christ the solid Rock I stand all other ground in sinking sand.

Jeremiah 19:2 and go out to the Valley of the Son of Hinnom at the entry of the Potsherd Gate, and proclaim there the words that I tell you…4 Because the people have forsaken me and have profaned this place by making offerings in it to other gods whom neither they nor their fathers nor the kings of Judah have known; and because they have filled this place with THE BLOOD OF INNOCENTS…6 therefore, behold, days are coming, declares the Lord, when this place shall no more be called Topheth, or the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter.

God judged them by having the Babylonians doing to them what they did to their children. The Jews Slaughtering their innocent children and God had them slaughtered by the Babylonians.

Psalm 106:34 They (the Israelites) did not destroy the peoples (the Canaanites), as the Lord commanded them, 35 but they mixed with the nations and learned to do as they did. 36 They served their idols, which became a snare to them. 37 They SACRIFICED THEIR SONS AND THEIR DAUGHTERS TO THE DEMONS; 38 they poured out INNOCENT BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THEIR SONS AND DAUGHTERS, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, and the land was polluted with blood.

conclusion: how many time does God/Jesus have to say children are INNOCENT not guilty before you will believe ?

Jesus affirms the above in the N.T. Woe to those who cause any little ones to stumble.

And more scripture from Jesus

Matthew 18:2-5

And He called a child to Himself and set him before them, and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven

Matthew 18:10
“See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that their angels in heaven continually see the face of My Father who is in heaven.

Matthew 18:14
So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones perish.

Matthew 19:13-14

Then some children were brought to Him so that He might lay His hands on them and pray; and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.

Mark 9:36-37

Taking a child, He set him before them, and taking him in His arms, He said to them, “Whoever receives one child like this in My name receives Me; and whoever receives Me does not receive Me, but Him who sent Me.”

Mark 10:13-16
And they were bringing children to Him so that He might touch them; but the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw this, He was indignant and said to them, “Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinder them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.

Luke 9:47-48
But Jesus, knowing what they were thinking in their heart, took a child and stood him by His side, and said to them, “Whoever receives this child in My name receives Me, and whoever receives Me receives Him who sent Me; for the one who is least among all of you, this is the one who is great.”

Luke 18:15-17
And they were bringing even their babies to Him so that He would touch them, but when the disciples saw it, they began rebuking them. But Jesus called for them, saying, “Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.”

conclusion :There is no transmission of a fallen nature, a sin nature that originated with augustine. Lets see what God declares about sin.

Ezekiel 18:4
For everyone belongs to me, the parent as well as the child—both alike belong to me. The one who sins is the one who will die

Ezekiel 18:20
“The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son.”

Deuteronomy 24:16
Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.

2 Kings 14:6
Yet he did not put the sons of the murderers to death, but acted according to what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, where the LORD commanded: "Fathers must not be put to death for their children, and children must not be put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin."

Jeremiah 31:30
Instead, each will die for his own iniquity. If anyone eats the sour grapes, his own teeth will be set on edge.

And we have the wisdom of Job below who knew had he died as a child he would be at peace with the Lord as an innocent and not condemned in hell as guilty as some falsely teach/believe. Job knew there was no torment and suffering if he had died as a child.

Job 3:11 “Why did I not die at birth, come out from the womb and expire?…13 For then I would have lain DOWN AND BEEN QUIET; I WOULD HAVE SLEPT; THEN I WOULD HAVE BEEN AT REST.

CONCLUSION :The Bible is in one accord on the innocence of children and that there is no guilt of sin.


hope this helps !!!
Could it be that the word “innocents” refers to the elect who God has already justified (saved) and pronounced not guilty before the foundation of the world?

Romans 8:29-30 (NKJV) 29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined [to be] conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.
 
--is

Ezekiel 18:20 states: “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father…” This is part of a legal polemic against Israel’s complaint that they were unjustly suffering for the sins of previous generations (cf. Ezek. 18:2). The passage addresses judicial punishment and the principle of individual moral accountability under the Mosaic covenant, not the deeper theological anthropology concerning inherited corruption.

The context is covenantal justice, not Adamic anthropology. It does not address how sin originates or whether the nature of humanity is inclined to sin. It answers a complaint: “Why should we die for our fathers’ sins?”

The text does not negate inherited sinfulness; rather, it asserts God’s fairness in judgment. This is perfectly compatible with passages that affirm universal corruption from birth (cf. Ps. 51:5; Job 14:4; Rom. 5:12–19).

Ezekiel affirms that each person dies for his own sin, but it does not imply that each person is born without a sinful nature. That is a category error—confusing legal guilt in the civil sphere with ontological corruption.

II. Misuse of Matthew 18:3 and 19:14: Children as Moral Archetypes, Not Doctrinal Proofs of Innocence

Matthew 18:3 – “Unless you become like little children…”
The phrase refers to humility and receptivity, not ontological purity. Jesus says nothing about the inherent sinlessness of children. The comparison is to attitude, not moral status. Your interpretive jump from "become like children" to "children are morally innocent" is exegetically unsustainable.

Matthew 19:14 – “Let the little children come to me… for to such belongs the kingdom”
Again, the comparison is analogical—to the kind of trust, simplicity, and dependence children show. Jesus is not making a claim about their intrinsic moral nature. One might just as easily interpret the statement to say that salvation is by grace precisely because even children need to be brought to Christ.

Psalm 51:5 and Psalm 58:3 speak of sinfulness from the womb: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity…” and “The wicked are estranged from the womb…” These texts cannot be casually dismissed without doing violence to the entire Old Testament anthropology of human corruption.

III. Original Sin in Scripture: Rooted in Romans 5, Not Invented by Augustine

Romans 5:12–19 is unambiguous: “Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned…”

Paul contrasts Adam and Christ as representative heads (federal headship).


The Greek ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον (“because all sinned”) indicates a solidarity in Adam’s transgression.

The repeated use of the one man’s sin/death/judgment being imputed to the many cannot be reduced to imitation without unraveling Paul’s parallelism between Adam and Christ.

Romans 5:19: “By the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners”—the verb κατεστάθησαν (were constituted) speaks to a change of legal/moral status, not merely a chain of bad examples.

This is not Augustinian invention but Pauline theology. Early Jewish writings (e.g., 2 Esdras 3:7, 2 Baruch 54:19) also reflect the notion of Adam’s sin affecting his descendants. Augustine merely systematized what was already clearly embedded in the biblical witness.

IV. Selective and Misleading Use of Patristic Sources on Free Will and Original Sin-that's you civic.

It is true that many Early Church Fathers spoke frequently of free will, but they did not uniformly deny original sin.

Irenaeus, Cyprian, and Ambrose affirmed inherited corruption.

Origen, while affirming free will, also acknowledged the depravity of human nature resulting from Adam.

Tertullian: “The whole human race transgressed in the loins of Adam.” (On the Soul, 40)

Ambrosiaster, a 4th-century commentator often confused with Ambrose, directly teaches that "in Adam all sinned."

Your claim that “all the Fathers agreed with the Pelagians” is ahistorical.
Pelagianism was condemned as heresy not only by Augustine, but by the Councils of Carthage (418) and Ephesus (431)—long before any Reformation polemics.

Yes, the term “free will” was widely used, but libertas (freedom) does not entail autonomy. Many Fathers distinguished between natural freedom and the enslavement of the will due to sin. Their views were nuanced and should not be retrofitted to modern libertarian assumptions.

V. False Association of Original Sin with Gnosticism
Gnosticism taught that matter is inherently evil, and that the soul must escape the body through secret knowledge (gnōsis).

Original sin, by contrast, affirms the goodness of creation (cf. Gen. 1:31) and the corruption of the will through moral transgression, not through matter or physical descent.

Gnostics denied the humanity of Christ, the resurrection of the body, and affirmed dualism—none of which are present in the doctrine of original sin.

To equate original sin with Gnosticism is historically and theologically indefensible.


Your rejection of original sin in favor of a tabula rasa anthropology fails to account for the comprehensive scriptural testimony of inherited sinfulness, from Genesis 3 to Romans 5 and beyond. The misuse of Ezekiel and the Synoptic Gospels stems from an atomized, non-contextual hermeneutic. Patristic consensus is far more complex than the selective citations suggest, and the association with Gnosticism is historically inaccurate.

To deny original sin is not to return to biblical anthropology—it is to reconstruct it on the basis of Enlightenment humanism cloaked in theological nostalgia.
If children are not born sinners, Christ died not for what we are, but only for what we might one day become—a concept foreign to the gospel itself.

J.
ChatGPT- no way you can respond that quickly or a copy/paste.
 
Could it be that the word “innocents” refer to the elect who God has already justified (saved) and pronounced not guilty before the foundation of the world?

Romans 8:29-30 (NKJV) 29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined [to be] conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.
no since all are born sinners and guilty under reformed theology. One cannot be saved before the hearing and believing of the gospel and regeneration. Thats why they invented infant baptism to save their infants from the guilt and condemnation of original sin.

As an fyi I was a devout calvinist for over 4 decades and believed all of their doctrines including the ones I'm opposing today in this thread. I taught them for decades. I know what they believe inside out, I have all their renown theologians systematic theology books, commentaries and books. I have an actual library full of them.
 
Back
Top Bottom