The Pagan, Gnostic Origin of Calvinism

[civic]

Quote from calvinist RC Sproul:
" There are very few times that I disagree with Calvin, but I differ with him on one point when he says newborn babies are as depraved as rats. Now I dont like that because I think it's an insult to the rat. The rat does what rats are made to do. But newborn babies are born as children of wrath born in a state of moral corruption."

Yes the reformers got it very wrong- lets see what the bible says on the topic

How refreshing then was the Biblical, Hebrew culture where all children were considered to be gifts from the Lord. Rachel spoke as the mother of her people when she cried, "Give me children, or I shall die!" (Genesis 30:1). Hannah prayed in the temple for a child. When God answered, she named him Samuel ("God has heard"). She later gave Samuel to the Lord's service (1 Samuel 1:20, 28). Hebrew culture elevated the family and children!

How refreshing then was the Biblical, Hebrew culture where all children were considered to be gifts from the Lord.

Mark 10 shows a further elevation of children by our Lord. The account opens in verse 13 with Mark telling us that "they were bringing children to [Jesus] that he might touch them, and the disciples rebuked them." As best we can gather, fathers, mothers, and perhaps older children, were bringing young children, many of whom were babies (for that is how Luke describes them in his parallel account, 18:15), to Jesus for his blessing. This was in keeping with a classic Jewish custom that dated all the way back to the time when the patriarch Israel laid his hands upon the heads of Ephraim and Manasseh and blessed them (Genesis 48:14). It was all very proper, traditional, and wonderful. Proud parents held out their precious children to Jesus, who took them in his arms where they snuggled close. He placed his hand on their warm little heads, and lifting his eyes to Heaven, pronounced a blessing.

We can surmise that quite a number of cheerful families stood in line chatting, with babes in arms and children scurrying around. Then it stopped. Outside the house the disciples were sending them away with a rebuke!

Why were they doing this? They were protecting Jesus. They knew Jesus was under pressure. Wherever he went, he found conflict–one time with demons, another time the religious establishment, etc. And if that was not enough, there were the crashing crowds. This matter of blessing children was simply one more drain. Besides, these were just children. They were of little importance. They could not enter debate or contribute to the cause, even if they did understand about Jesus. So the disciples stopped the flow.

Verse 14 indicates that Jesus saw what was happening, and "he was indignant." The Greek word translated "indignant" occurs only here in the New Testament and is a combination of two words: "much" and "to grieve." He was much grieved!

Jesus was angry, and his words have a clipped, staccato ring to them: "[He] said to them, 'Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God'" (v. 14). What should we draw from these passionate words?

First, Jesus loves children. Jesus, after all, had been a child himself. He was a real baby, child, teenager, and man. We see Christ's love for children as he celebrates the delight of a mother on giving birth (John 16:21), the gentle love of a father who cuddles his children (Luke 11:7), and parental love that listens to a child's every request (Matthew 7:9; Luke 11:11).

Many of his miracles involved children: the nobleman's little son (John 4:46-54), the demonized son of the man at the Mount of Transfiguration (Mark 9:14-29), Jairus' daughter to whom Christ tenderly said, "Talitha cumi," which means, "Little girl, I say to you, rise" (Mark 5:41). Jesus truly, as man and God, love children!

So we learn from Jesus' indignation, first, that Jesus loves children, and, secondly, that Jesus affirms and respects the personhood and spirituality of children. In saying, "for to such belongs the kingdom of God," he affirms their full spirituality. They are the hearts he takes to himself! Christ affirms and proclaims the spiritual capacity of children.

How sobering, then, are Jesus' words, "do not hinder them." The Talmud says, "A child tells in the street what its father and mother say at home." What are children learning in our homes and in our churches?

Jesus said, "Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it." The word translated "not" is very strong. New Testament scholar William Lane comments: "The solemn pronouncement is directed at the disciples, but has pertinence for all men confronted by the gospel because it speaks of the condition for entrance into the Kingdom of God." No one will get into the Kingdom of God unless he or she receives God's salvation like a child—no one! How are we to understand and apply this?

For starters, coming as a "child" does not infer innocence. Any two-year-old dispels such a notion! Neither does "like a child" suggest the wondrous subjective states we often find in children such as trustfulness, receptivity, simplicity, or wonder, beautiful as these are.

What Jesus has in mind here is an objective state that every child who has ever lived, regardless of race, culture, or background, has experienced—helpless dependence.

Every single child in the world is absolutely, completely, totally, objectively, subjectively, existentially helpless! And so it is with every child who is born into the kingdom of God. Children of the kingdom enter it helpless, ones for whom everything must be done.

The realization that one is as helpless as a child naturally fosters humility. Jesus gave reference to this connection when, in a similar but separate statement, he said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 18:3-4).

Do you desire to be held in Christ's arms, to hear him pronounce blessings over you? Eternity will reveal that is all we ever wanted, and our Spirit-given response is, "Dearest Father"–"Abba! Father!" (cf. Romans 8:15; Galatians 4:6). Kent Hughes

The Old Testament is full of passages about the importance of raising children to love and worship God (Deuteronomy 6:7, Proverbs 22:6). Parents are reminded that children are a heritage from the Lord (Psalm 127:3-5). And children are instructed to obey the instruction of their parents (Exodus 20:12).

It’s in the Gospels that we really discover God’s soft spot for children. He’s gentle and kind with them, and passionate about protecting them from harm.

Here are three passages where Jesus demonstrated God’s heart for children:

At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”

He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me” (Matthew 18:1-5, New International Version).

Jesus often used things in His environment to teach spiritual truth. In this case, there were children in the crowd and Jesus used them to make an important point.

“Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”

It seems like a simple question. From the disciple’s religious context, they likely would have answered, “One who keeps the law.” No one answers right away-probably because they’re all waiting for Peter to give the wrong answer. Meanwhile, Jesus calls a child over and tells them:

“Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”

There’s a lot of conjecture about what Jesus means. Are we supposed to become innocent like children? Do we need childlike trust? Luckily, we don’t have to guess what Jesus meant. He tells us.

Children didn’t have a lot of rights in the first century. Kids were seen and not heard. We see this in Luke 18 when parents were bringing their infants to be blessed by Jesus, and the disciples try and chase them away. In their opinion, the Lord had more important things to do.

Jesus uses this opportunity to reiterate one of His most common points about godly leadership. Like children, kingdom-minded leaders shouldn’t be jockeying for position, looking to have power over others, or worrying about how people perceive them. They should serve God by serving others.

He then makes a point that He’ll come back to in a parable about sheep and goats (Matthew 25:31-46). By welcoming and serving those that society doesn’t value, we welcome and serve God. In this case, we serve God by serving children.

“If anyone causes one of these little ones-those who believe in me-to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come!” (Matthew 18:6-7, NIV)

When Jesus had something important to say, He often used hyperbole. This was His way of communicating the sheer magnitude of what He was trying to communicate. You see this in the Sermon on the Mount when Jesus tells the crowd, “And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away” (Matthew 5:30, NIV).

When it comes to temptation, we’re all responsible for our own behavior. But here Jesus wants His listeners to understand the dangers of being the vehicle through which temptation comes. If your behavior leads innocent children astray, it’s better to be tossed into the depth of the sea than to face the judgment of Jesus.

When Jesus entered the synagogue leaders house and saw the noisy crowd and people playing pipes, he said, “Go away. The girl is not dead but asleep.” But they laughed at him. After the crowd had been put outside, he went in and took the girl by the hand, and she got up. News of this spread through all that region (Matthew 9:22-26, NIV).

During Jesus ministry, He raised three people from the dead. One was Lazarus (John 11), who Jesus loved. Another was a young man in the town of Nain. Jesus got caught in a funeral procession and was moved by a mother’s grieving so he raised her son (Luke 7).

In the third case, a synagogue leader named Jairus comes to Jesus because his daughter is sick and near death (Luke 8:41). He begs Jesus to come and do something, but by the time our Lord gets there, the child has died.

And, in a time when the child mortality rate was likely very high, Jesus was moved enough by this man’s faith-and this girl’s untimely death-to intervene. He demonstrates His compassion and love for children by raising Jairus’s daughter from the dead.jesusfilm.org

• 
  Add bookmark
• #3

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: Children are blessings not dirty rotten little sinful babies. Why didn't Jesus say children were sinners but instead insisted adults become like children ?

hope this helps !!!

 

[civic]

Its appalling to condemn innocent children- Even the calvinst Gill agree's from Jer 2:34- they are INNOCENT not guilty of sin,

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
Also in thy skirts is found the blood of the souls of the poor innocents,.... Either of the innocent infants of poor persons, who were sacrificed to Moloch; or of the poor prophets of the Lord, whom they slew,

I commend Gill for being honest with scripture and nmot letting his doctrine of tulip determine the meaning of scripture.

and here from Jeremiah

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.

The O.T. affirms Jesus teaching in the N.T.

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 !!!

 

[civic]

History lesson on the origin of original sin. Below is the history of the false doctrine of original sin and childrens guilt

Church history lesson for those who are willing to learn and be fact checked with their beliefs.

Augustine and Pelagius- the History of original sin.

Augustine’s doctrine of Original Sin was born from his attempt to combat the heresy of Pelagianism. The controversy began in Rome when the British monk, Pelagius, opposed Augustine’s prayer: “Grant what you command, and command what you desire”. Pelagius was opposing the idea that the divine gift of grace was necessary to perform the will of God. Pelagius believed that if we are responsible for obeying the commandments of God, then we must all also have the ability to do so without divine aid. He went on to deny the doctrine of Ancestral Sin, arguing that the consequences of Adam’s sin are not passed on to the rest of mankind. Adam’s sin affected Adam alone, and thus infants at birth are in the same state as Adam was before the Fall.

Augustine took a starkly different view of the Fall, arguing that mankind is utterly sinful and incapable of good. Augustine believed that the state of Original Sin leaves us in such a condition that we are unable to refrain from sin. The ‘image of God’ in man (i.e., free will) was destroyed by the Fall. As much as we may choose to do good, our evil impulses pervert our free will and compel us to do evil. Therefore we are totally dependent upon grace.

So far did Augustine take his grim view of the human condition, that he argued not only that the Original Sin effects all of Adam’s descendants, but that each person is guilty of the Original Sin from birth (Original Guilt). Infants are therefore guilty of sin and thus infants who die before baptism, in which (according to Augustine) the guilt of Original Sin is removed, are condemned to perdition and cannot be saved. As if that was not bad enough, Augustine went on to formulate the doctrine of Predestination, which affirms that God has foreordained who will be saved and who will not.

Augustine prevailed and Pelagius was condemned as a heretic by Rome at the Council of Carthage in 418. It seemed that Pelagius’ views were more reprehensible to the Latin Church than the idea of predestination and babies burning in hell – views that the Latin Church was not only willing to tolerate, but even willing to champion as Orthodox doctrine!


St John Chrysostom

Between Augustine and Pelagius there appeared to be no middle-way in the West. A different view, however, was expressed in the East by Augustine’s contemporary, John Chrysostom. The dispute between Augustine and Pelagius had not reached the East, and so Chrysostom’s views were not so agitated by heated disputes and polemics. Were Chrysostom involved in the dispute between Augustine and Pelagius, perhaps his teaching on Ancestral Sin would have prevailed over both Pelagius and Augustine alike, but considering that the sole concern of the Latin Church seemed to be the condemnation of Pelagianism, it is probably more likely that he would have been condemned as semi-pelagian.https://pemptousia.com/2017/02/original-sin-orthodox-doctrine-or-heresy/#_edn1 Whatever the case, Chrysostom’s views on the subject have never enjoyed the attention they deserve, and the heated nature of the dispute in the West meant that the doctrine of ‘Original Sin’ as expounded by Augustine was regarded as the only safeguard against the heresy of Pelagianism.

Chrysostom, while claiming that all human beings are made in the image of God, believed that the Ancestral Sin brought corruptibility and death not only to Adam but to all his descendants, weakening his ability to grow into God’s likeness, but never destroying God’s image (free will). Chrysostom is a major voice within a consensus of Greek patristic writers who interpret the Fall as “an inheritance essentially of mortality rather than sinfulness, sinfulness being merely a consequence of mortality”.[ii] Chrysostom’s position is echoed, for example, by St Athanasius the Great and St Cyril of Alexandria, who claimed that we are not guilty of Adam’s sin, though we inherit a corrupted nature; but our free will remains intact. This Greek patristic interpretation is founded upon Romans 5:12: “As sin came into the world through one man, and through sin, death, so death spread to all men because all men have sinned”[iii]. John Meyendorff explains how the deficient Latin translation of the text may have contributed to such a stark difference in the Latin interpretation of the Ancestral Sin:

‘In this passage there is a major issue of translation. The last four Greek words were translated in Latin as in quo omnes peccaverunt (“in whom [i.e., in Adam] all men have sinned”), and this translation was used in the West to justify the guilt inherited from Adam and spread to his descendants. But such a meaning cannot be drawn from the original Greek’.[iv]

St Cyril of Alexandria explained the passage in this way:

“How did many become sinners because of Adam?… How could we, who were not yet born, all be condemned with him, even though God said, ‘Neither the fathers shall be put to death because of their children, nor the children because of their fathers, but the soul which sins shall be put to death’? (cf. Deut. 24:18) … we became sinners through Adam’s disobedience in such manner as this: he was created for incorruptibility and life, and the manner of existence he had in the garden of delight was proper to holiness. His whole mind was continually beholding God; his body was tranquil and calm with all base pleasures being still. For there was no tumult of alien disturbances in it. But because he fell under sin and slipped into corruptibility, pleasures and filthiness assaulted the nature of the flesh, and in our members was unveiled a savage law. Our nature, then, became diseased by sin through the disobedience of one, that is, of Adam. Thus, all were made sinners, not by being co-transgressors with Adam,… but by being of his nature and falling under the law of sin… Human nature fell ill in Adam and subject to corruptibility through disobedience, and, therefore, the passions entered in”.[v]


St John Cassian

The East paid little attention to Augustine, and this was largely due to language barriers. For the Eastern Christians, serious theologians wrote in Greek, and they paid little heed to Latin writers. What opposition did come from the East came from some Eastern Orthodox theologians who, for one reason or another, found themselves living in the West. Amongst the most prominent was St John Cassian. St John opposed Augustine on four major points:

1) There were clearly instances where people had come to God of their own volition, who, while called by Christ and aided by divine grace, chose to change their ways (e.g. Matthew, Paul, Zacchaeus). Therefore, it is not grace alone that saves us, but also man’s willingness to repent.

2) After the Fall, Adam and his descendants retained a knowledge of good, and an impulse, however weakened, to pursue good. Man was not, as Augustine claimed, utterly depraved and incapable of good after the Fall.

3) The ‘Image’ of God in man is sick, but not dead. The divine image is in need of healing, but this healing requires synergy (the co-operation of man’s will with divine grace).

4) God wishes all to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, so those who are not saved reject salvation against His will. Predestination should be understood as foreknowledge and not as foreordination.

The West condemned St John Cassian’s views as semi-pelagian, but for the Orthodox, Cassian is one of the foremost exponents of the Orthodox doctrine of theosis.[vi] His views were supported also by Theodoret of Antioch:

“There is need of both our efforts and divine aid. The grace of the Spirit is not vouchsafed to those who make no effort, and without grace our efforts can not collect the prize of virtue”.


The Ancestral Sin and Baptism


Augustine’s view of Original Sin was the reason also for his justification of infant baptism. Believing that babies are born guilty of sin, he argued that baptism was necessary for the babies’ salvation. He saw the innocence of infants purely in terms of their being physically too weak to commit sin, but equally guilty as adults of Adam’s sin.

The Greek Fathers, having a different view of the Fall and the Ancestral Sin, interpreted the purpose of infant baptism in another way, different in important respects from the familiar Augustinian and Reformed interpretations of the West. The Greek Fathers believed that newborn infants are innocents, wholly without sin. While infants inherit a human nature which, in its wholeness, is wounded by the Ancestral Sin, weakening the will and making each person prone to sin, they are innocent of sin nonetheless. In the fourth of his catechetical homilies on baptism, St John Chrysostom states, “We do baptise infants, although they are not guilty of any sins”. For the Greek Fathers, baptism, above all else, is an acceptance by the Church and entrance of the baptised person into the redeemed and sanctified Body of Christ, the beginning of a life spent in spiritual combat and instruction in holiness on the deepening journey to the Kingdom of God.

Considering the stark contrast between the Orthodox doctrine of the Ancestral Sin and the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin, and the different understanding of baptism that these doctrines lead to, is it not surprising that some Orthodox speak of baptism in Augustinian terms – of the forgiveness of Original Sin – especially considering that the Orthodox service for baptism makes not a single reference to it? The closest we come to mention of the Ancestral Sin (Πρωπατρορικό ἁμάρτημα) in baptism is in the first prayer of the Service for the Making of a Catechumen (which was originally completely separate from the service of Baptism): “Remove far from him/her that ancient error” (παλαιά πλάνη). If one of the main purposes of baptism was the forgiveness of Original Sin, surely it would be worth mentioning in the baptism service! But the idea of ‘Original Sin’ being “forgiven” is nowhere to be found in the Greek Fathers or in the hymns and prayers of the Orthodox Church. For it is an idea which is alien to Greek Patristic thought. The Ancestral Sin is a condition, primarily of mortality and corruptibility, which needs healing, an inherited ‘illness’ which means that free will – or ‘the Image of God’ as the Greek Fathers preferred to put it – though kept intact, is in need of divine grace in order to progress along the path to attaining God’s ‘likeness’, the path to theosis or ‘deification’.


Bearing in mind the significant differences between the Orthodox and the Augustinian views of ‘Original Sin’, it surprises me that some Orthodox Christians are so quick to employ the term, claiming that the Orthodox Church holds to the doctrine of ‘Original Sin’, and qualifying this simply by saying that it does not embrace the doctrine of ‘Original Guilt’. I do not think that this is adequate for expounding the Orthodox position on Original Sin. Although Augustine was recognised as a saint by the Orthodox Church,[vii] it has never accepted his teaching on Original Sin. If what I have written above is correct, then the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin is wholly un-Orthodox, and it led, I believe, to a whole series of heresies in the Latin Church, such as Predestination, Purgatory, Limbo and the Immaculate Conception. We Orthodox would do well to distance ourselves from the well-known Augustinian position on Original Sin by employing a less familiar term: Ancestral Sin. It is not merely a case of semantics. For an erroneous understanding of this doctrine has serious repercussions for our understanding of sin and the Fall, for grace and free will, for baptism, the human condition and man’s deification. In short, how we understand the Ancestral Sin has direct implications for our whole soteriology – our understanding of the salvation of man and the world.https://pemptousia.com/2017/02/original-sin-orthodox-doctrine-or-heresy/

hope this helps !!!

 

[civic]

1 John 3:4 " Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and 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 !!!

 

[atpollard]

So many WISE men, compared to the FOOLISH Word of God that I quoted.

1 Corinthians 1:26-31 [NASB] ​

For consider your calling, brothers [and sisters,] that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the insignificant things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no human may boast before God. But [it is] due to Him [that] you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, so that, just as it is written: "LET THE ONE WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD."​

 

[atpollard]

John 6 He is talking to the pharisees vs the disciples
Romans 9 is the Jews/Israel - potter clay
Ephesians 1 is the Apostles who were the FIRST.

context, context, context is KING.

That was easy.

The famous "the Bible is not written to/for us" argument.
I am not buying what you are selling.

John 6 is written to/for ME.
Romans 9 is written to/for ME.
Ephesians 2 is written to/for ME.


JESUS CHRIST is King (and I want every word he wrote for me).

 

[Titus]

"Moving the goal posts" ... Spurgeon never said "devil babies"

Spurgeon and RC Sproul are cut from the same cloth.
According to Jesus everyone has a master, there is no neutral ground.
If babies are born sinful, with totally corrupt hearts then who is their master?

Your doctrine when applied to Scripture forces the only possible master a sinful depraved baby will serve.
The unregenerate serve satan, there is no other choice in the matter!!!

Matthew 6:24,
- no man can serve two masters for either he will hate the one and love the other...
Servants of sin
Servants of obedience
There is no third option

Romans 6:16,
- know ye not to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey whether of sin unto death or of obedience unto righteousness

dead in sin = master satan.
Child of disobedience= master satan.
Captive to sin = master satan.
Born again = master Jesus.
Obedient servant = master Jesus.

The unregenerate always without exception serve satan.
The born again obedient always without exception serve Jesus.

The Bible gives no third option.

So out of your own ignorance your religion creates devil babies.

 

[civic]

The famous "the Bible is not written to/for us" argument.
I am not buying what you are selling.

John 6 is written to/for ME.
Romans 9 is written to/for ME.
Ephesians 2 is written to/for ME.


JESUS CHRIST is King (and I want every word he wrote for me).

Not everything in the bible applies to you or me. Thats hermenuetics 101.

If so then get your buddy so you can go out in 2's and cast out all the demon possessed that know Jesus sent you and raise the dead. While you are ate it let a few poisonous snakes bite you since you will be immune from their venom.

I can list dozens of more things that do not apply to you or me.

 

[atpollard]

Spurgeon and RC Sproul are cut from the same cloth.
According to Jesus everyone has a master, there is no neutral ground.
If babies are born sinful, with totally corrupt hearts then who is their master?

Your doctrine when applied to Scripture forces the only possible master a sinful depraved baby will serve.
The unregenerate serve satan, there is no other choice in the matter!!!

Matthew 6:24,
- no man can serve two masters for either he will hate the one and love the other...
Servants of sin
Servants of obedience
There is no third option

Romans 6:16,
- know ye not to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey whether of sin unto death or of obedience unto righteousness

dead in sin = master satan.
Child of disobedience= master satan.
Captive to sin = master satan.
Born again = master Jesus.
Obedient servant = master Jesus.

The unregenerate always without exception serve satan.
The born again obedient always without exception serve Jesus.

The Bible gives no third option.

So out of your own ignorance your religion creates devil babies.

I will patiently wait for you to address the rest of post #19 before I respond to this new bunny trail. [That only seems polite.]

 

[atpollard]

Not everything in the bible applies to you or me. Thats hermenuetics 101.

What about the verses that talk about "no one" or "everyone" and "whomever" and "we/us"?
Do those apply to me?

• "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the Prophets: 'AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me." - John 6:44-45 [NASB]
• For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOMEVER I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL SHOW COMPASSION TO WHOMEVER I SHOW COMPASSION." So then, [it does] not [depend] on the [person] who wants [it] nor the one who runs, but on God who has mercy. - Romans 9:15-16 [NASB]
• And you were dead in your offenses and sins, in which you previously walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all previously lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the rest. But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our wrongdoings, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly [places] in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the boundless riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this [is] not of yourselves, [it is] the gift of God; not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them. - Ephesians 2:1-10 [NASB]

 

[TedT]

Merit? No one.

Ummm,
IF the elect are foreordained to salvation before their birth into earthly lives and
IF this foreordination was not unconditional but due to some reason found in them to be acceptable to GOD for HIM to treat them in this way,
THEN this acceptability to GOD can easily be called a merit.

What was their merit?
Romans 8:29 - For whom HE did foreknow, HE also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of HIS Son. From this verse we can see that the predestination of the elect is based on the foreknowledge of GOD. Now everyone admits that in this verse, the word fore means before life. Therefore, they think that it also means before creation as if our earthly life was the same as our created spirit life. I wonder if this is a valid and reasonable link to make?

GOD obviously does not before life know everybody since not everyone will become like Jesus, as Rom 8:29 just said predestination means and as per Matthew 7:21, 23 Then I will tell them plainly, I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers! which tells us what knowing means, emphasising the idea that loving is knowing and knowing about has no love. James 2:19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder. Jesus obviously knew about the demons and knew about the miracle workers but this knowing contained no love as it is plain; He never knew them.
Revelation 20:15, And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. This means that foreknow must carry the idea of approval. As one commentator stated it, Whom HE foreknew is virtually equivalent to whom HE foreloved.

Now this question comes to mind: if it is true that no one had been created at the time of this foreknowledge, on what basis does GOD "before life" love some and not the rest?

1. Merit based Election before Creation!

The basis can not be, as some have suggested, some merit in the creatures, first because no one exists yet; second, because the ones HE foreloves will be just as defiled in life as any other; and third, because the Scriptures say election is not on the basis of the creature's works or choices in life, but rather on HIS unmerited favour:
Romans 9:11 For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of GOD according to election might stand, not of works, but of HIM that calleth... Romans 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of GOD that sheweth mercy.

Therefore, we can surmise that GOD does not "before life" love some because HE has divined that they will have some merit in their life.

2. Election to Damnation before Creation Serves HIS Purpose?
Others have suggested that GOD "before life" loved only some because this is more beneficial for HIS purposes than if HE before life loved everyone. The explanation goes something like this: The loved ones' eternal joy is directly proportional to their knowledge - appreciation of GOD and the wonderfulness of their salvation. Therefore an increase of good comes forth from the eternal damnation of some persons for by their damnation, that is, the outcome of Adam's decision to sin, and HIS "before life" decision not to love these persons, two types of eternal blessings supposedly occur for the rest.

First, a fuller appreciation of several of God's attributes is made possible, which opportunity wouldn't be possible if all lived forever, that is, if HE "before life" loved them all. These attributes are usually said to be HIS justness (retribution - wrath) holiness and omnipotence.

Secondly, the truth regarding the elect's end apart from Christ's salvation is made fully known, which full knowledge makes possible the fuller appreciation of HIS salvation, for this salvation (hence, HIS mercy too) would not be so fully appreciated without the graphic depiction of both ends.

Third, Others even go so far as to say that their damnation is absolutely necessary in order that the purpose of GOD be able to be fulfilled by HIS elect, and they offer this explanation: In order to live in eternity with GOD, we must live fully in the truth, which necessity necessitates having a perfect appreciation of GOD's attributes and HIS salvation, and that this perfect appreciation by HIS elect creatures is made possible first, only through witnessing HIS triumph over and judgement upon HIS enemies, and second, only when HIS perfection and our life in Christ are contrasted with the complete imperfections of the damned and the end we would have had, had HE not saved us.

Now, these are very hard positions to hold, for they fail on many accounts.

First, they both fail to answer or give a reasonable basis for why HE chose the particular ones HE did and why HE did not choose the rest. In other words, they both deny the faithful and unselfish character of GOD's love, in that they limit it without just cause and look on it as somewhat capricious.

Secondly, they both necessitate the unproven presupposition that it is impossible for GOD to perfect HIS creatures HIMSELF, that HE needs the presence of evil in order to bring HIS creation to its highest potential. In other words we must accept, for example, that in GODS world one has to first be sick in order to be healthy, or sinful in order to be faultless [and the more sinful (or sick) the better].

Third, they both fail to satisfactorily answer the question of how the damnation of millions makes us more appreciative / perfect than would be the damnation of but one, since it is the moral depravity of those in hell that is supposed to make for the increased appreciation / perfection and not the quantity of persons therein.

Fourthly, they both put a very small value on the worth of the individual creature in the eyes of GOD.

Well, since the reason for GOD's foreknowledge / forelove does not include everyone can not be found in HIS divination of merit in some creatures and since a reasonable answer has not been put forward for why GOD does it particularly, we are left with but two conclusions: We must either look for the answer elsewhere, in some area we have not looked before, or we must put the basis of HIS foreknowledge down to unreasonable chance.

This would mean that there is no reason for HIS particular "before life" love. [Aside: as I understand it, this is Calvin's failure to understand this doctrine correctly.] GOD's election / foreknowing is thus based on eenie, meenie, minie, mo, but how can you put your faith in a GOD like that? How much better to admit that we should start looking in some area we have not looked yet, and since we cannot find any of those, why not finally admit that we need a revelation from GOD to give us an infinitely loving answer to this problem?

Now, according to pre-conception theology, the "before life" love (foreknowledge) of GOD, that is, HIS pre-life approval of some and rejection of the rest is based on the prior uncoerced choice of the creature (in Sheol, before physical creation) and on HIS infinite love, which means that HE will never stop loving anyone who can possibly ever come to glorify HIM. Therein is the reason why HE loved some "before this life" and why HE did not love the rest.

Some had chosen to eternally defile themselves and some had not. Some had decided to never ever fulfil HIS purpose and some were still able to fulfil HIS purpose, some willingly, (angels) and others only if HE was infallibly gracious (election) to them (His fallen church, the sinful good seed). Yes, and He predestined these to be conformed to the image of HIS Son, and HE predestined the other evil ones for the Day of Judgement and established them for the correction of the fallen elect, as is fulfilled in Jn 3:18 Whoever (sinner) believes in Him (elect) is not condemned, but whoever (sinner) does not believe (the self chosen reprobate) has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. Berean Standard Bible

Now, I ask you, which doctrine is the more scriptural and reasonable and compatible with the attributes of GOD?

2 Timothy 1:9 - Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to HIS own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began. This Scripture does not prove that we existed before our conception. The reason I am including it is that I believe that it does not invalidate pre-conception existence theology, and I am sure a lot of people will think that it and others like it do. May I submit that when the Scriptures speak of works in relation to our election, they are referring to only our works after we're born, ie, no one was elected on account of any works they would do as sinners in this life.

Now, if there is anyone who would like to disagree with me on this and would like to debate whether Paul intended that our pre-life works were also to be included in the works that were excluded as part of the basis of GOD's election, I would be very interested in seeing your argument. I suppose this isn't necessary, but I would like to (first) point out that any such argument must admit to our pre-earthly existence.

The second thing I would like to point out is that we were called according to HIS purpose. This must mean so that we could fulfil HIS purpose for us. But if this is so, then there must be an uncoerced choice on our part if we are ever to have the possibility of glorifying GOD. His purpose for us necessitates a free will choice to join that purpose or it is a tape recorder type of agreement and meaningless. Therefore I say that being called according to HIS purpose and grace is almost exactly the same as saying, being called in accord with our uncoerced choice and HIS covenant, and if making that choice is a work, since earthly works are out, then it is the same as saying, Being called in accord with a pre-conception work and HIS gracious covenant to those who performed that work.

The third thing I would like to point out is that the angels are elected too. 1 Timothy 5:21 I charge thee before GOD and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels... Angels are a lot different than men (at least, that is what many believe), ie, they do not have what is usually called racial solidarity. This means that they have to make all their own choices. No one else can make them for them and they can not be held accountable for someone else's evil choices. In other words, Adam's choices do not affect them at all (supposedly). Perhaps you would like to tell me on what basis GOD elected only some of them?

If HIS choice was not on the basis of their individual choices, then they had to be elected before the satanic rebellion, at least. But if GOD's election of some took place before the satanic rebellion, would this not lead us into the pretty incredulous situation of some unblemished creatures being unjustly un-predestined to remain in heaven, (which in fact implies the are predestined for Hell)? And what reasonable basis can we put forward for this situation other than HE simply did not want them to be with HIM forever? This situation does not look too good, does it?

Well then, what if no one was elected before the rebellion, that is, what if GOD's election took place after the rebellion? Then GOD's election took place after they all had made an eternal choice, and presumably that choice would be taken into account when GOD was doing HIS electing. It would have to be if HE was holy and just. Now, the main thing I am trying to bring out with all of this is that when we just begin to consider the election of angels, we run into some pretty unreasonable implications if we leave out their choice as being a part of the basis of their election, and the only other real alternative necessitates that we accept that their eternal choice was at least a part of the basis of their election.

Well, if you are willing to accept the possibility of their choice, works, being a part of the basis of their election, why can that not be a part of the basis of ours too?

 

[Titus]

The famous "the Bible is not written to/for us" argument.
I am not buying what you are selling.

John 6 is written to/for ME.
Romans 9 is written to/for ME.
Ephesians 2 is written to/for ME.


JESUS CHRIST is King (and I want every word he wrote for me).

Then you better be washing feet. If you take every verse as Jesus commanding you.
You better give up all your possessions to obtain eternal life,
Matthew 16-23,
- and behold one came and said unto Him, good Master what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life....

 

[TedT]

The burden of proof is on you.
You're claiming this doctrine is from God. You prove your devil babies to be Biblical?

ImCo,
All sinners are not demonic - the sinful good seed aka the sinful people of the kingdom referring to His sheep who have gone astray into sin are not demonic, they are just sinful. The demonic reprobate have sinned the unforgivable sin and are condemned already while the sinful elect, believers who have later chosen to sin by rebellion to HIS commands (ie, not repudiating HIS Deity) are never condemned for their sin, Jn 3:18.

And it is enough for me to know that after our conception as humans, we are immediately liable to the sufferings and death which are the wages of sin, ie, not just a natural consequence of life. Death and the liability to death proves sinfulness...

But since I also believe that one can only become a sinner and liable to the consequences of sin (ie, suffering and death) by a free will decision to rebel against GOD (ie, not because of the fall of anyone else or any other decision by GOD), I must reject the hypothesis that our conception is our creation as sinners.

I repudiate the doublethink, (holding two opposite ideas to both be true at the same time) that
- GOD creates no evil but then has people to be created as evil due to HIS choice that it be so in Adam,
- or that people can be innocent yet suffer the consequences, wages, of being a sinner, suffering and death.

 

[TedT]

The rat does what rats are made to do. But newborn babies are born as children of wrath born in a state of moral corruption."

...and by being created in Adam this way, GOD has apparently created evil people under HIS wrath !!! contrary to HIS holiness and loving righteousness! Their conception / birth cannot be their creation!!

 

[TedT]

Why do you act as if God OWES men salvation?

Straw man

GOD is bound to fulfill HIS decrees, one of which was the election of some to salvation and of others to condemnation.

My only objection to this is the word unconditional. Election and condemnation was not unconditional for innocents but only free of the condition of merit to be found in a sinner.

The innocent who chose to put their faith in HIM was never condemned but the innocent who repudiated HIM as a liar and a false god were condemned on the spot as unforgivable, Jn 3:18. Since all are sinners on earth, this is an indication that our meritorious election or condemnation happened before the proof of HIS deity, the creation of the physical universe which ALL the sons of GOD, ie, all of those created in HIS image, witnessed, Job 38:7, Rom 1:20.

 

[TedT]

How does she choose that which she has never heard?

1. Col 1:23 if indeed you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope of the gospel you heard, which has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant. Berean Standard Bible

Everyone , absolutely everyone ever created has heard the gospel already ...

2. When did we hear it? It was before we saw the creation of the physical universe when we all sang HIS praises for this proof of HIS divinity and power: Job 38:7...while the morning stars sang together and ALL the sons of God shouted for joy? with Rom 1:20, For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse. Berean Standard Bible

Everyone heard the gospel, then chose for or against HM by faith not proof, then saw the proof of HIS proclamation and their fate, supported by
Isaiah 40:21 - Have ye not known? Have ye not heard? Hath it not been told you from the beginning? Have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?

First of all, from the context (you could read it) we can determine that what they have known, heard about, been told and understood is the truth that YHWH is the almighty sovereign GOD (Isaiah 40:10). That is what they have received.

Second, Isaiah asks his audience (that is ye) these questions in a way that demands an affirmative answer. In other words, Isaiah is saying: Ye have known, ye have heard, ye were told at the beginning (and also perhaps since then), ye have understood since the foundations of the Earth, that YHWH is the sovereign GOD. Isaiah is not asking questions. He is giving answers.

Next, we should try to determine the time when they received this witness. Once again, so far as this explanation is concerned, this question boils down to whether they received it during this life or pre-earth life. I do not think that I am very far off the mark when I say that the words, if taken straightforwardly, seem to say that this knowledge was received at the time of the foundation of the Earth, which to my mind is definitely prior to conception for everyone, at least since Adam and Eve. Isaiah's answer is an exact match to pre-conception existence theology, simple and straightforward.

We were there and we saw the proof that YHWH is the almighty sovereign GOD, Isaiah 40:10.

 

[TedT]

How sobering, then, are Jesus' words, "do not hinder them."

Does this mean they are innocent as the people believed or that they too needed to hear the gospel and to repent???

 

[TedT]

Hebrew culture where all children were considered to be gifts from the Lord.

Gifts to look after them in their old age when they were vulnerable, yes, but gifts of innocence to show them the way, I doubt it.

 

[TedT]

Its appalling to condemn innocent children- Even the calvinst Gill agree's from Jer 2:34- they are INNOCENT not guilty of sin,

What is even more appalling is to believe that innocents are subject to the wages, the consequences of sin because of a decree by the GOD who is love to have them to be born subject to another's sin, not their own. Inconceivable ! and I do know what that word means.

 

[TedT]

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.

Berean Standard Bible
Ps 106: They shed innocent blood—the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, and the land was polluted with blood.

This word, H5355, naqiy: Innocent, clean, free from guilt is used in many other places such as Ex 23:7 Stay far away from a false accusation. Do not kill the innocent or the just, for I will not acquit the guilty.

Are we to assume then that they are righteous before GOD, innocent as an angel of all sin??? Of course not, read the context. They are sinners guilty of sin who are not proven guilty of breaking a particular moral law or doing an ordinary bad thing...

This is also the kind of innocence of children because the children Joshua and others were ordered to put to death for evil must have been guilty of sin in GOD's eyes, though innocent of the sins of their fathers.

Innocence has a spiritual connotation about our relationship with GOD not to be confused with its worldly aspect of our relationship with men when it is used for sinners.