How can someone born bound to hell be "pure and innocent?"
The elect will receive the kingdom of God like a little child
But we are supposedly born condmened, rember?
Well, I certainly have learned that the Apostolic Church does treat some of God's word very differently from other of God's word, and even has it competing against itself
Yes, the Gospels are believed to be the quotes of what Christ actually said, as opposed to what was "revealed." There is no competition: the Gospels comes first; everything esle is interpreted through the prism of the Gospels.
It is quite a different thing to throw out Paul when he disagrees with a certain interpretation of the Gospels
Well, obviously Paul is not Christ, otherwise if Christ wrote the Epistles using Paul's hand, then Paul's name on the Epistles would be superfluous.
How can someone born bound to hell be "pure and innocent?"
It doesn't last. :) satan had a pretty good start too, but we all know what happened. Plus, the stain of original sin is enough by itself to condemn, even before the first actual committed sin beyond the age of reason. So, the focus is really on the nature of the faith in comparison to the appearance of the child. IOW, a child being innocent and pure by itself doesn't mean anything. The faith must be like that.
FK: The elect will receive the kingdom of God like a little child.
But we are supposedly born condemned, remember?
Yes, it is just a matter of time. At any given point in time any living elect may or may not be saved. By the end they are all saved, but this happens at different points in their lives.