The Case For Young Earth Creationism

Image of the Earth, produced by the EUMETSAT

Young Earth creationism (YEC) holds that God created the world in six literal days, roughly 6,000 to 10,000 years ago, with most chronologies settling around 6,000 or 7,500 years, depending on whether one follows the Masoretic or Septuagint text. This view rests on a straightforward reading of Genesis 1–2 and the biblical genealogies, which place the creation of man around 4000 BC.

This stance however puts young Earth creationism in sharp conflict with mainstream secular science, subjecting it to intense pressure, not only from the broader culture but from within some Christians as well. In this article, however, I want to explain why I still believe the young Earth position remains defensible.

This article will focus primarily on the philosophical assumptions that underpin the scientific method. I am not suggesting some "secret conspiracy of elites" who privately know young Earth creationism is correct but work to suppress it. Nor does the young Earth position require denying observable data such as the existence of fossils. Rather, the disagreement lies at the level of interpretive framework: young Earth creationism approaches the evidence through a supernaturalist lens rather than a naturalistic one, offering a different foundation for interpreting the same observable data that secular science works with.

The dilemma for all Christians

When faced with a conflict between an external source of information (such as science) and the interpretation of Scripture, we are often presented with two broad options:

1) Our interpretation, which brings Scripture into conflict with that external source, is flawed.

2) Our interpretation is sound, and the external source is mistaken.

In practice, this is not a strict dilemma. Many adopt middle-ground positions, such as progressive creationism, which does not fit neatly into neither category. But at the poles lie two distinct stances: young Earth creationism and theistic evolution. 

Noah's ark (1886), by Edward Hicks

Theistic evolutionists tend to interpret Genesis in a thoroughly allegorical way. The days of creation are understood through a “framework hypothesis,” Adam and Eve are seen either as collective symbols or as historical individuals who were not the first biological humans but rather the first to enter a covenant with God, and the flood is read as a local event rather than a global catastrophe.

In my view, however, these interpretations are exegetically weak. I therefore hold the second position: I take the text in its plain sense and regard modern scientific conclusions as unreliable. But this, too, demands an explanation. How can we responsibly reject such extensive scientific data? Must we fall back on fideism—a blind faith that the data are simply wrong?

The answer, I think, is no. If we examine the philosophical foundations of the scientific method more carefully, it becomes possible to reject the prevailing scientific consensus, not by ignoring evidence, but by challenging the philosophical assumptions on which modern science rests. 

Methodological naturalism

The foundational principle of the modern scientific method is methodological naturalism, the assumption that all observed phenomena must be explained solely through natural causes. This does not necessarily entail ontological naturalism, the claim that "only the natural exists." Nevertheless, it does insist that within the framework of science, no appeal to divine action can be accepted, since such explanations go beyond the naturalistic method. In this way, methodological naturalism excludes any reference to God as a viable scientific explanation from the beginning.

This is, however, a logically questionable stance. If it is even possible that God exists, it is equally possible that God has acted in history through means that surpass natural processes. And if God can act beyond nature, such an explanation should not be ruled out a priori.

A concrete illustration of this problem is abiogenesis, the hypothesis that life emerged from non-living matter. Methodological naturalism compels modern scientists to search exclusively for a natural mechanism behind the origin of life, even though no such mechanism has been successfully demonstrated.

If we set aside methodological naturalism in favor of what might be called methodological supernaturalism, we are no longer bound to construct purely naturalistic accounts of the data before us. Phenomena such as the arrangement of the continents, for instance, need not be attributed solely to slow tectonic processes, but may instead be understood through non-natural events, such as a catastrophe like Noah’s flood.

Uniformitarianism

Uniformitarianism is the principle that we can infer the unobservable past from present-day processes. This view is closely related to methodological naturalism, as without methodological naturalism, uniformitarianism cannot be assumed. The idea of uniformitarianism was developed by Charles Lyell in the 19th century, who argued that modern slow geological processes applied to the past imply an Earth far older than 6 thousand years. 

Charles Lyell (1797 –  1875)

As an example of uniformitarianism, when we observe carbon decaying at a measurable and consistent rate today, uniformitarianism concludes that we can apply that same rate to date ancient artifacts through carbon analysis, and thus giving dates far older than 6 thousand years, it implies human civilization older than at literalist Biblical timescales. While it does not dismiss the possibility of external factors like contamination, it rests on the assumption that the decay rate itself has remained constant over time.

That assumption, however, is not empirically demonstrable. It cannot be tested or observed in the deep past. As a result, the ages produced by methods such as carbon dating or radiometric dating are inevitably interpreted through the lens of uniformitarianism—the belief that modern observations can reliably unlock the unobservable past. If uniformitarianism were false, such dating methods would lose their reliability over vast timescales. There are strong reasons to suspect that decay rates may not have been constant in the turbulent and chaotic past described in the Bible. Thus, creationism does not require denying the objective observable data such as how much carbon 14 exists in a specific piece found, but merely does not interpret the data using naturalistic and uniformitarian assumptions.

Conclusion

Beyond the logical issues, such as that if it were even possible for God to act, rejecting the possibility of divine agency beyond the natural risks giving false explanations, there are multiple issues where the naturalistic method fails to give easy explanations. A commonly cited issue is the existence of soft tissue in dinosaur fossils, which is difficult to explain within a purely naturalistic framework, as there is no known mechanism for such deep preservation of soft tissue for millions of years. 

Thus, young Earth creationism, unlike views such as flat Earth, do not deny objective empirical data. It does not dispute how much carbon-14 exists in artifacts, how quickly carbon decays today, or even the reality of the fossils we find. What it does contest are the naturalistic assumptions that govern what conclusions we are permitted to draw from that data. And to me, it seems far more reasonable to question those assumptions than to reinterpret the text of Genesis allegorically.

The dividing line between young Earth creationism and mainstream science, then, is not "which empirical data do we accept as real," but rather "on what grounds do we interpret the observational data?" Do we permit non-naturalistic explanations? Must we assume the present is the key to the past? The foundational assumptions behind scientific dating methods are not themselves observable, they are philosophical commitments. No one was there to observe carbon decay rates even five hundred years ago. Yet there is an observer who saw the Earth from its beginning: God. For this reason, I find it far more logical to reject the philosophical assumptions of naturalism and uniformitarianism than to force the biblical text into allegory, framework hypotheses, day-age theories, or gap theories, which are all designed to accommodate the deep-time frameworks born from these philosophical starting points.

Free Grace Theology in the Landmark Baptists: Ben M. Bogard (1868–1951)

 Ben M. Bogard (1868–1951) was a prominent Landmark Baptist and the founder of the American Baptist Association. He was a staunch opponent of the ecumenical movement, believing that only Baptists constituted the "bride of Christ." He went so far as to teach that while non-Baptists could be saved by faith, they occupied a "lower rank" in Christianity—a controversial view often criticized as a Baptist appropriation of the Roman Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession. I personally find this "Baptist brider" view to be unscriptural.

However, I believe in examining the writings of histor
ical figures to understand their perspectives. While reading Bogard’s debate with Eugene S. Smith, I noticed that, in certain respects, his views on eternal security closely aligned with the Free Grace understanding of assurance and perseverance.

For instance, when Smith accused Bogard of preaching a doctrine of comfort rather than emphasizing sanctification as the basis of assurance—similar to John MacArthur’s teachings—Bogard firmly defended his belief in assurance:

"Well,— now, my friend said Bogard preaches the doctrine of assurance and safety. Yes, sir. In Hebrews 6:18-19, where it says that by 'two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong assurance — strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast.' A thing that is sure is not uncertain. A thing that is sure is not unstable. The idea of saying a thing is sure and yet not sure. I preach the doctrine of assurance, indeed I do. Why, he said, I preach, me and my people, Smith and his people preach the doctrine of scare."

Bogard further emphasized his belief in eternal security by expressing the horror he would feel if salvation could be lost:

"I would be the most miserable man on earth if I thought that I might go to sleep tonight and wake up in the morning in hell, because maybe I did something wrong today, unforgiven."

In contrast, Smith argued that those who fall into sin could lose their salvation, suggesting that eternal security would mean God allows sin without consequence. Bogard, however, responded that while sin has consequences, it does not result in the loss of salvation. He argued that God disciplines believers in this life rather than revoking their salvation:

"How could he lose it? Well, you say, 'Hold on here— won’t God punish them? Won’t some people die in sin?' Well, I believe that even a preacher sometimes may be put to death on account of sin. Wasn’t Moses put to death because he sinned? Yes, sir, God said, 'You shan’t enter into Palestine because you sinned.' But Moses went to heaven— he was punished in the flesh for the sins of the flesh. In the ninth chapter of Mark we find Moses standing up there with Elijah, and Peter and James and John, and he is up on the Mount of Transfiguration, though he died in the wilderness on account of his sin. Uzza, one of God's men, touched the ark and was struck dead, but does he go to hell? Certainly not— God punishes in the flesh for the sins of the flesh. And in I Corinthians 11:30, 'For this cause some are weak and sickly among you and many sleep.' In other words, people are punished in the flesh for the sins of the flesh— even sometimes causing them to die and cutting off a career that was not finished because of their sins, like it was in the case of Moses."

Bogard also affirmed that Christians who fall into doctrinal error are still saved:

"Well, some erred concerning the faith, made mistakes concerning the faith— don’t say they lost salvation."

One of the most intriguing aspects of Bogard’s theology is his interpretation of Hebrews 6. He rejected both the Arminian belief that salvation could be lost and the Calvinist view that the passage refers to false professors. Instead, he took an approach similar to Charles Ryrie, arguing that the passage presents a hypothetical scenario:

"Hebrews six— 'If they fell away after they once received the truth and tasted the good word of God and the power of the world to come, it is impossible to renew them again, unto repentance.' That’s a fact. If they fall away— but the ninth verse said following, 'But beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.' There were some who thought they could fall from grace, and Paul said, 'If you should fall away you never could get it back.' That’s all— like it is in the fifteenth chapter of I Corinthians, where it said that some said there is no resurrection. Paul said, 'If there be no resurrection, your faith is vain.' Did he mean to say that possibly there was no resurrection? Certainly not, but he took them at their own word— 'If you are right about this thing of there being no resurrection, then there is nothing in our religion at all. So if you are right about your idea of falling away from grace, you couldn’t get it back again— but, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you and things that accompany salvation though we thus speak.'"

While I believe there are stronger ways to interpret Hebrews 6, it is noteworthy that Bogard did not view the passage as referring to false converts.

In conclusion, while Bogard’s theology does not align entirely with Free Grace theology, his emphasis on assurance and eternal security bears significant similarities. His teachings reflect a strong tradition within Baptist circles of emphasizing the believer’s security in Christ—though not without inconsistencies. Nonetheless, his stance on salvation provides an interesting historical perspective on the development of assurance-focused theology among Baptists.

All quotes are taken from:
Smith-Bogard Debate (May 12–15, 1942). A Discussion Between Eugene S. Smith (Christian) and Ben M. Bogard (Baptist). Held in Dallas, Texas.

Early Christian Quotes on the TULIP being Gnostic

The predestinarianism of John Calvin and Luther
were influenced by Augustine

 When hearing the claim that the "TULIP" doctrine has Gnostic origins, some may be inclined to dismiss it with a laugh. However, early Christian writings contain explicit references indicating that Gnostic groups often believed in unconditional election, and it is not a coincidence that Augustine (from whom Calvin borrowed his understanding of salvation) was a Gnostic prior to becoming a Christian. In this article, I’ve compiled several quotes from early Christians that clearly show the Gnostics taught some form of the TULIP. These quotes not merely show that the Gnostics believed that all the saved are unconditionally elected, but that they also used the exact same arguments as modern Calvinists do for their doctrine. 

Irenaeus (130 – c. 202): We have free will to believe, but the Gnostics maintain otherwise:

And not merely in works, but also in faith, has God preserved the will of man free and under his own control, saying, According to your faith be it unto you; thus showing that there is a faith specially belonging to man, since he has an opinion specially his own. And again, All things are possible to him that believes; and, Go your way; and as you have believed, so be it done unto you. Now all such expressions demonstrate that man is in his own power with respect to faith. And for this reason, he that believes in Him has eternal life while he who believes not the Son has not eternal life, but the wrath of God shall remain upon him. In the same manner therefore the Lord, both showing His own goodness, and indicating that man is in his own free will and his own power, said to Jerusalem, How often have I wished to gather your children together, as a hen [gathers] her chickens under her wings, and you would not! Wherefore your house shall be left unto you desolate. Those, again, who maintain the opposite to these [conclusions], do themselves present the Lord as destitute of power, as if, forsooth, He were unable to accomplish what He willed; or, on the other hand, as being ignorant that they were by nature material, as these men express it, and such as cannot receive His immortality. 

(Against Heresies (Book IV) 

Clement of Alexandria (150 – 215): Basilidians (Egyptian Gnostics) taught that humans cannot believe without being elected to believe:

Basilides' followers further say that faith and election are both particular to individual dispositions, and consequently, that faith on a world scale in every being follows from an election which lies beyond the world; further, they say that the gift of faith is proportionate to the hope of each individual. 11 (1) In that case, faith is no longer the right action of a free choice, a natural superiority; the person without faith is not responsible and will not meet his just consequences; the person with faith is not responsible; the whole essential difference between faith and unfaith could not be a matter of praise or blame if you look at it rightly, being a foreordaining natural necessity determined by the universal power. We are like lifeless puppets controlled by natural forces. It is a predetermining necessity which forces willingness34 and the lack of it. 

(Stromateis Books I-III,  translated by John Fegurson, 164) 

Origen (185 – c. 253): Heretics (Gnostics) rely on Romans 9 to justify their doctrine:

 Let us begin, then, with those words which were spoken to Pharaoh, who is said to have been hardened by God, in order that he might not let the people go; and, along with his case, the language of the apostle also will be considered, where he says, Therefore He has mercy on whom He will, and whom He will He hardens. For it is on these passages chiefly that the heretics rely (De Principiis, book III)  

John Chrysostom (347 – 407): The Manichaean Gnostics use John 6:44 to attack free will to believe:

Ver. 44. "No man can come unto Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw Him." The Manichaeans spring upon these words, saying, "that nothing lies in our own power"; yet the expression showeth that we are masters of our will. "For if a man cometh to Him," saith some one, "what need is there of drawing?" But the words do not take away our free will, but show that we greatly need assistance. And He implieth not an unwilling [1287] comer, but one enjoying much succor. Then He showeth also the manner in which He draweth; for that men may not, again, form any material idea of God, He addeth,  (Homilies on John)

The Updated Version of Free Grace Doctrine Throughout History Is Now Public

You can now read my most recent edition of Free Grace Doctrine Throughout History here on archive.org, which is now updated from a below 40 page booklet to a more proper 100+ page book. You can read it here : https://archive.org/details/free-grace-doctrine-throughout-history-third-edition-2/mode/2up

A fourth edition will likely be made in the future also, however for the time being, this edition will be the final form. 

An Exegetical Analysis of 1 Corinthians 3 And Its Importance To The Doctrine Of Eternal Rewards

Introduction

1 Corinthians 3:10-15 is an often quoted and frequently debated passage in the first book of Corinthians, which is often viewed by Free Grace advocates as a very strong and compelling proof of the doctrine of eternal rewards, and the possibility of the carnal Christian being saved. In this article, I will examine the meaning of this verse, and the surrounding debates concerning the verse. These verses read thus:

10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.

11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;

13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.

15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire

In this verse, Paul writes that the man who builds upon the foundation of Christ precious metals such as gold and silver will have their work rewarded, while those who do not, will suffer loss, yet themselves be saved. In its plain reading, this verse says that although those who fail in the Christian life, will suffer a loss of reward, yet still be saved and enter the millennial kingdom, however there are multiple alternative interpretations often posited from those who reject the doctrine of eternal security, which will be analyzed here.

The Catholic interpretation

The Catholic interpret this verse as a proof of purgatory, emphasizing the phrase "but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire", arguing that the fire described in the text is purgatory by fire. However, there are multiple grammatical issues with this interpretation, particularly as the "yet so as by fire" (οὕτως δὲ ὡς διὰ πυρός) in the text is not referring to the burning of the individual, but of the works, as Paul just previously said "If any man's work shall be burned", emphasizing that the work, not the person is burned. Although some may argue that the burning of the work necessarily includes the inclusion of the person who did those works in it, that is not substantiated by the text itself, and adds an unnecessary assumption to the text. Additionally, the text explicitly calls the fire "revealing", as it reads "Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire". Catholic purgatory is not testing or revealing, but purifying. 

Thus, the grammar does not simply permit the Catholic interpretation of this text, the fire reveals what one has done, not purifying the person from venial sins.

The Chrysostomian interpretation

John Chrysostom, a 4th to 5th century early Christian writer proposed a highly difficult understanding of this verse to avoid the implication of eternal security. This may be due to the existence of individuals emphasizing this passage to teach the idea that even those who fall into sin will be saved (as Augustine mentioned such doctrine existed commonly in his day in his book City of God, though he was also critical of it). Chrysostom denied the implication of eternal security by assuming that the word "saved" is not referring to salvation from hell, but salvation from annihilation into non-existence, yet still being damned to hell, as Chrysostom writes:

Wherefore he said, "He shall suffer loss:" lo, here is one punishment: "but he himself shall be saved, but so as by fire;" lo, again, here is a second. And his meaning is, "He himself shall not perish in the same way as his works, passing into nought, but he shall abide in the fire. (Homilies of Chrysostom, 1 Corinthians 3)

However, this is a highly difficult reading. There are no examples in the Bible where someone who still goes to hell is called "saved" (σωθήσεται). The word "will be saved" in the text is clearly said in contrast to the negative judgement previously mentioned (the burning of the works). The contrast makes it inconceivable, that the word "saved" is not used in a positive sense, of being able to enter into the presence of the Father despite this loss. Thus, this interpretation is impossible

John Calvin's understanding

Though probably not written polemically, John Calvin's view does undermine the Free Grace understanding of this passage, as he understood the precious metals as only referring to doctrine, not Christian life generally, as he wrote:

By gold, then, and silver, and precious stones, he means doctrine worthy of Christ, and of such a nature as to be a superstructure corresponding to such a foundation. Let us not imagine, however, that this doctrine is apart from Christ, but on the contrary let us understand that we must continue to preach Christ until the very completion of the building. Only we must observe order, so as to begin with general doctrine, and more essential articles, as the foundations, and then go on to admonitions, exhortations, and everything that is requisite for perseverance, confirmation, and advancement. (Calvin's commentary, 1 Corinthians 3)

Thus, under John Calvin's view, the one saved "yet as by fire", is not a Christian who failed to live a Christian life, but someone who taught the gospel but mixed it with human philosophy. However, the Bible presents the judgement seat of Christ as dealing with both teaching and good works generally. There is no contextual separation in the text between works that build up the ministry generally, and good teaching.  On the contrary, the passage resists such restriction, the appeal to ἕκαστος ('every man') establishes a universal principle, not a specialized warning for the teachers of the church.

The "barely saved" interpretation

Sometimes thrown around is the view that the words "yet as by fire" means that the person is "barely saved", on the very verge of being unregenerate. However, as previously established, this phrase does not deal at all with the individual's status, but rather the burning of the works. To say he is 'barely saved' is to misidentify the victim of the blaze. The work perishes; the worker is safe. This interpretation, is completely foreign to the text's design. 

Conclusion

1 Corinthians 3:10-15 remains a strong text for Free Grace theology, as it explicitly teaches the possibility of the salvation of the 'carnal Christian', someone who failed in the Christian life and did not produce fruit worthy if reward, yet will be in the presence of the Father nevertheless due to his status as someone who has been saved by Christ, though with an eternal loss of reward. Loss of reward is real, but loss of salvation is not in view.

What Happens to Those Who Leave The Faith? A Defense Of Free Grace Theology

Paul the Apostle

Many Christians today hold the belief that anyone who abandons the faith is destined for eternal damnation in hell. In most denominations today, it is often asserted that such a person has either lost their salvation or was never truly saved in the first place. This assumption, however, arises from a misunderstanding of several key biblical warnings. These passages are frequently read as threats of eternal condemnation, when in reality they concern the loss of spiritual reward, temporal discipline, and the forfeiture of fellowship with God rather than salvation itself. 

However, in stark contrast to most views of salvation, Free Grace theology traditionally asserts that even those who fall into apostasy may be saved and enter heaven if they have once believed, and as I will demonstrate in this article, Scripture makes it clear that while apostasy is indeed possible, it does not result in the forfeiture of one’s salvation.

Biblical Evidence

Among the strongest evidences that Paul did not treat apostasy as something that can make you lose your standing in Christ is the Galatian church. That church was the recipient of Paul's letter to the Galatians, and as is evident within the letter, these Christians had fallen into a false gospel of works, as Paul states in Galatians 3:1 'O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?' The Galatians had been misled by false teachers into believing that salvation could be earned by keeping the Mosaic law, leading them to apostasy. Yet despite this, Paul unmistakably affirms their genuine salvation. In Galatians 3:2, he reminds them that they had received the Holy Spirit—clear evidence that they were true believers, not mere pretenders. Furthermore, in Galatians 6:1, Paul addresses them as “brethren,” a term he reserves exclusively for the saved, thus reaffirming their present standing in Christ. 

This is consistent with Paul's language elsewhere in his letters, such as 2 Timothy 2:13, where Paul writes 'If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.'. The "we" is obviously referring to Christians, as Paul was including himself in the group. Notice however, that Paul says that even in such cases, God will stay faithful to us. 

However, there are also multiple other examples which challenge the claim that apostates were never truly saved, as we see that King Solomon, the author of 3 Biblical books experienced apostasy, as 1 Kings 11:4 records his fall to paganism: 'For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.' While Reformed theology argues that this was merely a temporary apostasy, this still places multiple questions on the Reformed system, why would God allow temporary apostasy but not apostasy until the end of one's life? What if Solomon had died earlier, would that have proven him unsaved? If you interpret the Biblical warnings about apostasy to be about eternal damnation, where do you see an exception for temporal apostasy in those verses? 

Simply, it is explicitly clear from the Bible that apostasy is warned about, however it also explicitly affirms the doctrine of eternal security, as seen in Hebrews 13:5 'Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.' and John 10:28 'And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.' among many other verses. It would not make sense for Scripture to repeatedly warn against something that is impossible. Just as it would be absurd for a father to warn his son not to jump to the moon, a thing no human could do, so too, for God to warn against apostasy implies that falling away is a genuine possibility. The warnings, then, are meaningful because they address a real spiritual risk. But what about the warning passages themselves? The most commonly used one is Hebrews 6, which reads:

4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

7 For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God:

8 But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.

However, the warning can be understood through the agricultural parable which illustrates renewal through the burning. The field symbolizes a person who has become unfruitful, the thorns and briers representing bad fruits, and the burning signifies God’s corrective judgment. In ancient agriculture, farmers would burn unproductive fields so that they could later become fertile and produce a healthy crop. Similarly, divine judgment acts like the farmer’s burning: it enables the unfruitful or wayward individual to be restored and bear good fruit once more.

Thus, the “impossibility” of repentance mentioned in the passage should be understood as a human impossibility, these people would be beyond reach through outreach, leading to inevitable divine judgement. However, just like the burning of a field, this judgement enables the apostate to bear fruit again. This verse should not be understood as a threat of eternal damnation, but of temporal discipline.

The Early Christians Did Not Believe In The Papacy

This article will show many quotes from early Christians to show that the papacy did not exist then:

Cyprian 210 – 14 September 258 AD 

For neither did Peter, whom first the Lord chose, and upon whom He built His Church, when Paul disputed with him afterwards about circumcision, claim anything to himself insolently, nor arrogantly assume anything; so as to say that he held the primacy, and that he ought rather to be obeyed by novices and those lately come. Nor did he despise Paul because he had previously been a persecutor of the Church

Cyprian letter 70

For no one of us  has set himself up to be bishop of bishops, or attempted with tyrannical dread to force his colleagues to obedience to him, since every bishop has, for the license of liberty and power, his own will, and as he cannot be judged by another, so neither can he judge another. But we await the judgment of our universal Lord, our Lord Jesus Christ, who one and alone has the power, both of advancing us in the governance of his Church, and of judging of our actions in that position.

Cyprian, council of Carthage

Tertullian 155 AD – c. 220 AD

If, because the Lord has said to Peter, Upon this rock will I build My Church, to you have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom; or, Whatsoever you shall have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens, you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter?  

Origen 185 – c. 253

And if we too have said like Peter, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, ‘Thou art Peter,’ etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, add the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God. But if you suppose that upon that one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail

(St. Basil of Caesarea) Letter 214

and therefore I congratulate those who have received the letter from Rome. And, although it is a grand testimony in their favour, I only hope it is true and confirmed by facts. But I shall never be able to persuade myself on these grounds to ignore Meletius, or to forget the Church which is under him, or to treat as small, and of little importance to the true religion, the questions which originated the division. I shall never consent to give in, merely because somebody is very much elated at receiving a letter from men. Even if it had come down from heaven itself, but he does not agree with the sound doctrine of the faith, I cannot look upon him as in communion with the saints. 

Polycrates of Ephesus 130 – 196, writing against Pope Victorinus

Moreover I also, Polycrates, who am the least of you all, in accordance with the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have succeeded-seven of my relatives were bishops, and I am the eighth, and my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven-I myself, brethren, I say, who am sixty-five years old in the Lord, and have fallen in with the brethren in all parts of the world, and have read through all Holy Scripture, am not frightened at the things which are said to terrify us. For those who are greater than I have said, "We ought to obey God rather than men."

Council of Chalcedon  451 AD

Canon 28

Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city.

(the authority of Rome came from politics and not by being the infallible magisterium) 

Firmillian: died c. 269

that they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles; any one may know also from the fact, that concerning the celebration of Easter, and concerning many other sacraments of divine matters, he may see that there are some diversities among them, and that all things are not observed among them alike, which are observed at Jerusalem, just as in very many other provinces also many things are varied because of the difference of the places and names. And yet on this account there is no departure at all from the peace and unity of the Catholic Church, such as Stephen has now dared to make; breaking the peace against you, which his predecessors have always kept with you in mutual love and honour, even herein defaming Peter and Paul the blessed apostles, as if the very men delivered this who in their epistles execrated heretics, and warned us to avoid them. Whence it appears that this tradition is of men which maintains heretics, and asserts that they have baptism, which belongs to the Church alone.

Rufinus 344/345–411ad

The ancient custom in Alexandria and the city of Rome is to be maintained whereby [the bishop of the former] has charge of Egypt, while [the bishop of the latter] has charge of the suburbicarian (= local) churchese Church of Christ.

Quinisext Council

Date    692

Canon 36

Renewing the enactments by the 150 Fathers assembled at the God-protected and imperial city, and those of the 630 who met at Chalcedon; we decree that the see of Constantinople shall have equal privileges with the see of Old Rome, and shall be highly regarded in ecclesiastical matters as that is, and shall be second after it. After Constantinople shall be ranked the See of Alexandria, then that of Antioch, and afterwards the See of Jerusalem.

Canon 55

Since we understand that in the city of the Romans, in the holy fast of Lent they fast on the Saturdays, contrary to the ecclesiastical observance which is traditional, it seemed good to the holy synod that also in the Church of the Romans the canon shall immovably stands fast which says: If any cleric shall be found to fast on a Sunday or Saturday (except on one occasion only) he is to be deposed; and if he is a layman he shall be cut off.

Canon 13

Since we know it to be handed down as a rule of the Roman Church that those who are deemed worthy to be advanced to the diaconate or presbyterate should promise no longer to cohabit with their wives, we, preserving the ancient rule and apostolic perfection and order, will that the lawful marriages of men who are in holy orders be from this time forward firm, by no means dissolving their union with their wives nor depriving them of their mutual intercourse at a convenient time.

The Canons of the Council of Constantinople (381) 

Canon 2

The bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nice, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian Diocese administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian affairs. And let not bishops go beyond their dioceses for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be invited. And the aforesaid canon concerning dioceses being observed, it is evident that the synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular province as was decreed at Nice. But the Churches of God in heathen nations must be governed according to the custom which has prevailed from the times of the Fathers.

Council of Carthage (A.D. 419) epistle of the African synod to Pope Celestine

especially since whosoever thinks himself wronged by any judgment may appeal to the council of his Province, or even to a General Council [i.e. of Africa] unless it be imagined that God can inspire a single individual with justice, and refuse it to an innumerable multitude of bishops (sacerdotum) assembled in council. And how shall we be able to rely on a sentence passed beyond the sea, since it will not be possible to send there the necessary witnesses, whether from the weakness of sex, or advanced age, or any other impediment?

Pope Gregory I 540 – 12 March 604

Is it not the case that, when Antichrist comes and calls himself God, it will be very frivolous, and yet exceedingly pernicious? If we regard the quantity of the language used, there are but a few syllables; but if the weight of the wrong, there is universal disaster. Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others.

Book VII, Letter 33 

Maximus the Confessor Died    13 August 662

And they said, "And if the Romans should come to terms with them at this time, what will you do?" He replied, "The Holy Spirit, according to the Apostle, condemns even angels who sanction anything against what has been preached" [Maximus the Confessor, Selected Writings (Paulist Press, 1985), p 23].

28 August 2022

Claudius of Turin (fl. 810–827)

Apology of Claudius

Because of these words spoken by the Lord, the race of ignorant men, having disregarded the understanding of all spiritual things, wish to go to Rome in order to acquire eternal life.

Second Council of Constantinople 553ad, writing against the Pope

But if your holiness has drawn up a document for the Emperor, you have errand-runners, as we have said; send it by them. And when he had heard these things from us, he sent Servus Dei the Subdeacon, who now awaits the answer of your serenity. And when his Piety had heard this, he commanded through the aforesaid most religious and glorious men, the before-named subdeacon to carry back this message to the most religious Vigilius: We invited him (you) to meet together with the most blessed patriarchs and other religious bishops, and with them in common to examine and judge the Three Chapters. But since you have refused to do this, and you say that you alone have written by yourself somewhat on the Three Chapters; if you have condemned them, in accordance with those things which you did before, we have already many such statements and need no more; but if you have written now something contrary to these things which were done by you before, you have condemned yourself by your own writing, since you have departed from orthodox doctrine and have defended impiety. And how can you expect us to receive such a document from you?

Encyclical Letter of Saint Photius (867)

Similarly, there is a canon of the regional synod of Gangra which anathematises those who do not recognise married priests. This was confirmed by the holy Sixth Ecumenical Synod, which condemned those who require that priests and deacons cease to cohabit with their lawful wives after their ordination. Such a custom was being introduced even then by the Church of Old Rome. That Synod reminded the Church of Old Rome of the evangelical teaching and of the canon and polity of the Apostles, and ordered it not to insult the holy institution of Christian marriage established by God Himself.

From the Italian region, we have received a synodal letter citing many grave matters against the bishop of Old Rome. Accordingly, the Orthodox there ask us to free them from his great tyranny, for in that area sacred law is being scorned and Church order trampled. We were told this earlier by monks who came to us from there, and now we have received many letters stating frightening news about that region and asking us to relay their message to all the bishops and to the Apostolic Patriarchs as well. For that reason, I communicate to you their request by way of this epistle. Once a holy and ecumenical Christian synod has been assembled, it will fall upon us together to resolve all these matters with the help of God and according to the rules of previous Synods, that in so doing, a deep peace may again prevail in th