The Radical Reformation And How It More Closely Resembled Free Grace Beliefs

 During the 16th century, there were two primary groups of Reformers, the so-called "Radical Reformers" and "Magisterial Reformers". The Magisterial Reformation was led by people like Luther and John Calvin, while the Radical Reformation (which was far more decentralized) was lead by Anabaptistic groups, Andreas Karlstadt and Thomas Müntzer among others. The Radical Reformers believed that the Magisterial Reformers did not take the Reformation far enough, pointing to beliefs such as infant baptism, state churches, predestinarianism and sacramentalism as areas where Luther and Calvin failed to return to Scriptural teachings. 

Although some Radical Reformers also held unscriptural beliefs, such as extreme pacifism or the ability for a person to lose their salvation, there is also evidence that some of them held to views that particularly resembled modern Free Grace viewpoints, that often makes the Free Grace movement resemble the 16th century Radical Reformation.

While modern Anabaptistic groups such as Mennonites are descendants of the Radical Reformation, they represent only few of the direct surviving strains of the movement, which showed far more wide ranges of belief in its early form.

Eternal Security

Free Grace Theology asserts that salvation is entirely a gift of God, not by any human effort, and that eternal life is granted solely through faith in Jesus Christ, apart from any subsequent good works or perseverance. This theological framework can be contrasted with both Calvinist and Arminian views, which often emphasize the necessity of works as evidence of saving faith or human cooperation in maintaining salvation.

Free Grace views of salvation seem to have appeared within the Anabaptist movement, as we see in the Augsburg confession, which states in Article XII:

 "They condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that those once justified can lose the Holy Ghost. Also those who contend that some may attain to such perfection in this life that they cannot sin."

Other evidence of eternal security comes from Lutheran polemical writings, which although hostile, may indicate a form of eternal security which is not tied to perseverance:

Source: Process, wie es soll gehalten werden mit den Widertäuffern, p.6-8

Other incorrect articles which do not concern secular government... the born again can not fall into God’s wrath and when they commit adultery, they say they are driven by the Spirit.

This is a Lutheran polemical work against anabaptists written by eight theologians in 1558. In it, the Lutherans argued the anabaptists were to be condemned because of their beliefs and that the civil authorities were justified in punishing and executing them. This section conveys an anabaptist belief in eternal security which the Lutherans are condemning as incorrect. The second portion about adultery is probably a Lutheran interpolation critiquing the supposed ramifications of the anabaptist view. The Augsburg Confession in 1530 critiques anabaptists who believed that those who had been justified by God cannot lose the Holy Spirit in Article XII. This could lead the Lutheran theologians to falsely conclude that the ramifications of this theology are that when someone sins gravely they’re doing it in and being driven by the Holy Spirit since the Holy Spirit cannot be lost to one who has been justified; and the Holy Spirit would therefore accompany the believer in whatever sins they commit.

However, Anabaptism was not an unified movement. The Anabaptists held a wide range of beliefs on many issues, including salvation. However, even those Anabaptists who opposed eternal security seem to have been aware of its existence, as we see in the writings of Leupold Scharnschlager:

Even today some understand Christ and Paul as ascribing righteousness and life to faith alone, as if a faith without deeds and fruit is enough for salvation. For how can it be a barren, that is, a dead faith, when life—and much more—comes forth from it? (Reformation Commentary on Scripture, New Testament XIII: Hebrews, James. Edited by Ronald K. Rittgers. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2017, p. 233)

However, despite these words of Leupold showing that he himself disagreed with the idea, he directly mentioned the doctrine being in existence by saying "even today some understand". Thus, we see the fact that Free Grace theology existed during the early 16th century from the writings of Leupold. 

Anthropology

The Radical Reformers were often strictly opposed to Augustinian theology, and thus consequently, they resisted claims of infant damnation, and inherited guilt, for example, Radical Reformers such as Leupod Schiemer wrote the following:

But until that light shines in Children—that is, until they know the difference between good and evil—they remain innocent and will enter into the promised land. In this case we are not referring to the earthly land of Canaan but rather the heavenly Jerusalem." - Three kinds of grace in the Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, para. 15

This was also mentioned by the Radical Reformer Sebastian Franck, who although not an Anabaptist himself, he often symphatized with their teachings and still held to Radical Reformation beliefs. Franck wrote the following:

"Nearly all Anabaptists consider children to be of pure and innocent blood, and they consider original sin not a sin which of itself condemns both the children and the adults. They also claim that it does not make anyone unclean except the one who accepts this sin, makes it his own, brings forth fruits of it and is unwilling to part from it. For they claim foreign sin does not condemn anybody, and in this they refer to the Ezekiel 18." - Chronica, Zeitbuch und Geschichtsbibel, Fol. 446

However, this belief was condemned by the Lutherans, who taught that infants are saved through Baptism:

"Of Baptism they teach that it is necessary to salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the grace of God, and that children are to be baptized who, being offered to God through Baptism are received into God’s grace. They condemn the Anabaptists, who reject the baptism of children, and say that children are saved without Baptism." - Article IX

Thus, the Anabaptists rejected that infants born are born guilty, however they still maintained that we inherit consequences of sin, such as a sinful nature inclined to sin, which inevitably leads every human to sin and human mortality.  

Rejection of infant Baptism

A major consequence of the Anabaptist rejection that Baptism is a means of grace was their rejection of infant baptism, instead teaching that only those capable of belief should be baptized. This view was often attacked by the Reformed confessions, as the Second Helvetic Confession (1566) reads:

 "We condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that newborn infants of the faithful are to be baptized. For according to evangelical teaching, of such is the Kingdom of God (Luke 18:16), and they are in the covenant of God (Acts 3:25). Why, then, should the sign of God's covenant not be given to them? Why should those who belong to God and are in his Church not be initiated by holy baptism?" (chapter 20).

Infant baptism is also is also commonly rejected by modern Evangelicals, including those who hold to Free Grace theology. 

Free Will

Unlike Lutherans and Calvinists, the Radical Reformers often saw unconditional election as unscriptural, instead holding to libertarian free will, breaking away from the medieval Augustinian views. Among these, a strong defence of free will was created by the moderate Anabaptist theologian, Balthasar Hubmaier, as he writes:

Grace comes to us, not out of us, so that no one can boast in himself but in the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ, 1 Cor 1:4. For our flesh and blood cannot reach such sonship out of their own power, John 1:12; Matt 16:17; 1 Cor 15:50.  Since, however, this sonship is offered to all people equally, for the seed of the divine Word falls equally in four kinds of earth, it follows that we have the equal power to accept the seed and to bear fruit, John 1:12; Matt 28:19; Mark 16:15; Matt 13:3ff; Mark 4:3ff. If we do not do that, then it is not God who is guilty, or his seed, but the evil of the earth, that is, we ourselves.  Thus Peter hears Christ, accepts his Word, and brings forth fruit, John 1:42. Herod also hears it, however, does not accept his Word, and does not bear fruit. Now that is the fault of the wickedness of Herod.  Since, however, Peter and Herod are alike sinners and evil, the reason why his inborn evil does not harm Peter and yet harms Herod is that Herod follows his inborn evil and walks according to it, but not Peter, Eph 3; 1 Cor 15:45ff; Rom 8:5-9.  In addition, the fact that God looks at Peter and moves him to lament his sins has to do with the mercy of God, Matt 26:75. That he does not look at Judas is the fault of the traitor who sold innocent blood for thirty pennies. He had to sentence himself and say, "I have sinned in that I have betrayed innocent blood," Matt 27:4.  Whoever is not satisfied with this answer, namely, that the mercy of God is the cause of our salvation and our wickedness is the cause of our damnation, must ask God himself, Rom 11:11-12. I was not his advisor, nor was I with him in his council. Whoever says that God wills sin does not know what God or sin is. For sinning is always to do or to omit something against the will of God, 1 John 2:5-6. - Balthasar Hubmaier, "Freedom of the Will, II" in Balthasar Hubmaier: Theologian of Anabaptism, trans & ed. Pipkin & Yoder (1989), (p 468-469)

Thus, the Radical Reformers tended to reject both the Lutheran view of single predestination and the Calvinist view of double predestination, by rather holding that God gives us a genuine free will choice to either accept Christ or not. They also strongly resisted any claims that God decrees sin, as the Calvinists held.

Conclusion

The Radical Reformation in many ways showed support for concerns often held today by the Free Grace movement, such as on eternal security, free will, believers' baptism and opposition to strict Calvinistic views. Now, neither movement was a monolith, some Free Grace individuals such as Charles Ryrie were somewhat influenced by Calvinism, and many Radical Reformers were still not clear in their understanding of grace (including modern forms of Anabaptism), nevertheless, when looking at the Reformation period, it is the Radical Reformation where we can see many parallels between modern Free Grace and old Radical Reformation concerns,

Is Scripture Alone Biblical?

 Sola Scriptura, or "Scripture Alone," is the teaching that the Bible is the only infallible authority for all matters of faith and practice. It thus means that no church, tradition, magisterium, or papal decree can stand as an infallible authority beside the Word of God. While some groups who profess to believe in Scripture alone, like the Reformed, Lutherans, and Anglicans, may lean more heavily on the writings of historical theologians, us Free Gracers often take a stronger view of Scripture alone. However, the question we must ask is this: does the Bible itself teach Sola Scriptura?

It is often claimed that the Bible provides no basis for this doctrine, rendering it self-refuting. However, numerous passages explicitly affirm the Bible as the sole infallible authority on Christian doctrine and theology. A prime example is found in Jesus’ interactions with the Pharisees, as recorded in Mark 7. Here, Jesus unmistakably elevates the authority of Scripture above that of tradition, showing its unique authority:

6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.

12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;

13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

 But among the most classical verses to teach sola scriptura are in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, which reads:

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Special emphasis is to be put on the words "perfect" and "thoroughly furnished". These verses most clearly attest to the fact that scripture is sufficient for Christian living and doctrine. A common objection to this claim is however that the scriptures Paul is talking about is the Old Testament, thus it can't mean that the scripture is sufficient (since we clearly need the New Testament to live the Christian life). However, this claim is easily deconstructed by the fact that Paul 1 Timothy actually quotes the book of Luke as scripture, showing that Paul had both the New and Old Testaments in mind. Compare 1 Timothy 5:18 with Luke 10:7

1 Timothy 5:18

18 For the scripture saith, thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward. 

λέγει γὰρ ἡ γραφή Βοῦν ἀλοῶντα οὐ φιμώσεις καί Ἄξιος ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ

Luke 10:7

7 And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house. 

ἐν αὐτῇ δὲ τῇ οἰκίᾳ μένετε, ἐσθίοντες καὶ πίνοντες τὰ παρ’ αὐτῶν• ἄξιος γὰρ ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐστι. μὴ μεταβαίνετε ἐξ οἰκίας εἰς οἰκίαν.

Scripture is said to have all the necessary contents for us to gain eternal life (John 20:31), which we are not supposed to add to anything (Proverbs 30:5-6) and we are called to avoid being deceived by human traditions (Colossians 2:8). Even in the Old Testament did God warn his people of adding traditions outside the scripture "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Isaiah 8:20). But even more strongly, Paul places Scripture above the apostles and even the angels, commanding his audience to test even his own words by previous revelation, as we read in Galatians 1:8-9:

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

This same sentiment is echoed also in the example of the Bereans, who searched the scriptures to test claims told unto them:

Acts 17:11-12

11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

 Assuming an infallible office of teaching, it becomes impossible to practice what the Bereans were commended for, since such infallible statements would not need to be tested by scripture. 

In light of these passages, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura finds strong biblical support.

A Free Grace Understanding of Hebrews 10

Hebrews 10 is likely the passage I have studied the most extensively. While it is often interpreted to suggest the possibility of losing one's salvation, in this article, I will aim to explain the passage thoroughly without supporting that implication.

The passage reads thus:

26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries 

28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.

31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

32 But call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight of afflictions;

33 Partly, whilst ye were made a gazingstock both by reproaches and afflictions; and partly, whilst ye became companions of them that were so used.

34 For ye had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance.

35 Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward.

36 For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise.

37 For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.

38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.

39 But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.

Advocates of conditional security present multiple arguments from this text of scripture, and admitedly many of the points can be highly confusing. First, they often assert that "sinning willfully" refers to a persistent habit of sin. Second, they interpret the punishment mentioned as eternal separation in hell. Third, they argue that the "reward" references eternal salvation. However, a closer examination of the context in Hebrews reveals that these interpretations are not the necessary understanding of the passage.

To begin with, the "willful sin" mentioned in the text does not contextually refer to habitual sin. Instead, it pertains to the deliberate act of returning to the system of animal sacrifices, as indicated by the surrounding context in verses 22–25. The entire book of Hebrews was written to Jewish believers who were struggling with the temptation to revert to the practices of Judaism and go back to the animal sacrifices of Judaism, which were only a type of Christ.

Secondly, it is under no necessity that references to "judgement" and "punishment" need to be understood of as eternal hell, instead they can be understood as God's temporary discipline upon the apostate Christian:

Revelation 3:19 - As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

God's temporary judgements can in severe cases be much sorer than immediate death (as was the penalty under the Mosaic law), we can see this for example in the case of Jonah, where Jonah pleads that he would rather die than live:

Therefore now, O Lord, take, I beseech thee, my life from me; for it is better for me to die than to live. (Jonah 4:3)

"Timorias" used to refer to corrective discipline

Thus, the punishment being referred to as being worse than immediate death does not under any circumstance necessate that hell is being talked about (otherwise one would have to consistently argue that Jonah was in hell in Jonah 4:3, which is obviously not the case).

Some object to the interpretation of "punishment" in Hebrews 10 by saying out that the Greek word used, timōria, is not the typical term for punishment found elsewhere in Scripture. They often cite Aristotle, who argued that timōria always refers to a form of punishment devoid of any corrective or disciplinary intent. However, this definition reflects Aristotle's philosophical framework rather than the usage of the term in Jewish contexts, which alings with the English term "punishment".

For example, in 2 Maccabees 6:12, although an apocryphal text, it provides insight into how Greek was used by Jewish writers. In this writing, timōria is employed to describe temporal discipline rather than purely retributive punishment in hell. While 2 Maccabees is not scripture, it demonstrates that the Jewish understanding of timōria could encompass corrective discipline, contradicting Aristotle's philosophical distinction. 

Thus, the meaning of timōria in Hebrews 10 should be understood in its Jewish context rather than through the lens of Greek philosophy. 

Others also object that discipline cannot be called punishment, however this is again a later manmade concept not found within the scripture.  To the contrary, we see in Jeremiah that discipline is called "punishment":

11 For I am with thee, saith the Lord, to save thee: though I make a full end of all nations whither I have scattered thee, yet I will not make a full end of thee: but I will correct thee in measure, and will not leave thee altogether unpunished. (Jeremiah 30:11)

Most of these philosophical arguments on the meaning of timōria and the concept of punishment are made by Reformed/Calvinistic commentators, yet these are manmade distinctions being imposed into the scriptures. And contrary to the arguments of Calvinists who believe that those who fall away were "never saved to begin with" and the Arminians who argue that this passage refers to a loss of salvation, the immediate context itself suggests that temporary discipline is the theme of the passage, as only two chapters later, the author (probably Paul) writes about discipline (Hebrews 12:6-10):

6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.

7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?

8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

10 For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.

Lastly, the "reward" mentioned in Hebrews 10 should not be interpreted as referring to salvation. The Bible consistently describes salvation as a gift (Ephesians 2:8), and by definition, a gift cannot be a reward, as rewards are earned, while gifts are given freely. Instead, Scripture makes a clear distinction between salvation and eternal rewards. A clear example of this distinction is found in 1 Corinthians 3:10–15, where Paul explains that believers whose works are fruitful and profitable will receive a reward. In contrast, those whose works are unprofitable will suffer the loss of their reward but will still be saved and enter heaven. This shows that rewards are based on faithful service, while salvation is solely by grace through faith:

1 Corinthians 3:10-15

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.

Thus, Hebrews 10 gives the audience a clear explanation of the consequences of apostasy and the benefits of persevering. The person who chooses to go back to the animal sacrifices will experience severe divine discipline, but the person who perseveres will receive an eternal reward. Hence, loss of salvation is not the topic of Hebrews 10, but instead discipline and reward.

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.