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.