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.