Gospel Guidebook: Getting and Keeping It Right 
한국어 日本語
Problems with Free Grace's Description of Faith
by Robert P. TerryPublished June 21, 2025
The modern-day Free Grace movement has gained popularity as a reaction against what is known as Lordship Salvation. Lordship Salvation basically teaches that a person must dedicate his life to the Lord Jesus and live a successful life of discipleship in order to be saved. In contrast, Free Grace teaches that a moment of faith in Jesus for everlasting life guarantees a person's salvation regardless of his success at discipleship. The Lordship Salvation position is typically represented by John MacArthur and his book The Gospel According to Jesus. The Free Grace position is typically represented by Zane Hodges and his book Absolutely Free.
As far as I know, Free Grace doesn't have any confessions, creeds, or catechisms, although I think most Free Grace theologians would generally agree (more or less) with the doctrinal statement of Dallas Theological Seminary (available here). It is difficult to generalize, but from having read several Free Grace books, I'd say that the common ground among Free Grace theologians is that they all believe in eternal security and recognize that a person who has been born again cannot become unborn again. Another point of common ground is that they all believe that it only takes a single moment of faith to become born again.
Free Grace theologians are divided (somewhat superficially) when it comes to their understanding of the nature of faith. Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin describe faith as intellectual assent to propositions. This sounds straight forward, but there's a rub: they also describe "appropriation" as intellectual assent to propositions, thus subtly defining faith as an appropriating act. (See, for example, Bob Wilkin's article here where he quotes Hodges' book Absolutely Free saying, "Her [i.e., the woman at the well's] faith was her act of appropriation" and goes on to comment, "The words act of appropriation also occur on pp. 85, 106, and 212 (endnote 1, going back to p. 41). None of them refer to anything more than assent."). In contrast, David Anderson, Jody Dillow, and Fred Chay describe faith as "trust," "confidence," "reliance," and "appropriation." Free Grace theologians also disagree as to the object of faith. Hodges and Wilkin teach that it is sufficient to believe in Jesus for everlasting life, even without knowing who He is or what He accomplished. Anderson, Dillow, and Chay teach that it is necessary to understand the basic significance of Jesus' death and resurrection.
As can be seen from the descriptions of faith given above, Free Grace theologians teach that faith is an appropriating act. This means that the emphasis of their soteriology is not exclusively on what Christ did for sinners, but also on what the sinner must do to avail themselves of Christ's merits in order to be saved. I have already written extensively on the dangers of viewing faith as an appropriating act and how it severely corrupts the Gospel in several articles (such as here, here, here, and here), but will now mention a few dangers that are true of Free Grace theology in particular.
One implication of viewing faith as a single appropriating act is that it can cause people to put a heavy emphasis on their conversion experience. For example, it is not uncommon among Free Grace believers to hear things like, "If you believed even once at any time in your life, you are eternally saved." This is basically the gist of Zane Hodges' interpretation of John 3:18, and while I agree that the born again experience happens in a single irreversible moment that does not depend on subsequent obedience or perseverance, the obvious problem with this line of thinking is that it places the emphasis on what the sinner supposedly did to get saved, instead of what Christ did for sinners. In other words, this type of teaching tends to cause people to get assurance from the wrong place. A lot of Free Grace believers pride themselves on being 100% sure that they are going to heaven when they die, but if their assurance is placed on the wrong object, their assurance won't help them on the day of judgment. Conversion experiences are fine, but true assurance is only possible to the extent that a person is currently believing the Gospel. If a person were to look back to his supposed moment of conversion for assurance, he would not be believing the Gospel, but would be believing in his conversion. And if this is the case, it might be worth questioning if the person ever believed the Gospel in the first place. Did the person believe in Jesus Christ, or was he just trusting an experience to get him everlasting life? Sometimes I can't help but feel that when Free Grace theologians say that it is necessary to "believe in Jesus for everlasting life" (see below), their emphasis is more squarely placed on the words "for everlasting life" than "in Jesus." It is a big mistake to think that we have favor with God because we supposedly appropriated everlasting life at some time in the past. Our assurance must always be grounded in the objective truth of the Gospel. (See my article What is the Gospel and the Nature of Saving Faith? for more information).
In addition to the problem of false assurance mentioned above, Free Grace's understanding of the nature of faith as an appropriating act makes it impossible to correctly understand the Gospel. Simply put, in Free Grace theology an unapplied Christ is no Christ at all. More specifically, Free Grace theologians don't believe Jesus saved anyone on the cross, but only made people savable. For example, Bob Wilkin said the following here: "Many people wrongly think that if Christ died for all, then all would be given everlasting life. They wrongly think that the purpose of the shed blood of Christ was to save everyone for whom He died. God actually had many purposes for the shed blood of Christ. But none of those purposes were to save those for whom Christ died. God purposed that Christ's blood makes everyone savable (John 1:29; 1 John 2:2). But whether anyone will be saved depends on whether he believes in Jesus for everlasting life" (emphasis his). The problem with this line of thinking is that it fails to realize that if Christ didn't actually save anyone on the cross, then it is pointless to believe in Him for salvation. He simply didn't accomplish it and therefore cannot confer the benefits of it on anyone. Instead of being the Savior, He essentially becomes a new Moses who, instead of the 10 Commandments, gives people a new law that depends on them correctly performing their appropriating act. Adam was also promised everlasting life on the condition that he keep a very simple commandment. But if Adam in his sinless state in an unfallen world was unable to keep a very simple command, how much less can sinners in a fallen world perform this monumental task of appropriating everlasting life to themselves! In contrast to the idea that the blood of Christ only made people savable, Jesus said that He gives everlasting life to His sheep for whom He died. It is by the Gospel that He calls them, and it is by faith that He reveals to them what He did as Christ. (For information on why the metaphors "drinking," "eating," "coming," and "seeing" do not refer to appropriating acts, please see Answer 17 of my Q&A on Faith.)
As mentioned above, I have already written extensively on the dangers of viewing faith as an appropriating act, so it would be superfluous to go over the same ground again. If you want more information, please peruse the articles on this website, especially those linked above. As far as Free Grace is concerned, I also recommend reading my article, Dire State of Reformed and Free Grace Theology. To conclude, the problem with Free Grace theology is that it essentially turns faith into a work by describing it as an appropriating act, which by implication means that it does not correctly understand the Gospel. For the Apostles, the Gospel was simple: Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. Whoever believed this had life in His name. This Gospel is hardly known today. Of course, every one says that they believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, but as soon as they make faith an appropriating act, they demonstrate by their words and deeds that they do not believe that Jesus is the Christ who came into the world to save His people from their sins. Now, I am far from denying that there are many Christians in the world, including those among Free Grace people, who despite the deep things of Satan taught by their theologians, have found comfort in the plain truth of the apostolic Gospel. However, as long as the Christian churches continue to teach that an unapplied Christ is no Christ at all, the veil will remain over the eyes of countless lost souls who confidently pride themselves on having "gotten saved."