The Misapplication of “Heresy”: A Theological Response to Kent Hovind’s Characterization of Lordship Salvation

The Misapplication of “Heresy”: A Theological Response
To Kent Hovind’s Characterization of Lordship Salvation

Introduction

The contemporary evangelical debate over the nature of saving faith has produced considerable heat but often insufficient light. Among the more inflammatory contributions to this discussion are Kent Hovind’s repeated characterizations of “Lordship Salvation” as taught by theologians such as John MacArthur and evangelists like Ray Comfort as “heresy” or “damnable heresy.” While vigorous theological debate is both necessary and beneficial for the church, the application of the term “heresy” to this particular soteriological disagreement represents a fundamental misunderstanding of historical theology, ecclesiastical terminology, and the boundaries of Christian orthodoxy. This article will demonstrate that Hovind’s use of “heresy” is theologically inappropriate, historically ignorant, and ecclesiologically dangerous.

Understanding Heresy: Definition and Historical Context

Before evaluating Hovind’s claims, we must establish what constitutes genuine heresy within Christian theology. The term “heresy” (Greek: hairesis) carries specific theological weight that has been carefully defined throughout two millennia of church history. Heresy is not merely a theological error or interpretive disagreement; rather, it represents a fundamental departure from the core doctrines that define Christian orthodoxy as established by ecumenical consensus.

The early church father Irenaeus, writing in Against Heresies (circa 180 AD), confronted genuine heresies such as Gnosticism that denied the goodness of creation, the incarnation of Christ, and the redemption of the physical body. The ecumenical councils of Nicaea (325 AD), Constantinople (381 AD), Ephesus (431 AD), and Chalcedon (451 AD) formally defined orthodoxy and identified heresies concerning the nature of the Trinity and Christology. These councils addressed issues such as Arianism (denying Christ’s full deity), Apollinarianism (denying Christ’s full humanity), and Nestorianism (improperly dividing Christ’s natures).

The Protestant Reformers, while breaking from Rome on matters of soteriology, were careful in their application of the term “heresy.” Luther and Calvin reserved this designation for doctrines that fundamentally undermined the gospel itself—particularly the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching on works-righteousness and the treasury of merit. Even then, they acknowledged that individuals within Catholicism who trusted in Christ alone for salvation could be saved despite erroneous systematic theology surrounding them.

Throughout church history, heresy has been understood to involve the denial or distortion of essential doctrines such as the Trinity, the deity and humanity of Christ, the atonement, justification by faith, the authority of Scripture, and the bodily resurrection. Significantly, the church has always recognized legitimate diversity on secondary matters while maintaining unity on these primary doctrines.

The Monergism-Synergism Debate: A Historical Survey

The theological framework that best illuminates the Lordship Salvation debate is the historic tension between monergism and synergism in understanding salvation. Monergism (from Greek monos, “alone,” and ergon, “work”) teaches that God alone effects salvation from beginning to end, while Synergism (from syn, “together with,” and ergon) teaches that God and human will cooperate in the process of salvation.

This debate has ancient roots. Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD) articulated a strongly monergistic soteriology in his controversy with Pelagius, who taught that humans could achieve righteousness through their own effort apart from divine grace. Augustine argued that fallen humanity was incapable of initiating or cooperating in salvation without God’s prior, effectual grace. The Council of Orange (529 AD) largely affirmed Augustine’s position, declaring that the initiation of faith itself is a gift of God’s grace.

However, Eastern Orthodox theology developed along more synergistic lines, emphasizing human cooperation with divine grace (synergeia) throughout the process of salvation, understood as theosis or divinization. This represents not heresy, but a different theological emphasis within Christian orthodoxy.

During the Reformation, the monergism-synergism debate intensified. Luther and Calvin articulated strongly monergistic positions, with Calvin’s doctrine of unconditional election and irresistible grace representing the most thorough expression of salvation as God’s work alone. The Arminian controversy in the Dutch Reformed Church (early 17th century) brought these issues to a head, with the Synod of Dort (1618-1619) affirming Reformed monergism while Arminianism offered a more synergistic alternative that nonetheless maintained justification by faith alone.

Crucially, both sides of this debate remained within Protestant orthodoxy. The Remonstrants (Arminians) and the Calvinists disagreed sharply on predestination, the extent of the atonement, and the nature of grace, but both affirmed the essential doctrines of the faith. Neither side considered the other heretical, though each believed the other was in serious error.

The Nature of Lordship Salvation and Free Grace Theology

The contemporary debate between Lordship Salvation and what Hovind advocates (often called “Free Grace” theology or “Easy Believism“ by its critics) centers on the relationship between faith and repentance, and between justification and sanctification.

Lordship Salvation, as articulated by MacArthur and others, teaches that:

Genuine saving faith necessarily includes repentance from sin
True faith in Christ involves submitting to His lordship, not merely accepting Him as Savior
While works do not contribute to justification, genuine faith inevitably produces progressive sanctification and good works
A life that shows no evidence of transformation calls into question whether saving faith ever existed

Free Grace theology, as Hovind advocates, emphasizes that:

Salvation is by faith alone with no admixture of works, commitment to discipleship, or promise to reform
Repentance means changing one’s mind about Christ, not turning from sins
Assurance of salvation should be based solely on the moment one believed, regardless of subsequent behavior
Adding any requirement beyond simple intellectual assent to facts about Christ constitutes works-salvation

This debate essentially recapitulates, in different terms, aspects of the historic monergism-synergism discussion. Free Grace theology, in its emphasis on the utter passivity of the human will in salvation, tends toward a hyper-monergistic position. Lordship Salvation, in its emphasis on the necessity of repentance and the evidential nature of works, may appear more synergistic, though its proponents typically maintain a monergistic framework by insisting that both faith and repentance are Spirit-wrought gifts.

Why Hovind’s Use of “Heresy” Is Inappropriate

1. Historical Ignorance and Theological Naïveté

Hovind’s characterization of Lordship Salvation as heresy demonstrates a troubling unfamiliarity with historical theology. The position he condemns as heretical has been held, in various forms, by some of Christianity’s greatest theologians across denominational boundaries. Consider the following:

The Reformers themselves taught what could be characterized as Lordship Salvation. John Calvin wrote in his Institutes: “We dream not of a faith which is devoid of good works, nor of a justification which can exist without them… We maintain that faith alone justifies, but not a faith that is alone” (III.16.1). Calvin clearly distinguished between justification (by faith alone) and sanctification (which necessarily follows), but he equally clearly taught that genuine faith inevitably produces transformation.

Martin Luther, despite his fierce emphasis on justification by faith alone, wrote in his commentary on Galatians: “It is impossible to separate works from faith, quite as impossible as to separate heat and light from fire.” Luther taught that while works contribute nothing to justification, they are the inevitable fruit of living faith.

The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), a foundational Reformed document, states: “Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification: yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love” (XI.2). This represents classic Protestant orthodoxy affirming that saving faith necessarily produces transformation—precisely what Lordship Salvation teaches.

The Puritans extensively developed the doctrine of assurance in ways that align with Lordship Salvation. Jonathan Edwards, in Religious Affections, taught that genuine conversion produces discernible “marks” or evidences, and that assurance comes from observing these fruits in one’s life, not merely from remembering a past decision. Thomas Brooks, John Owen, Richard Baxter, and other Puritan divines all taught that true faith transforms and that a life devoid of spiritual fruit calls into question the reality of conversion.

Major evangelical theologians across the centuries have affirmed positions similar to Lordship Salvation. Charles Spurgeon preached: “If the professed convert distinctly and deliberately declares that he knows the Lord’s will but does not mean to attend to it, you are not to pamper his presumption, but it is your duty to assure him that he is not saved.” J.C. Ryle wrote in Holiness: “When I speak of ‘faith,’ I mean a faith that is not a dead, formal, intellectual assent, but an inward spiritual grace that unites the soul to Christ.”

By calling Lordship Salvation heresy, Hovind is effectively declaring Calvin, Luther, Edwards, Spurgeon, and the vast majority of evangelical theologians throughout history to be heretics. This position is historically untenable and demonstrates a concerning level of theological provincialism.

2. Misunderstanding the Boundaries of Orthodoxy

Orthodox Christianity, as defined by the ecumenical creeds and the consensual tradition of the church, allows for considerable diversity in soteriological mechanics while insisting on unity regarding salvation’s foundation. The Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed, and Athanasian Creed—which define Christian orthodoxy—say nothing about the specific debates between Calvinism and Arminianism, or between Lordship Salvation and Free Grace theology.

Both positions in the current debate affirm the essential soteriological doctrines:

Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone
Human works contribute nothing to justification before God
Christ’s atoning death is the sole ground of forgiveness
Regeneration is the work of the Holy Spirit
Believers are declared righteous through the imputation of Christ’s righteousness

The disagreement concerns the nature of saving faith and its relationship to repentance and sanctification—important questions, but ones that fall within the realm of legitimate theological diversity, not heresy. The Reformed tradition and the Arminian tradition have coexisted within evangelicalism for centuries, both recognized as orthodox despite their differences.

Hovind’s insistence that Lordship Salvation is heretical effectively narrows orthodoxy to his particular interpretation of these complex issues, which represents a sectarian rather than catholic approach to Christian theology.

3. Confusion Between Error and Heresy

An essential distinction in theological discourse is that between error and heresy. A Christian teacher may be in error on various points of doctrine—perhaps even serious error—without being heretical. Error involves mistaken interpretation or emphasis on matters where Scripture may be unclear or where legitimate differences exist. Heresy involves willful rejection of clearly revealed truth that forms the foundation of Christian faith.

The early church carefully distinguished between degrees of theological error. Tertullian distinguished between those who were simply mistaken (errantes) and those who were heretical (haeretici). Augustine likewise recognized levels of error, treating some deviations as serious but correctible mistakes while reserving condemnation of heresy for those who persisted in denying fundamental doctrines after correction.

Even if Hovind believes Lordship Salvation is in error (which many theologians would dispute), this would not make it heretical. The fact that godly, biblically committed theologians hold both positions indicates that this is a matter of differing interpretation on complex passages, not a clear-cut denial of obvious truth.

4. The Danger of Theological Maximalism

Hovind’s approach represents what might be called “theological maximalism”—the tendency to elevate one’s particular interpretation of disputed matters to the status of essential doctrine and to condemn all alternative views as heretical. This approach has several dangerous consequences:

It fractures the body of Christ unnecessarily. By declaring a large portion of evangelical Christianity heretical, Hovind’s position makes genuine fellowship and cooperation impossible with those who hold different views on these admittedly complex matters. This contradicts Paul’s teaching about unity in essentials and charity in non-essentials.

It trivializes genuine heresy. When “heresy” is applied to matters of legitimate disagreement, the term loses its force for identifying actual departures from Christian faith. If Lordship Salvation is heresy, what term remains to describe Arianism, which denies Christ’s deity? The promiscuous use of “heresy” as a polemical weapon actually weakens the church’s ability to identify and resist actual heretical teaching.

It demonstrates spiritual pride and a lack of humility. The long history of godly Christians holding views similar to Lordship Salvation should give any critic pause. While conviction about one’s interpretation is appropriate, declaring all who disagree to be heretics suggests an unwillingness to acknowledge the possibility of error in one’s own understanding or to learn from the broader Christian tradition.

Biblical and Theological Assessment

Examining the actual biblical data reveals that both positions attempt to account for different emphases in Scripture, which is precisely why this debate has persisted among sincere Christians.

Lordship Salvation proponents cite passages such as:

James 2:17-26,¹ which declares that “faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead”
Matthew 7:21-23,² where Jesus rejects those who call Him Lord but whose lives don’t reflect it
1 John 2:3-6,³ which makes obedience a test of genuine knowledge of God
Luke 14:26-33,⁴ where Jesus teaches that discipleship involves counting the cost and renouncing all

Free Grace proponents emphasize passages such as:

Ephesians 2:8-9,⁵ declaring salvation is by grace through faith, not of works
John 3:16⁶ and 5:24,⁷ which speak of believing in eternal life
Acts 16:31,⁸ “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved.”
Romans 4:5,⁹ which speaks of God justifying “the ungodly”

The interpretive challenge is harmonizing these two streams of biblical teaching—those emphasizing the utter gratuity of salvation and those emphasizing the transformative nature of genuine faith. Orthodox Christianity has always held both truths in tension: salvation is absolutely free, received by faith alone, yet genuine saving faith inevitably transforms the believer and produces fruit.

The Reformers’ formula captures this balance: we are justified by faith alone, but the faith that justifies is never alone. This is precisely what Lordship Salvation attempts to articulate. Whether one agrees with every aspect of MacArthur’s formulation or not, the attempt to hold together justification by faith and the necessity of sanctification is hardly heretical—it’s the classical Protestant position.

Conclusion

Kent Hovind’s characterization of Lordship Salvation as “heresy” or “damnable heresy” represents a serious misuse of theological terminology that serves neither truth nor the unity of the church. This designation is:

Historically ignorant, condemning as heretical a position held by the Reformers, the Puritans, and the vast majority of evangelical theologians throughout history
Theologically inappropriate, applying the term “heresy” to matters of legitimate interpretive disagreement rather than to denials of essential doctrine
Ecclesiologically divisive, unnecessarily fracturing the evangelical church by declaring orthodox Christians to be heretics
Spiritually prideful, refusing to acknowledge the possibility of error in one’s own position or to learn from the broader Christian tradition

The debate between different soteriological emphases is important and worthy of careful study, biblical exegesis, and theological reflection. Christians of good faith may come to different conclusions on the relationship between faith and repentance, justification, and sanctification. These disagreements should be conducted with charity, humility, and mutual respect—not with inflammatory accusations of heresy.

Both monergistic and synergistic frameworks, both Reformed and Arminian perspectives, both Lordship Salvation and Free Grace theology (properly understood) attempt to account for the full scope of biblical teaching on salvation. While one may believe another position is in error at certain points, we must reserve the charge of heresy for actual departures from Christian orthodoxy as historically defined.

The unity of the church is not threatened by disagreement on these secondary matters; it is threatened by the kind of theological maximalism that elevates particular interpretations to the status of essential doctrine and condemns all alternatives as damnable error. As evangelical Christians navigating these complex issues, we would do well to exercise both conviction in our beliefs and charity toward those with whom we disagree—recognizing that all of us “see through a glass, darkly” (1 Corinthians 13:12) and stand in need of God’s grace not only for salvation but also for sanctification and understanding.

The path forward is not to hurl accusations of heresy at fellow believers but to engage in careful biblical exegesis, theological reflection, and respectful dialogue—always remembering that our unity is found not in perfect agreement on every soteriological detail but in our common confession of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, crucified for our sins and raised for our justification.

Footnote

1
So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.
2
Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
3
And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked
4
If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple. For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’ Or what king, going out to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and deliberate whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace. So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.
5
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
6
For God so loved the world,[a] that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
7
Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
8
And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.
9
And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness