Introduction
In his June 30, 2025, “Soteriology 101” podcast, Leighton Flowers critiqued a sermon by Josh Howerton, the senior pastor of Lakepointe Church in Rockwall, TX. The podcast is titled, “Acts 18:10 is NOT teaching Calvinism.” To establish the context for my remarks below, I encourage you to take time to listen to Leighton’s podcast and to Pastor Howerton’s complete sermon titled, “Don’t Let Fear Keep You Silent.” To save time, you may want to advance to the relevant part of the sermon, which starts at time stamp 32:33. The controversial verse is Acts 18:10.
When I heard pastor Howerton on Leighton’s podcast, I was appalled by the blatant inconsistency, lack of textual support, and self-admitted confusion in Howerton’s explanation of this verse. I was also dismayed by the possibility that people believed it. In its immediate context, Acts 18:10 reads,
One night the Lord spoke to Paul in a vision: “Do not be afraid; keep on speaking, do not be silent. For I am with you, and no one is going to attack and harm you, because I have many people in this city.” So Paul stayed in Corinth for a year and a half, teaching them the word of God.” (Acts 18:9-11, NIV)
The ESV reads,
And the Lord said to Paul one night in a vision, “Do not be afraid, but go on speaking and do not be silent, for I am with you, and no one will attack you to harm you, for I have many in this city who are my people.” And he stayed a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.” (Acts 18:9-11, ESV)
I do not know which Bible version Pastor Howerton was preaching from, but the phrase he uses, “for I have many in this city who are my people,” is in the ESV. This is in contrast to the NIV and CSB, where the Lord promises no harm will come to Paul “because I have many people in this city.” So we basically have two translations to consider. They are,
“…because I have many people in this city.” (NIV, CSB)
and
“…for I have many in this city who are my people.” (ESV)
The question before us is whether Pastor Howerton’s interpretation of this verse as referring to “predestination” as Calvinists define it is correct. Here’s how Calvin himself defined predestination.
“We call predestination God’s eternal decree, by which he compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather, eternal life is foreordained for some, eternal damnation for others. Therefore, as any man has been created to one or the other of these ends, we speak of him as predestined to life or to death.”1
I will demonstrate how Pastor Howerton’s treatment of Acts 18:10 indicates that he believes this verse is referring to this Calvinist definition of predestination. But we must ask whether, when the Lord spoke to Paul by a vision at night, he intended to communicate to Paul Calvin’s definition of predestination or something altogether different. Was the Lord informing Paul (for the first time perhaps?) of the doctrine of predestination or unconditional election? Should we presuppose that Paul understood the Lord to be referring to a deterministic predestination (of the Calvinist type) when he said, “…I have many people in this city,” or, “…I have many in this city who are my people.” Would Paul have understood the Lord to be telling him that he had particular people in Corinth who, before the creation of the world, he had predetermined to be saved apart from all others in Corinth? As we shall see, according to Howerton, that is the meaning of “my people” in this text.
It is worth noting that the Lord’s words in this phrase are somewhat cryptic, although the ESV strongly suggests the Calvinist meaning with the less definitive “for” (instead of “because”), and the words “my people.” So, according to the Calvinist, Paul was told by the Lord in this vision that there were many in Corinth who were predestined by God to salvation. These unconditionally elected persons had to hear Paul’s message so that their predestination or unconditional election could be realized in their lives. The Lord wanted Paul to continue to teach the word of God in Corinth for the sake of those who were predestined to be saved. Therefore, the Calvinist’s understanding of this verse is, “…I have many in this city whom I’ve predestined to salvation, and that can only happen if you go on speaking and are not silent.” This raises many questions. Is this what Paul understood by these words? Are there other possible interpretations of these words? In Acts, or his other epistles, did Paul ever explain the why and how of salvation by affirming the TULIP doctrines of total inability, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and the preservation and perseverance of the believer? Did Paul ever affirm a deterministic predestination? What was the nature and content of Paul’s gospel message? What made Paul’s gospel “good news” to those who heard it? Is there any “good news” in the Calvinist definition of predestination? What does Scripture mean by predestination? To what does it refer?
I will answer these questions in the sections below and in PART 2 of this post. I will provide the evidence against Howerton’s Calvinist interpretation of this verse. Here in PART 1, I will examine Howerton’s mishandling of this text. In PART 2, I will suggest proper interpretations of the text.
Howerton on Predestination
Beginning at time stamp 32:33, Howerton talks about how Jesus is encouraging Paul. This is where he begins speaking about predestination. Howerton states,
“The third thing…that Jesus does to encourage Paul is the reality of this thing Christians have historically called predestination. It’s just right here. So let me show you this.” (32:33 – 32:46)
Howerton believes this verse contains “this thing Christians have historically called predestination.” He claims the Lord does this to “encourage Paul.” He continues.
“So look at what Jesus said, “Keep on speaking, don’t be silent. For nobody’s going to attack or harm you” – watch this – “for I have many in this city who are my people.” Now Bible scholars for centuries have been like, “Hey, why does Jesus say, “I got many people in this city when almost nobody’s gotten saved yet?”” (32:46 – 33:06)
Now, because Howerton assumes there are almost no people saved in Corinth at this point, the only option he sees for the meaning of verses 9 and 10 is the Calvinist option. That is, the Lord must be talking about those he has predestined to salvation. But this question raises the possibility that the phrase “…for I have many in this city who are my people” (ESV) may refer to those who are already saved. It may refer to believers in Jesus. That would make sense of the words “my people” for we know the New Testament considers believers as the “people of God.” (Rom. 8:27; 1 Cor. 1:2, 14:33; 2 Cor. 1:1, 6:16, 9:12; Eph. 5:3; Col. 1:4; 2 Tim. 2:14; 1 Pet. 2:9-10, et al.) It is likely that the Jews Aquila and Priscilla, who were recently expelled from Rome (cf. 18:2), were believers. And we will see in PART 2 that it is likely that there were a number of believers already in Corinth when Paul arrived there. So this may be one possible interpretation that Howerton does not seriously consider. He is assuming that “almost nobody’s gotten saved yet” in Corinth.
Another possibility for the meaning of “my people” is unconverted Jews. We also know that in both the Old and New Testaments, Jews are called the “people of God” (Lu. 1:68; Acts 13:17; Rom. 11:1, and throughout Scripture). It may be that the Lord was concerned for the salvation of the community of Jews at Corinth which is attested to in Acts 18:4 and throughout Acts (9:20, 13:5, 14, esp. 14:1, 17:2, 10, 18:4, 19, 19:8). We know that Paul always went into the synagogue first to speak to his fellow Jews about Jesus (cf. Rom. 1:16). When Paul entered a city he would enter the local synagogue to proclaim the word of God. This phrase would then be referring to God’s desire to give opportunity to his people to hear and respond to the gospel.
A third option is that the phrase refers to both “Jews and Greeks” (Acts 18:4), including proselytes or “God-fearers,” “worshippers of God,” and “devout men.” These descriptions referred to both Jews and Gentiles who practiced the Law but refused circumcision. Others, like Lydia and Cornelius, needed to hear the gospel to be saved. I will examine these options in PART 2 of this post. But let’s return to Howerton’s sermon.
“What he’s talking about here is what the New Testament sometimes calls predestination….What predestination means is, here is all it means, if I ask you, “Hey man, do you think God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life?” Yes, awesome. Then you believe God has some sort of destiny for you. Great. Do you think he is figuring it out along the way and he doesn’t know what’s going to happen, or do you think he figured it out a long time ago – planned it? I think he probably figured it out a long time ago. Ok. Great. Then pre–destiny. That’s all this is.” (33:01 – 33:31)
Now it is important to recall Howerton telling us that this is what “Christians historically called predestination,” and above he asserts, “here is what the New Testament sometimes calls predestination.” When he says “historically,” is he referring to Calvin’s definition of predestination? As we continue, we will see that he does affirm Calvin’s deterministic definition quoted above, but if that is the case, then the explanation Howerton just gave us of predestination is inconsistent with Calvin’s exclusive, deterministic definition. Nothing about Calvin’s definition can assuredly answer, “Yes, awesome,” to the propositions “God loves you, and has a wonderful plan for your life.” Of course, God may love you and have a wonderful plan for your life, and you may be predestined to eternal life. But on the other hand, it may just be that God does not love you and does not have a wonderful plan for your life, and you are predestined to eternal damnation and death. In the end, we will see that Howerton will contradict his explanation of “pre-destiny” that he gave above.
From his explanation above, we may ask whether “If I ask you, Hey man…” is referring to a Christian or a non-Christian. I assume he is talking to an unbeliever. Either way, Howerton asks the person whether or not they think “God loves you.” Here, contrary to Calvinist predestination, Howerton is presupposing that he knows God loves the person he is talking to because Howerton answers his own question with, “Yes, awesome.” So, does Howerton believe God loves everyone? By this explanation of predestination, it certainly seems so. But then, how is that coherent with Calvin’s definition? It’s not. Now, Howerton also included whether or not the person thinks God “has a wonderful plan for your life?” Now, the person says, “Yes,” and Howerton affirms this with “Yes, awesome,” which is another point that is in question, given Calvin’s predestination. From this, Howerton proposes to the person that they therefore must believe that God has “some sort of destiny for you.” He then answers, “Great.” But what sort of destiny does God have for this person? Again, Howerton presumes that God “has a wonderful plan for your life.” Would Howerton affirm this for everyone he talks to? Recall Calvin on this matter.
“…eternal life is foreordained for some, eternal damnation for others. Therefore, as any man has been created to one or the other of these ends, we speak of him as predestined to life or to death.”
So much for that “wonderful plan” if you are one of those people predestined to eternal damnation and death. Howerton then presents the alternative options that God is either figuring this plan out “along the way and he doesn’t know what’s going to happen” or that God “figured it out a long time ago,” that is, he “planned it.” Again, Howerton answers his own question that God “figured it out a long time ago.” God “planned it.” Howerton therefore concludes, “Ok. Great. Then pre-destiny. That’s all this is.” So Howerton’s definition of predestination is as follows:
- “God loves you.”
- God “has a wonderful plan for your life.”
- God has “some sort of destiny for you.”
- God “figured [this plan] out a long time ago.”
- Therefore, “pre-destiny.”
Let’s keep Howerton’s definition in mind as we continue examining this sermon. We want to see if he is ever inconsistent or contradicts what he has said above. But what we must first observe here is that this is definitely not predestination as Calvinists understand it. We can also say that it is definitely not predestination as non-Calvinists understand it. So, where did Howerton get this definition from? He claims that what the Lord is “talking about here is what the New Testament sometimes calls predestination.” Where did he find this definition in the New Testament? It seems to me that points 1 and 2 are the first law in the Four Spiritual Laws or the plan of salvation, and the other half is a creative way to arrive at the word “destiny” and then add “pre” to it. Therefore, I think this “explanation” is very contrived and somewhat disingenuous. It seems designed to conflate both the Calvinist and non-Calvinist positions so as to please both groups. And I think it is obvious that it is just confused and not at all what the New or Old Testament means by predestination. But Howerton nevertheless asserts, “That’s all this [predestination] is.” He provides no textual support. And when he states, “If I ask you, ‘Hey man, do you think…”, we have to presume the following questions apply to everyone. Howerton is telling us that God loves everyone and has a wonderful plan for their life, and since he planned that long ago, that is their pre-destiny or predestination. Therefore, what we must conclude from Howerton’s definition is that, based on God’s love for all, God has predestined everyone to a “wonderful plan” for their life. So how is it that we don’t end up with universalism, that is, in the end, everyone is saved? Or, is Howerton telling us that because God loves us, we will all just live a “wonderful life,” but in the end, we could end up in hell? And how does this account for the millions of people who have not led lives that could be described as a “wonderful plan?” The murderers, rapists, robbers, etc. I was shocked when I heard this nonsensical definition and these assertions. I was also saddened by the prospect that many listeners may have accepted Howerton’s teaching. It was one of several things I heard on Leighton’s podcast that Howerton was teaching that compelled me to write this post.
So let’s see if Howerton will provide us more clarity as to what he means by predestination. He then states,
What Jesus is saying right here, he is telling Paul, “Hey man, I’ve already decided there’s a whole bunch of people in the city I’m gonna save. I’m gonna save ’em.” (32:33 – 33:43)
Okay. The Lord wants to save “a whole bunch of people in the city.” Does he want to save only those people he has predestined to be saved, while passing over everyone else whom he has not predestined to save? That, in essence, is Calvin’s definition of predestination. And this would be very different from Howerton’s own confused definition he gave us previously. So let’s see where Howerton takes us in the rest of this sermon. He continues,
“Now let’s talk about this because it raises a whole bunch of questions…I’m about to rapidfire six things Christians should believe about predestination… Number one, its a thing. There’s no getting around it.” (33:43 – 34:07)
And here we have our first assurance that Howerton holds to Calvin’s definition of predestination because the question immediately comes to our minds, “Why would predestination raise “a whole bunch of questions?” And, why would anyone want to “get around” it? One reason might be that it is so offensive to our logical reasoning, moral intuitions, and what we know of God and salvation from the Bible, that we would be compelled to question whether that interpretation is even what the Bible teaches. That would motivate the thinking Christian to raise legitimate questions and want to “get around it” with another biblically sound explanation of the verse. We should note that it’s common for thinking Christians to have this response when they hear about the Calvinist definition of predestination. That response should not be suppressed. It should be encouraged. But this is the point at which the Calvinist must begin to suppress the thinking Christian’s logical and moral faculties. These will only get in the way of accepting the Calvinist’s insistence that the Bible contains two mutually exclusive propositions – deterministic sovereignty and predestination, along with human freedom and responsibility. We will see the intimidating tactics that Calvinists and Howerton use to guilt people into accepting their theology. Already, we have Howerton telling us that there are six things Christians should believe about predestination as Calvin defined it. But why should we believe these six things? Will they be reasons grounded in the text? Let’s continue to see why we should believe in Howerton’s version of predestination.
Howerton quotes Rom. 8:29 and Eph. 1:5, 11 that have the word “predestine” in them to prove it’s in the Bible. But he offers no explanation of these verses; therefore, we have no reason to think they affirm Howerton’s definition of predestination. He then says,
“Now and then I’ll meet a Christian who’s like “Pastor I don’t believe in predestination.” Well you got a big problem Skippy because it’s right there in the Bible. It’s literally a Bible word. It’s going to take a pair of scissors to get it out of the Bible. And hey Lakepointe we’re Bible people, right? We’re Bible people. It’s like literally right there.” (34:35 – 34:53)
If the people at Lakepointe are “Bible people,” why doesn’t Howerton present other options regarding the interpretation of this text? And if they are truly “Bible people,” I hope many in that congregation have raised serious questions to pastor Howerton about this sermon. But I doubt that happened for reasons we will see below. Furthermore, is Howerton being inaccurate here? Perhaps the Christian was not saying he does not believe in predestination, that is, as if it is not in the Bible, which was Howerton’s point. Rather, perhaps the Christian was saying that he doesn’t believe the Calvinist’s interpretation of predestination is in the Bible, which is likely the interpretation he has been given.2 This questioning or conclusion about the Calvinist definition of predestination is perfectly justified, as I’ll demonstrate in PART 2.
Howerton continues with the second thing we should believe about predestination.
“Number two. It’s not worth dividing over. Heads up. The New Testament continually warns that a mark of immature Christians is they insist on arguing and dividing the body of Christ over what the New Testament calls disputable matters. So there are some things, things of first importance – first Corinthians 15 – that are worth dividing the church over like essential doctrine – salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. That’s it. Okay? But what immature Christians do is what the Bible says, they have an unheathy craving for controversy and they like fighting more than building the kingdom.” (34:53 – 35:31)
Now, here we are sure that Howerton has accepted the Calvinist definition of predestination. It is typical of Calvinists to reprimand others about being divisive and labeling those who question the Calvinist doctrines as immature. They describe the controversy their doctrines generate as a “disputable matter” or “secondary issue.” What is meant by this is something Christians will disagree about, but it does not involve serious doctrinal implications. It is labeled a “secondary” matter or “in-house debate,” not a primary doctrinal issue. But anyone who accepts this reasoning has not clearly understood the issue nor its profound implications for the gospel. And of course, the gospel is a primary doctrinal issue. This is definitely not a “secondary” matter because the very gospel is at stake in this controversy. And I don’t know of any mature, thinking Christian who would deny that the gospel is one of, if not the most primary and essential teaching of Scripture, and its proclamation should be the purpose of any truly evangelical Christian church. It is just that with preaching like this that suppresses the fact that the Calvinist and non-Calvinist soteriologies are mutually exclusive or incompatible, people are taught not to question or think deeply about whether what they are being told is faithful to Scripture. What mature Christians do is not believe everything they are told just because it comes from their pastor. The Bible is their ultimate authority. Therefore, mature Christians think carefully about what they are being told a text means, and they reject interpretations that are inconsistent with or contradictory to other clear biblical texts. Furthermore, mature Christian pastors offer the full range of interpretive options about these controversial texts instead of merely employing the Calvinist “explanations,” the purpose of which is to quell legitimate inquiry. Mature pastors deal head-on with people’s substantive questions and concerns regarding such texts, especially at the hermeneutical level. They don’t intimidate them into silence. They are not afraid to say, “I don’t know,” and “Well, let’s think about this together.” Seasoned believers expect to hear the best interpretive options according to the historical-critical method and the immediate and broader contexts. Simply put, Howerton doesn’t do this, and he fails to see that the gospel message as “good news” is at stake, given his Calvinist definition of predestination.
Howerton now doubles down on suppressing the logical thinking and moral intuitions of the congregation while failing to see or acknowledge the negative implications of the Calvinist definition of predestination for the gospel and gospel ministry.
“The New Testament tells pastors like me that when there are divisive people in the church who insist on arguing over stuff and dividing all the time, causing riffs, it says, “Warn a divisive person once, then a second time, then have nothing to do with them. In other words, kick them out of the church.” (35:38 – 35:58)
So what is a person to do if they disagree with Howerton on predestination? Will he allow his definition to be seriously questioned? Will he invite discussion on the natter? It does not seem so. The questioner would have to leave the church. So who is really being divisive? The definition of predestination that Howerton gave was completely baffling and certainly appears to be an attempt at pleasing both the Calvinists and non-Calvinists who may be in the congregation. But since Howerton is a Calvinist on this matter, and a confused one at that, why is it that the non-Calvinist who would have to be silent or get “kicked out” of the church? But then it seems to me that the Calvinists are being divisive, especially because they provide no substantive reasons as to why we should believe their interpretation of predestination. I think Howerton says all this because he cannot see the negative implications Calvinism has for the gospel message. This is especially important and applicable because he states that,
“…we unite around the mission of seeing the gospel advance and God honored.” (35:58 – 36:06)
What gospel is Howerton talking about? What happens to the gospel given his Calvinist understanding of predestination? Is he trying hard to avoid clearly communicating what he believes predestination is because he knows people will not accept it, or at least challenge him about it? Can Howerton be challenged on this matter? Can it be discussed in another forum in the church? Can his five-point definition of predestination that he provided early on be discussed for its inconsistency and incoherence with how he has subsequently defined predestination in this sermon? Moreover, can he really believe that the definition he provided above is convincing? Again, one thing we can be sure of is that Howerton, like all Calvinists, can’t see or won’t acknowledge that the gospel is at stake here. He continues.
“Number three. It’s encouraging. Jesus uses the promise “I’m going to save a bunch of people” to encourage Paul, and every time the New Testament talks about predestination or alludes to it, it’s always for encouragement. Guys, can we just stop and think about this. Think about this. Just pause for a second. This means God picked you because he loves you. God picked you.” (36:13 – 36:31)
Now, regardless of what Howerton told us above, he is now affirming Calvin’s definition of predestination. “God picked you.” Who is he talking to? About whom is he saying this? Note that he cannot know this fact about any person to whom he is speaking. Does he mean that those Christians hearing him ought to presume they have been picked by God? Why should they presume this? How would they know this? Neither can he honestly, genuinely state, “God picked you because he loves you.” On Calvinism, he cannot know this either. He cannot know who God loves and who he doesn’t love. He cannot know who God has “picked” and whom he has not “picked.” So who is he talking to and what is he talking about? Is he telling the whole congregation that “God loves you” and “God picked you?” If God loves each person there, what happens to his deterministic, limited, exclusive definition of predestination? And how does this apply in Corinth? I assume it is the same. “God loves you,” and “God picked you.” But why then does the Lord say to Paul, “I have many in this city who are my people,” which entails that the Lord has “many in this city who are not my people,” that is, “whom I have not predestined to salvation.” That must mean that God does not love everyone in Corinth, and not everyone in Corinth has been “picked” or predestined to salvation. Therefore, how does Howerton deal with the brutal possibility that “God doesn’t love you” and “God didn’t pick you?” Note that he does not talk about this logical corollary of his Calvinist definition of predestination.
Furthermore, we might ask the people at Lakepointe, What gospel message did you hear when you first believed? Was it that God predestined some to be saved and all others cannot be saved? What kind of “gospel” is that? Also, was this Calvinist definition of predestination hidden from you when you first believed? Why would it be hidden since it is the full and final explanation as to why and how a person becomes saved? Or did you hear the free, well-meant offer of salvation in Christ as the demonstration of God’s love for you? Did you hear that you and all sinners can be saved by faith in Christ?
Again, note that Howerton is giving us one side of “God picked you because he loves you.” The other side is, “God did not pick you because he does not love you and he does not want you to be saved, therefore you cannot be saved.” That’s Calvinist predestination. But what has this done to the “good news” of the gospel message? What about Howerton’s claim that Lakepointe Church unites around “seeing the gospel advance and God honored?” How do they do this? What gospel does Lakepointe believe and preach while also holding to this Calvinist definition of predestination? What gospel message is consistent with what Howerton is teaching here about predestination? How is God honored by such a definition of predestination? Is Howerton teaching his congregation the complete implications of his Calvinist definition of predestination, or is he holding back the bad news of this predestination? He continues,
“God as your father, heaven as your hope, forgiveness of sin, eternal life with Christ. Yes. Yes! That’s what it means man. This is deeply, deeply encouraging. Like the father chose to adopt you! That’s, that’s stinkin’ awesome!” (37:02 – 37:18)
Are all these blessings the result of a divine predestination, that is, an eternal divine decree or deterministic decision of God to save some people and not others? Or, are these truths for anyone who will believe in Jesus? Again, I hope you can see that these are two mutually exclusive soteriologies which have profoundly different implications for salvation and the gospel message. Howerton continues.
“Number four. It does not negate human responsibility. This is where people get tripped up and they start arguing when they shouldn’t argue. Okay you got two sets of verses in the Bible. You got all the stuff on human responsibility. Whosoever will may come. John 3:16. Whoever believes will have eternal life. And then you got over here all these divine sovereignty verses. Chosen from before the foundations of the earth. In love he predestined them to be confirmed to the image of his son. He quote “works all things according to the council of his will.” These are sovereignty verses. (37:18 – 37:42)
Note that Howerton is presupposing as biblical truth the Calvinist definition of God’s sovereignty here. In Calvinism, divine sovereignty is equivalent to a universal divine causal determinism. For God to be “sovereign” means that God has predetermined and causes all things – from the thoughts, attitudes, beliefs, actions, and eternal destiny of every person, to the movement of the smallest particles in the universe. This would include all the evil acts ever committed throughout all history. Howerton believes in this definition of “sovereignty.” Therefore, he is compelled to separate Scripture into two categories. He pits God’s sovereignty and human responsibility against each other. He goes on to say,
“Now here’s what some people will do, is they’ll try to as a human to fit the eternity of God into their human brain, and you have to start cuttin’ out Bible verses to do that. So people will lean into these verse, explain away these verses. Or they’ll lean into these verses, explain away those verses. Okay. Can’t do that.” (37:42 – 38:02)
This is the typical incomprehensibility explanation Calvinists foist upon people to convince them that what they otherwise clearly perceive and know to be logically problematic is not. Calvinists will tell you that this is only an “apparent contradiction.” I disagree with both descriptions because the first (i.e., incomprehensibility) is merely a bold assertion, and the second (i.e., apparent contradiction) only continues to beg the question. I encourage you to firmly hold onto your God-given reasoning ability so that you can discern whether what Howerton or other Calvinists are telling you is true or false. For once you abandon your logical reasoning and moral intuitions, you have opened yourself up to accepting Calvinism. That is what they need you to do. And they will describe this as being humble. (More on this below.) It’s not being humble, it’s being foolish. Howerton’s and the Calvinists’ mishandling of Scripture here is perfectly comprehensible. They are proposing that we accept two incompatible propositions as if they were both taught in Scripture and therefore both are true. They are proposing we accept the contradiction that is the result of their interpretation of this verse and many other biblical texts. But we know contradictory propositions when we see them. Calvinists do too, that is why they have to rationalize the contradiction away so as to preserve their traditional Reformed Calvinist “doctrines of grace” (i.e., TULIP), and their deterministic definitions of God’s sovereignty and predestination or unconditional election. Don’t give in to these rationalizations. The Calvinist needs to have you circumvent your reasoning faculties because of the logical and moral problems they have created for themselves. To get you to embrace their theology, they must suppress your logical and moral sensibilities. It is here that Calvinism is most like a cult. They must carve out a path for people to embrace determinism, and that is done by the suppression of your reasoning faculties and your properly basic moral beliefs. So, these deterministic doctrines are non-negotiable for the Calvinist, although they are not biblical.3 Furthermore, it’s not necessary to “lean” one way or the other. What we need to do is apply a sound hermeneutic, that is, apply good interpretive principles to the text so the controverted texts are understood to be in harmony with each other. There is no need to pit deterministic sovereignty against human freedom and responsibility because the Bible does not define God’s sovereignty in terms of theistic determinism. But we can see that Howerton has bought into the Calvinist definitions of sovereignty and predestination. So he too employs the Calvinist’s tactical explanations to get his congregants to accept his definition of predestination.
For instance, note that he uses the entrance of heaven analogy, which is another Calvinist tactic. Every person passes by the doorway of heaven over which they read, “Whosoever will may come.” Howerton states, “…and every person who chooses to trust Christ for salvation, they make the choice to walk through the door” (38:07 – 38:32). But once you’re inside, you read over the doorway, “Chosen from before the foundations of the earth.” Putting aside the fact that your choice to trust Christ for salvation got you into heaven, Howerton reaches this astonishing conclusion. He says,
“Both are true.” (38:55 – 38:57)
Why is this astonishing? Because he is affirming that two contradictory propositions are both true. Now, Howerton is an example of the suppression of reason that is required for one to accept the Calvinist’s deterministic definitions of sovereignty and predestination. He has bought into the Calvinists’ “the Bible teaches both” rationalization as if it justifies their interpretations of the texts in question. But this, too, is just a bold assertion. No argument is provided for why we should believe that the Calvinist has properly interpreted the text. The problematic nature of their interpretations ought to confirm for us that they are not valid. It ought to do the same for Howerton, but instead of going back to the text to see if there are other, more plausible interpretations, in typical Calvinist fashion, Howerton ploughs ahead, piling up explanations that only violate reason and contradict each other. Howerton will now press on with more of the standard Calvinist “explanations” which supposedly justify their theistic determinism.
“Now you may be goin’ Oh, then how does…? Is that fair…? How does this work with…? That leads me to the next point. It’s real confusing. And by the way I’m totally ok with it being real confusing. (38:59 – 39:12)
Here is more suppression of reason and moral intuition! Instead of dealing with the legitimate questions that arise from his Calvinist understanding of predestination, Howerton cavalierly dismisses them by telling the people, “It’s real confusing.” He just deflects from the difficulties that plague his interpretation by asserting, “It’s real confusing.” At this point, red lights should have gone off in people’s minds! Thinking Christians should have asked themselves, is it true that the doctrines of salvation and the gospel are “real confusing?” Why should I believe what pastor Howerton is telling me? Howerton’s ability to embrace the contradiction he has created is an example of the anti-intellectualism that is pervasive in the evangelical church today. To tell them, “It’s real confusing,” is an insult to the people’s intelligence. At least it should be! It is certainly bad teaching on this verse. And the fact that this confusion is “totally ok” with Howerton is no persuasive argument for believing his deterministic, predestinarian interpretation of this verse. In fact, I submit to you that the confusion Howerton got himself into was his own fault, and no one should accept this confusion but see it for what it is – the result of poor interpretation. Howerton may be confused, but you shouldn’t be. Howerton has imposed upon this text his Calvinist soteriology. Moreover, Howerton has ignored the people’s legitimate questions and concerns and has not addressed the other possible ways to interpret this text.
Again, he uses incomprehensibility as an explanation to justify the confusion his misinterpretation of this text and his misunderstanding of predestination have created. His confusion ought to be a sign that he first needs to take people’s questions and criticisms seriously. He needs to address these, not dismiss them as irrelevant or as indicative of spiritual pride. And secondly, he needs to go back to the text and grapple with other possible interpretations that don’t lead him into contradictions or confusion. The fact that he accepts that God’s word confuses us concerning the primary doctrines of salvation and the gospel tells me that Howerton is misinterpreting this text. He is misinterpreting the text because he has a faulty hermeneutic. He has as two of his basic principles of interpretation that biblical texts can contradict each other, and that they can send the reader into confusion. Howerton needs to adopt a better hermeneutic.
Using the analogy that “God is the size of the Pacific ocean and our minds the size of a Coke can,” Howerton concludes,
“…we ought to expect there to be some things that don’t fit.” (39:14 – 39:18)
What he means by “don’t fit” is “are contradictory.” Again, a bad hermeneutic. He continues,
“Let’s just all acknowledge something – I actually want you to respond to this because it’s an expression of our humility before God. Can we just all acknowledge, that man, when we stand before the eternal sovereign God before whom the nations tremble, at the sound of whom the earth quakes, at the sight of whom men die, can we have the humility to say before him, what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him. For as far as the heavens are above the earth, so are your ways and your thoughts higher than my thoughts O Lord. Can we have that humility brothers and sisters in Christ? Say, I’m okay with some things that don’t fit because your God and I’m not.” (39:23 – 40:02)
Here we have the “humility before God” tactic. The Calvinist will tell you that a certain degree of humility is required to accept their doctrines. Indeed, for them, these doctrines are a litmus test for humility. Howerton tells us that theistic determinism and human responsibility “don’t fit” because God is God and we’re not, the idea being that in the mind of God, these things “fit” because his ways and thoughts are “higher” than ours. But I submit that they truly “don’t fit” in God’s mind or ours because Howerton has misinterpreted Acts 18:10. He has read theistic determinism into the text (eisegesis), and this has created the contradiction that he finds he must extricate himself from by proposing incomprehensibility and the need for humility. Howerton quotes from Psalm 8 and Isaiah 55 to support his point. But in fact, contrary to the idea that God predestines some to salvation and others to damnation, that is, to life and to death, Psalm 8 emphasizes how mindful God is of mankind and cares for all human beings.
“When I consider your heavens,
the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars,
which you have set in place,
what is mankind that you are mindful of them,
human beings that you care for them?” (Ps. 8:3-4, NIV)
And Isaiah 55 is not a passage that diminishes man’s reason or makes it God’s prerogative to turn upside down what we know to be logical and good. Indeed, the rules of logic and our moral framework come from God. I encourage you to study Psalm 8 and Isaiah 55 in context. There is no justification for employing Isaiah 55 in support of a humility geared towards the acceptance of deterministic predestination. Indeed, the passage speaks against a deterministic predestination to salvation.
“Seek the Lord while he may be found;
call to him while he is near.
Let the wicked one abandon his way
and the sinful one his thoughts;
let him return to the Lord,
so he may have compassion on him,
and to our God, for he will freely forgive.”
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
and your ways are not my ways.”
This is the Lord’s declaration.
“For as heaven is higher than earth,
so my ways are higher than your ways,
and my thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isa. 55:6-9, CSB)
Note that God’s thoughts and ways are higher than ours, but this is in reference to his compassion and forgiveness offered to the wicked. Such compassion and forgiveness for the wicked is not naturally found in the thoughts and ways of men, especially those with a pharisaical bent. Note also that contrary to the Calvinist doctrine of total inability, God desires the wicked to seek him, call upon him, and return to him so he can freely forgive them. In dispensing his grace, he outperforms our thoughts and our ways and is not subject to our expectations and demands of who deserves his grace (Matt. 20:1-16). He makes gracious provision for all. And Isaiah assures us that God is a God of abundant grace and mercy to all. Therefore, these texts actually speak against Howerton’s Calvinist definition of predestination. So the Calvinist has to read into these verses their determinism. They do this because they are notorious for ignoring context. These verses don’t suggest that God, because he makes nations tremble, the earth quake, and men die at the sight of him, can therefore arbitrarily, or by the pleasure of his own will, compact with himself what he wills to become of each man. These verses do not even suggest that God could create people in an “unequal condition” with respect to their eternal destinies, that is, that “eternal life is foreordained for some, eternal damnation for others.” This text does not support the idea that humility requires us to accept Calvin’s conclusion that, “Therefore, as any man has been created to one or the other of these ends, we speak of him as predestined to life or to death.” (cf. Acts 10:34-35)
So, according to the Calvinist, the Christian’s ability to accept the Calvinist’s contradictory deterministic theology is a sign of humility before God. The litmus test of humility before God is one’s willingness to believe that two contradictory claims are both true! Universal divine causal determinism and genuine human freedom are both true. “Your ways and your thoughts are higher than my thoughts, O Lord” is supposed to convince the Christian that “both are true.” (38:55 – 38:57) But these verses do not give the Calvinist license to turn logical reasoning on its head and claim God can act against what reason and moral intuition tell us and what the Bible clearly teaches us about the nature of God and his ways. There are things that even God cannot do. He cannot tell a lie, he cannot make a square circle, or make 2 + 2 = 5. Neither can he make it so that people freely choose their eternal destiny while he alone has predetermined their eternal destiny. The two propositions are incompatible, even for God, because the cannons of reason and logical thought, along with our moral values, come from God’s very nature and character. These are attributes of who God is. So, more accurately, according to the Calvinist, this is a litmus test as to whether one can ignore what their reason and moral intuitions tell them is a blatant contradiction and an unjust act. Making humility the issue here is spiritual intimidation. The Calvinist is telling us, “Be humble, accept Calvinism’s inconsistencies and contradictions because God’s thoughts and ways are higher than ours.” Yes, they are, but they are not the complete opposite of ours, and neither are they contradictory or unjust. So, according to the Calvinist, for a person to even raise questions or critiques about their deterministic definitions of sovereignty and predestination is an indication of human pride and a failure to be humble before God. I am convinced that we should reject this intimidation. It does not come from the God who, as Howerton himself said, loves us and has a wonderful plan for our lives. Here’s Howteron’s last point.
“Now, last one… You got to get this in your spirit. It fuels evangelism… That’s a big word that means sharing, telling people about Jesus. It fuels evangelism. (40:06 – 40:14)
Upon hearing this, you need to ask yourself, “What is the content of the message about Jesus that I would tell the unbeliever if I believed in predestination as Calvin and Howerton defined it?” In other words, if Howerton were to speak consistently with what he believes about predestination, what would be the words he would say to the unbeliever? Also, how does his definition of predestination “fuel” “sharing” and “telling people about Jesus?” Howerton continues,
“The reason Jesus tells Paul this, he’s like, “Don’t be afraid. You keep on preaching.” And what he says is, “The reason you keep on preaching is because I’m guaranteeing that when you preach, it’s going to work, because when I decide to save people, it’s going to happen.” (40:15 – 40:30)
But this raises the question as to what Paul preached. What was the content of Paul’s gospel message? Was it consistent with deterministic predestination, or was it a message of contingency and possibility, that is, did it have elements that warned, invited, commanded, pleaded, and called upon people to make a decision to believe and held them responsible for whatever decision they made? The point is that this latter type of “good news” (i.e., God loves you, Jesus died for you, your sins can be forgiven, you can be saved by repenting from your sin and believing in Jesus, etc.), is incompatible with the doctrine of deterministic predestination in which God has already predetermined each person’s eternal destiny (i.e., TULIP). The former requires the person to freely respond to that message; the latter disallows such a response and is inconsistent with the content of the “good news.” Hence, if the Calvinists were to give people this genuinely “good news,” their message would be in direct contradiction with their theological and soteriological beliefs. They would be speaking disingenuously to the non-elect. Now the Calvinist will say, “Well, we don’t know who the non-elect are?” But that’s precisely the point. You cannot proclaim the above “good news” to everyone because, in proclaiming it to the non-elect, which is bound to be the case, you are not telling them what can be or is true for them. It does not apply to them. And therefore, as said to them, this “good news” message becomes not only a mockery, but also a lie, and that from God! More on these issues in PART 2.
Howerton goes on to use Paul’s conversion as proof that every conversion is deterministically predestined by God. But this is a non sequitur. The special circumstances of Paul’s conversion and God’s call and purpose for his life (Acts 9:15-16, 13:2, 22:10, 14-15, 26:15-18. See also Acts 10:39-43), give us no warrant to believe that the same “guarantee” is the way all people come to faith. What God guaranteed was that there would be a way of salvation for all sinners by faith in Christ. God accomplished that salvation in Christ through the actions of sinful people (Acts 2:23, 3:13-15, 4:11-12, 27-28). But here we know that when Howerton says, “When I [God] decide to save people,” he means, “When I [God] decide to cause my elect ones to believe and receive the salvation I predestined them to, it’s going to happen.” Let’s continue.
“And here’s why this is really, really good news. Because some of you, you’ve got lost friends or parents or you’ve got prodigal sons or daughters and they hate Jesus. They don’t want to have anything to do with Christianity and they’re running the opposite way, not seeking at all. And what this means is that God can save anybody. God can save anybody, man. Anybody… In fact, you may be going, “Yeah, but what if they’re not chosen?” …Here’s how I think about that, You wouldn’t be burdened for them on earth unless that burden had been birthed at the throne of heaven. So, you keep praying. You keep sharing. You keep going forward in confidence because God can save anybody.” (41:45 – 42:37)
So the “good news” is that “God can save anybody.” How is that the “good news” of the gospel message? What Howerton’s deterministic predestination has done is short-circuit the gospel as the means by which God confronts sinners with their sin and also comforts them by offering them a way out of the punishment their sin deserves. What makes the “good news” good is the assurance that God loves each of us and has made a way for us to be saved through faith in Jesus. It is easy to see that all this cannot be assured to the sinner nor consistently or genuinely spoken to anybody, given the deterministic definition of predestination. So the question, “Yeah, but what if they’re not chosen?” is an excellent question and gets to the heart of the matter. Howerton does not give a satisfactory answer to this question. I don’t even know what his explanation of a person’s burden being “birthed at the throne of heaven” has to do with that question. What the question does is expose the fact that if your friend, parent, son, or daughter is not among those God has chosen to save, they cannot be saved. They never will be saved. So what Howerton is actually telling us is that “God can save anybody he has predestined to save.” And that seems to me to be a tautology. It tells us nothing more than we’ve already been told. “God saves those he has predestined to be saved.” Now, Howerton’s advice that “you keep praying. You keep sharing. You keep going forward in confidence…” will have nothing to do with what God has already decided regarding the person’s eternal destiny. Praying, sharing, or pressing forward in confidence will do nothing to alter what has been predetermined by God before the beginning of the world. And what are you to put your “confidence” in? What is your confidence grounded in? Something you have no knowledge of? A decision of God you are not privy to? The point is not that “God can save anybody,” which really means, “God can save anybody in their present circumstances, as bad as they are, but he saves nobody that he has not predestined to save.” It was Paul’s circumstances that Howerton emphasized in his story of Paul’s conversion. But the Bible tells us that, “Anybody can be saved because God has worked salvation for all in Jesus, and they can appropriate that salvation by putting their faith and trust in Jesus.” No problems of inconsistency or contradiction there.
Finally, you need to carefully listen to your preachers and teachers. Their words may sound biblically correct, but they may intend a different meaning that supports their deterministic theological and soteriological position. When carefully scrutinized, they may even have a meaning contrary to the biblical gospel. For instance, I submit that it was disingenuous of Howerton to say, “God can save anybody,” which, on the face of it, is something all Christians could affirm. But can Howerton say, “Anybody can be saved.” There is a big difference between these two. Howerton’s phrase is particular and limited with respect to whom God desires to save – anybody he has predestined. The second is inclusive and unlimited with respect to whom God desires to save – anybody who believes. So God can save “anybody.” But how? In the former, “anybody” refers to “whoever of the many” God has predestined to salvation. In the latter, “anybody” refers to “however many will believe.” The former is not the biblical gospel; the latter is. And the latter is the testimony throughout the book of Acts, as we will see in PART 2.
Finally, this problem of determinism follows Howerton to the end of his sermon. He finishes by promoting the “One More” card on which Christians write in the name of a person that “I’m asking Jesus to help me help into the kingdom.” (42:59) On Calvinism, this can only refer to the Christian being the means by which one’s predestination or unconditional election is realized. It serves as a reminder to pray for and invite that unbeliever “to experience Jesus at Lakepointe.” These cards are used to pray, “God, give me a chance to share your love with that person.” (43:15) So, I ask again, what would it mean to “help someone into the kingdom” or “share your [God’s] love” with a person when the one sharing this love believes that God has already chosen whom he will save, with the corrollary being that all others cannot be saved? What could they say to this person about God’s kingdom and love that would be genuinely true about that person? And what could they say to that person about God’s kingdom and love that would be consistent with their belief in deterministic predestination or unconditional election? I don’t see how they can honestly tell any and every person that “God loves you,” “Jesus died for you,” and “You can be saved by believing this message of “good news” and turning and trusting in Jesus” when, by their own admission, they don’t know who is and who is not predestined or elected to salvation. So you can see how this Calvinist belief system short-circuits the gospel by introducing ignorance and doubt about the way of salvation. Note also that the content and call to faith in the above “good news” is in conflict with the theistic determinism of Howerton’s predestination and the doctrine of unconditional election to salvation. The non-predestined and non-elect cannot do what God is calling them to do – believe to be saved. Therefore, contrary to Howerton’s claim that his deterministic definition of predestination “fuels evangelism,” it rather only introduces a barrier of doubt and confusion into evangelism. Calvinism is incompatible with the true meaning and purpose of evangelism, which means to bring the “good news” to all sinners.
Summary Thoughts
So Howerton never coherently or textually supported his Calvinist definition of predestination. It was just taken for granted in this text. His five-part explanation was inconsistent with his Calvinist definition of predestination, which he revealed as the sermon continued. Also, even though Howerton says, “…we unite around the mission of seeing the gospel advance and God honored” (35:58 – 36:06), he has no message of truly good news to tell people that would be consistent with his deterministic definition of predestination. Yet, since he believes “both are true,” he would probably respond, “Well, since both are true, I can honestly tell people the genuine ‘good news’ of the gospel.” But it was at the point that he affirmed that two mutually exclusive or contradictory propositions are both true and taught in Scripture that he went very wrong logically and hermeneutically. That is, when he affirmed this contradiction, he not only impugned the inspiration and authority of Scripture, but he also revealed his faulty hermeneutic. He was telling us that he operates on a hermeneutic of incoherence. This is the Calvinists’ hermeneutic. He is comfortable with stating that two contradictory propositions can both be true. That is what I call a hermeneutic of incoherence. He will also say that this is what the Bible teaches. But that is to beg the question. That is what we are attempting to discern. So this issue is ultimately a matter of hermeneutics, that is, what is the proper way to interpret Scripture – coherently or incoherently.
What we see and hear in this sermon is the confusion (by Howerton’s own admission) that a deterministic definition of predestination produces with what is clearly taught in Scripture about human freedom and responsibility, and especially the gospel being “good news.” Now we know this is a faulty hermeneutic because it eviscerates the gospel of its good news.
So, we know what the verse does not mean. And even though the Lord’s statement has been made confusing to us, again by Howerton’s own admission, because of the Calvinist’s insistance that it refers to a deterministic predestination, I believe we can discern what Acts 18:10 means to tell us from A) The Broader Context of Acts, B) The Immediate Context and The Meaning of the Verse, C) The Nature of Gospel Preaching, and D) The Biblical Definition and Content of the Gospel as “Good News.”
Let’s examine these four contextual and gospel issues in PART 2.
Footnotes
- John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 926. ↩︎
- There are some things that could be said about Pastor Howerton’s presentation that would not serve the point of this post, and I want to avoid ad hominem critiques. But to call a Christian who may have objections or legitimate concerns about how predestination is being presented or defined, “Skippy,” I find demeaning. ↩︎
- I refer you to the mountain of evidence I have provided on this site and in the bibliography. ↩︎
The Truth of the Gospel 