A Biblical Response to the Ex-Evangelical Movement

[Edited title on February 15th, 2018. Title was formerly “Bad Theology and Hypocrisy in Churches, Doubting Christians and Ex-Evangelicals, and the Need for Sound Doctrine and Accountability in the Church Today”]

My tone is one of gentleness and I hope you read it that way. I would respectfully ask that you read this if you want to know what I really believe rather make an assumption or misrepresentation of me. I recommend you read my “Discussion with David” article, where I interview a former atheist/ Ex-Evangelical.



I had included this in my “Discussion With David” article but I feel it is important to include it here too.

“Ex-Evangelicals are not rebranded Christians. Many of us are not Christians at all; we are a group that consists of progressive Christians, people who have joined other religions, agnostics, and atheists, some of whom are quite vocal as atheists. What brings us together is what Blake Chastain, who coined the term “exvangelical” to use as the name for his podcast, describes as “a shared sociocultural heritage.” Regarding the term “exvangelical,” Chastain sent me the following statement:

I am currently applying for a trademark relative to the title of the podcast and any future titled or branded projects, but the term itself can and should be used by people who have left evangelicalism, regardless of their current state of belief.

Exvangelicals’ paths out of Evangelicalism are often slow and painful. The break takes time and effort because, as opposed to merely desiring respectability while holding to bigoted beliefs and #ChristianAltFacts, we chose to stare the toxicity and pervasive abuse of Evangelicalism in the face, to recognize our complicity in the vast systemic harm that Evangelicalism does (to ourselves and others, particularly to women, people of color, and members of the LGBTQ community), and then we changed our beliefs. We changed our beliefs despite facing a heavy social cost, because that is the respectable and moral thing to do. Becoming an ex-Evangelical requires profound transformation, not cosmetic rebranding. No cheap grace…Ex-Evangelicals are, as a rule, deeply concerned with understanding the relationship between conservative theology and authoritarianism. And here’s the rub. The theology of Evangelicalism–even when shared by a small minority of progressive Evangelicals–is inherently authoritarian.” -Christopher Stroop

“Christians that Share the Gospel are Manipulative, Use Gaslighting, and are Authoritarian.”

This is the tweet that brought me into the world of Ex-Evangelicals:


I was talking to an atheist and I said that loving our family more than God is a sin. I said that loving ourselves is selfish and sinful. I was respectful, I wasn’t arrogant but I said what I believe to be the truth. God says in His Word that loving ourselves more than Him is idolatry.

Therefore, be imitators of God, as dearly loved children, and walk in love, as Christ also loved us and gave himself for us, a sacrificial and fragrant offering to God. But sexual immorality and any impurity or greed should not even be heard of[a] among you, as is proper for saints. Obscene and foolish talking or crude joking are not suitable, but rather giving thanks. For know and recognize this: Every sexually immoral or impure or greedy person, who is an idolater, does not have an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty arguments, for God’s wrath is coming on the disobedient[b] because of these things. ‘

Ephesians 5:1-6

So if you have been raised with Christ, seek the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is your[a] life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.

Therefore, put to death what belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desire, and greed, which is idolatry. Because of these, God’s wrath is coming upon the disobedient,[b] and you once walked in these things when you were living in them. But now, put away all the following: anger, wrath,malice, slander, and filthy language from your mouth. Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old self with its practices 10 and have put on the new self. You are being renewed in knowledge according to the image of your[c]Creator. 11 In Christ there is not Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, slave and free; but Christ is all and in all.

Colossians 3:1-11

The atheist I had been talking to retweeted me (shared my tweet on twitter) and tagged Christopher Stroop. Christopher retweeted my tweet, so naturally I thought I would respond to his statement. The following tweets show our exchange and then the other tweets I’ve included are about sharing the gospel being manipulative, gaslighting, and authoritarian:






















“Sharing The Gospel Involves Using Gaslighting, is Abusive, and is Manipulative”

I had tried engaging Christopher on twitter but realized he was not interested in a dialogue with a Christian that shares the gospel. I stopped directly interacting with him and other Ex-Evangelicals. I just followed his tweets. I tweeted this on February 10, 2018:


I will now clarify this tweet. Certainly Ex-Evangelicals don’t mind talking to Christians and many have Christian friends. However from my experience, many, if not all Ex-Evangelicals do not want Christians to share the gospel with them. Ex-Evangelicals don’t want you to use your “manipulation and gaslighting” on them. However, when you are making claims that sharing the gospel is manipulative and gaslighting, there are people who disagree and will want to challenge the claims. I haven’t made any personal attacks but have tried to challenge the ideas that Ex-Evangelicals are putting out, quite vocally I might add. If you read the rest of this article you’ll know what I mean when I said “God has to open their eyes to His gospel”.

I didn’t use a hashtag, I just used the word “Ex-Evangelical” and some people saw it and commented on it:






Beth retweeted me, I then responded to this tweet by posting a link to this article and I was subsequently blocked. Chris retweeted me and then I responded to his claim and he accused me of gaslighting. Let’s just say that I actually had gaslighted Chris. Some genuine questions about this…why is gaslighting wrong? If moral autonomy is what you are devoted to then how could you be opposed to gaslighting if someone believes gaslighting is okay according to their subjective moral autonomy”?

Why I Share the Gospel

I believe the gospel is the truth. I believe that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life and no one comes to the Father but through Him. I do not share the gospel because of “insecurity & ego” or because of my “persecution complex”. I don’t “gaslight” or “manipulate”. I share the gospel because it is the only truth. I don’t coerce people or try to manipulate people to say a prayer. I simply share the truth of Scripture and let God do the work. It’s not my job to save people. God is the one who saves people. As John 6:44 says “no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them”.

However, I also don’t sugarcoat or water down the gospel either. The gospel is essentially the good news that Jesus Christ (God in the flesh, fully God & fully man) lived a perfect, sinless life and died on the cross. He atoned for sin and satisfied God’s wrath. Those that believe in Christ are forgiven of their sin and indwelled by the Holy Spirit. They are given a new nature. Christians still struggle with sin, however they are no longer slaves to sin (Romans 6). They now hate their sin.

How Christians Should Share the Gospel

It is not our job as Christians to convince or persuade people to become Christians. We do not pull a bait-and-switch on people. I don’t like friendship evangelism too much for this reason. Paul says we are not to butter people up or use emotional manipulation (turning down the lights, playing a sweet soft music, and leading people through an emotional prayer experience).

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with eloquent wisdom, so that the cross of Christ will not be emptied of its effect.

1 Corinthians 1:17

When I came to you, brothers and sisters, announcing the mystery[a] of God to you, I did not come with brilliance of speech or wisdom. I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. My speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of wisdom[b] but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not be based on human wisdom but on God’s power. We do, however, speak a wisdom among the mature, but not a wisdom of this age, or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. On the contrary, we speak God’s hidden wisdom in a mystery, a wisdom God predestined before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age knew this wisdom, because if they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But as it is written,

What no eye has seen, no ear has heard,
and no human heart has conceived—
God has prepared these things for those who love him.[c]

10 Now God has revealed these things to us by the Spirit, since the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. 11 For who knows a person’s thoughts[d]except his spirit within him? In the same way, no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who comes from God, so that we may understand what has been freely given to us by God. 13 We also speak these things, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual things to spiritual people.[e] 14 But the person without the Spirit[f] does not receive what comes from God’s Spirit, because it is foolishness to him; he is not able to understand it since it is evaluated[g] spiritually. 15 The spiritual person, however, can evaluate[h]everything, and yet he himself cannot be evaluated by anyone. 16 For

who has known the Lord’s mind,
that he may instruct him?[i]

But we have the mind of Christ.

 1 Corinthians 2

Why I Care for Doubting Christians and Ex-Evangelicals

My concern with de-conversion stories is not that they are intentional deceit, persecution, or work of the devil. In fact, I have read many Ex-Evangelical stories. I’ve read at least 10 of Christopher Stroop’s articles. I’ve read the stories shared through the “empty the pews” hashtag. I am angry about a lot of the same things. I can personally think of many people that were raised in “Christianity”, kids that I went to church with, that now want nothing to do with Christ, the gospel, or the church. There are many Ex-Evangelicals in the U.S. today because these two things have happened over the past 50+ years:

1. People were taught bad theology/false teaching in the church and at home

  • A pastor telling you that you have anxiety & depression because you are harboring sin in your life, or because you have a demon.
  • Poor teaching about the “unforgivable sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit”. This leads to or has led to some Christians living with anxiety and fear about whether or not they committed the sin.
  • Pastors that create theology from quoting Scripture out of context. Pastors that twist the Word of God.
  • Any church where pastors or leaders cannot be questioned and/or demand loyal devotion.
  • Moralistic Therapeutic Deism. Being a Christian is about “doing the right and moral things”. WWJD. Veggie Tales theology. Being a Christian means that “when you pray for God to take a sin away from you that He will do that immediately and if He doesn’t, and you still struggle with a sin (like masturbating, lust, anger, etc.) it means you are not saved or in danger of losing your salvation.
  • Terrible Contemporary Christian Music. Over-emotional, sensational, “Jesus is my boyfriend” songs. Me-centered worship songs. Oceans. ’nuff said
  • Cultural Fundamentalism such as not being able to listen to “secular” rock music. Claiming that songs like Highway to Hell by AC/DC and Number of the Beast by Iron Maiden are satanic (Hint…they’re not satanic. Just look at the background to the writing of the songs). Kids not being allowed to play Pokemon because it promoted evolution and was influenced by the Egyptian book of the dead (I experienced this one).
  • End-times obsessed Christians that use fear mongering about the rapture.
  • Seeker sensitive/church growth movements. Purpose Driven Life. Running the church like a business and using marketing strategies. Vision casting. Making church for the unchurched. Rock show worship services. Sermons that are 99% personal stories and 1% Scripture.
  • Emergent church, Rob Bell.
  • New Apostolic Reformation, Bethel Church, YWAM, IHOP, etc.

2. People saw hypocritical Christians in the church and at home.

  • Either having experienced sexual abuse by a “Christian” or having heard about sexual abuse perpetrated by “Christians”.
  • Moral failure of (popular) Christians, thinking of Jim Bakker. Tim Lambesis who was in a “Christian” metal band As I Lay Dying who hired a hitman to kill his wife.
  • Strict parents who imposed strict moral rules on kids but lived hypocritical lives.

There often is a blending of these two things of which the effects are catastrophic:

Think Creflo Dollar, Joel Osteen and word-faith/prosperity gospel hucksters living lives of luxury, profiting off of and deceiving people. They peddle false teaching and live hypocritical lives.

Think Jim Jones or other cults.

Think abusers that quote Scripture and say God told them to abuse you. That “God is happy when you do X for me”.

My concern is for doubting Christians that read the de-conversion stories and abandon the gospel. There are indeed many pews that need to be emptied. However, I disagree that all “conservative white evangelical” pews should be emptied. Empty the pews of bad churches and fill the pews of healthy churches that teach what accords with sound doctrine and where leaders are held accountable.

The Hope for Suffering and Abuse

I empathize and sympathize with anyone that was sexually, physically, or emotionally abused by someone, especially if you were abused by a “Christian”. I don’t seek to minimize the trauma you have as a result of abuse, anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts or attempts. Maybe you are a recovering addict. Addicted to alcohol, drugs, and/or sex. You won’t find solace in any of those things. The problem is not with God…the problem is sinful, wicked people that abuse. God did not abuse you.

It is hard to work through trauma, I’ve done it myself. I’ve experienced depression, depersonalization, and derealization. I know what it feels like to be hurt, to endure suffering. We all experience suffering. However, the hope for healing and surviving is found at the cross. It is found in laying down my painful, traumatizing experiences at the feet of Christ. Jesus suffered and died on the cross for us…the enemies of God (Colossians 1:21, Romans 5:11).

It’s saying to God and thinking to yourself something like: “What I went through was wicked. It was sinful and terrible. I’m hurting, God. I’m scared and I feel alone. I have intrusive thoughts every day. Images and mental pictures are running in my mind constantly. I don’t feel real. I feel like I’m going crazy. My mind fights against me. I awake with agony. I put on a fake smile when I am screaming and sad inside. People have hurt me. I feel worthless. But God, You did not forsake me or abandon me. You are with me and you comfort me. Please bring me healing and comfort. Thank You for your grace. Thank You for forgiving me of my sins that I’ve committed against You. Thank You for redeeming me. Father, give me peace. I know it will take time to heal but I trust Your sovereignty. I trust in You.”.

The Folly of Human Autonomy

Ex-Evangelical Christopher Stroop champions moral autonomy as being good for society and “conservative Christian theology” like calvinism as being “irredeemable, sadistic, manipulative, gaslighting”, and bad for society. My genuine question is, who’s moral autonomy do we follow? What if according to my moral autonomy I decide to emotionally hurt people and it brings me pleasure to do so? With no objective morality, how can Chris object to something like this? It would simply be his subjective opinion on morality based on his reasoning and experiences. Why should we trust our reasoning and experience? Are they infallible?

The ultimate problem is that we don’t want to submit to God’s authority. We want moral autonomy. We want to do what we think is best. We want to do what makes us happy. We are our own god. Do you know the famous quote by Karl Marx? He got it wrong…I have corrected it:

Moral autonomy is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

Here are some great quotes by Cornelius Van Til:

“If one does not make human knowledge wholly dependent upon the original self-knowledge and consequent revelation of God to man, then man will have to seek knowledge within himself as the final reference point. Then he will have to seek an exhaustive understanding of reality. He will have to hold that if he cannot attain to such an exhaustive understanding of reality he has no true knowledge of anything at all. Either man must then know everything or he knows nothing. This is the dilemma that confronts every form of non-Christian epistemology”

“The charges made against this type of reasoning we must turn upon those who made them. It will be said of this type of reasoning that it introduces the subjective element of belief in God, which all men do not share. Of this we can only say that all men should share that belief, and before the fall of man into sin man did have that belief. Belief in God is the most human attitude conceivable. It is abnormal not to believe in God. We must therefore hold that only the Christian theist has real objectivity, while the others are introducing false prejudices, or subjectivity.

The charge is made that we engage in circular reasoning. Now if it be called circular reasoning when we hold it necessary to presuppose the existence of God, we are not ashamed of it because we are firmly convinced that all forms of reasoning that leave God out of account will end in ruin. Yet we hold that our reasoning cannot fairly be called circular reasoning, because we are not reasoning about and seeking to explain facts by assuming the existence and meaning of certain other facts on the same level of being with the facts we are investigating, and then explaining these facts in turn by the facts with which we began. We are presupposing God, not merely another fact of the universe. If God is to come into contact with us at all it is natural that the initiative must be with him. And this will also apply to the very question about the relation of God to us. Accordingly, it is only on God’s own testimony that we can know anything about him.”

“It is not kindness to tell patients that need strong medicine that nothing serious is wrong with them.

“You realize that if you are to change your belief about God, you will also have to change your belief about yourself.”

“For what you have really done in your handling of the evidence for belief in God, is to set yourself up as God. You have made the reach of your intellect, the standard of what is possible or not possible. You have thereby virtually determined that you intend never to meet a fact that points to God. Facts, to be facts at all–facts, that is, with decent scientific and philosophic standing–must have your stamp instead of that of God upon them as their virtual creator.”

“It should not be forgotten in this connection that the minister’s duty is increasingly that of an apologist for Christianity. The general level of education is much higher than it has ever been. Many young people hear of evolution in the high schools and in the college where their fathers never heard of it except as far as a distant something. If the minister would be able to help his young people, he must be a good apologete, and he cannot be a good apologete unless he is a good systematic theologian”

“I shall not convert you at the end of my argument. I think the argument is sound. I hold that belief in God is not merely as reasonable as other belief, or even a little or infinitely more probably true than other belief; I hold rather that unless you believe in God you can logically believe in nothing else. But since I believe in such a God, a God who has conditioned you as well as me, I know that you can to your own satisfaction, by the help of the biologists, the psychologists, the logicians, and the Bible critics reduce everything I have said this afternoon and evening to the circular meanderings of a hopeless authoritarian. Well, my meanderings have, to be sure, been circular; they have made everything turn on God. So now I shall leave you with Him, and with His mercy.”


I stress the importance of not just believing what people say, especially strangers on the internet. Don’t just blindly believe anything someone says. Ask yourself if these things are true. Read the bible and see what it says.

I will end with this passage:

And you were dead in your trespasses and sins 2 in which you previously lived according to the ways of this world,according to the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit now working in the disobedient.[a] 3 We too all previously lived among them in our fleshly desires, carrying out the inclinations of our flesh and thoughts, and we were by nature children under wrath as the others were also. 4 But God, who is rich in mercy,because of his great love that he had for us,[b] 5 made us alive with Christ even though we were dead in trespasses. You are saved by grace! 6 He also raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavens in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might display the immeasurable riches of his grace through his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8 For you are saved by grace through faith, and this is not from yourselves; it is God’s gift— 9 not from works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared ahead of time for us to do.

Ephesians 2:1-10 (You really should just read the entire book of Ephesians to get the whole context)

Is God the Author of Sin? Does God Arbitrarily Predestine People to Hell?

There are many misunderstandings about Calvinism/reformed theology. Two questions people often have for Calvinists:

Is God the author of sin? Did God predestine/arbitrarily send people to Hell?

For information about God’s decree I would direct you to chapter 3 of the 1689 London Baptist Confession:


I stumbled across an excellent explanation on a reddit thread and I want to share it here. It’s an older/archived thread but I thought it was an interesting discussion.

Here is the link:

I’ve provided the discussion here below:


“Hello brothers and sisters, I was wondering if someone could explain to me what first and second causes are and give examples from the Bible. I kinda knew it, but forgot it and I’m not sure anymore…it’s kinda weird”


“First (or “primary”) and second (or “secondary”) causes describe the agents in an effect. The first cause is the ultimate (more indirect) cause, and in this case, is always God. The second cause is the more direct cause, done by a created thing.

God has a decree, and he executes his decree through creation and providence. So, primary and secondary causes mostly appear in a study on concurrence, one of the three acts of God within the work of Providence. In executing his decree in providence, God (primary cause) works in and through a thing (secondary cause) to achieve his will. This is called concurrence.

Though God is the primary cause, of things, he is not the direct agent of things. He works in a secondary cause according to its nature and properties. When a dog barks, God has decreed that the dog bark at that moment, and works in the dog to have it bark. He doesn’t have it meow, or chirp, because it is in the nature of a dog to bark. He created the dog with properties such that it barks. So, he works with things according to their nature. But his “working in the dog” is such that the dog’s action is from itself, of it’s own volition, and properly ascribed to the dog. So when a dog barks, we can say that it is both from God, and from the dog, but is performed only by the dog. God doesn’t bark, the dog barks.

This is all over in the Bible. It might be helpful to look at, say, (Psalm 65:9-10 ESV) “You visit the earth and water it; you greatly enrich it; the river of God is full of water; you provide their grain, for so you have prepared it. 10 You water its furrows abundantly, settling its ridges, softening it with showers, and blessing its growth.”

This passage is speaking about God. So when it says “you visit the earth and water it,” it’s saying “God visits the earth and waters it.” Same thing in verse 10. The actions are ascribed to God, yet he does so through means. He greatly enriches the earth how? He visits the earth and waters it. He waters things how? He softens things how? With showers. He uses showers to soften the furrows. He uses rain to bless the growth on the earth. He works in the showers, according to their nature, such that they cause softening, settling, and growth. Water has the property of aiding growth, and God works in the water to do so. Yet, the “blessings its growth” and “greatly enriching” are both ascribed to God, yet the actions (of watering) are performed properly by the rain. So, the earth grows. What are the causes of its growth? The primary cause of its growth is God. The secondary cause is the rain.

A few other biblical examples wherein the same reasoning can be found:

(Genesis 45:5 ESV) And now do not be distressed or angry with yourselves because you sold me here, for God sent me before you to preserve life.

(Exodus 4:11-12 ESV) Then the LORD said to him, “Who has made man’s mouth? Who makes him mute, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the LORD? 12 Now therefore go, and I will be with your mouth and teach you what you shall speak.”

(Joshua 11:6 ESV) And the LORD said to Joshua, “Do not be afraid of them, for tomorrow at this time I will give over all of them, slain, to Israel. You shall hamstring their horses and burn their chariots with fire.”

(Proverbs 21:1 ESV) The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; he turns it wherever he will.

(Ezra 6:22 ESV) And they kept the Feast of Unleavened Bread seven days with joy, for the LORD had made them joyful and had turned the heart of the king of Assyria to them, so that he aided them in the work of the house of God, the God of Israel.

(Deuteronomy 8:18 ESV) You shall remember the LORD your God, for it is he who gives you power to get wealth, that he may confirm his covenant that he swore to your fathers, as it is this day.

(1 Corinthians 12:6 ESV) and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone.

(Philippians 2:13 ESV) for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.


I’m sorry if this question sounds dumb, but is God the first cause of sin?


It’s not a dumb question, it’s one that needs to be asked if the rest of this is true. It may sound wrong, but God decrees even sin, so we say yes. But there are a few comments and qualifications. First, it must be remembered that the action is properly ascribed to the second cause. Just like when rain waters a plant, God ordained it, but God is not the water that waters the plant; the water nourishes the plant. When a dog barks, God isn’t barking, the dog barks. When people sin, it’s according to his decree, but people sin.

Second, it has to be added that he isn’t the first cause of sin in the same way as he is in other secondary causes. Normally, he provides a kind of “energizing” needed for the second cause to act, according to its own will, according to its own nature. But when someone sins, he simply “gives them up” to their sin. It’s more like a “Oh, you want to do evil? Is that what you want? Fine.” So he doesn’t will sin in the same way he does non-sin.

We see an example of God “giving them up to their sin” in Romans 1 (specifically verse 24):

22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.

Same with Psalm 81 (specifically verse 12):

11“But my people did not listen to my voice; Israel would not submit to me. 12 So I gave them over to their stubborn hearts, to follow their own counsels. 13 Oh, that my people would listen to me, that Israel would walk in my ways!

In both cases, God has decided, it is in his decree, to give them over. And so he is the first cause. But in a way in which he is blameless in the act.

And God does decree, and even uses sin, though we must remember and trust that he does so for good purposes. Like a good-guy thwarting a bad-guy in the midst of his own evil act. The ultimate example in Acts 2 (specifically verse 23):

22 Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know— 23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

So, the answer is yes. He is the first cause of all things (he has decreed, and he is sovereign, after all), but that doesn’t make him the author of sin. The author is the second cause, since the action properly belongs to the second cause.


Thanks brother, now I understand it a little bit better! So in every action God is always the primary cause, but sometimes or most of the time uses secondary causes, right?


Yes, most of the time he uses secondary causes (most of what happens falls under ordinary providence).

Though things like miracles, signs, wonders, etc. only have a primary cause (God), since he is working directly in something by divine power (this is rare, and falls under extraordinary providence). For instance, the Resurrection. Rising from the dead is not a normal property of bodies, or the natural order. He doesn’t work through a created thing to raise someone from the dead, but does so directly by the power of the Holy Spirit.


But miracles were done by God through the apostles in Acts. I’m reading through Acts now and I’ve come up across verses that God likes this “God was performing miracles through Paul” or something of the sorts. That’s also using second causes, right?

What about regeneration?


Astute question! Though we have to be precise: 1) What effect was caused, and 2) what, then, caused the effect?

We can use Acts 3 as an example, where the lame man is made to walk again by Peter.

1) The effect that was caused was the healing of a man’s legs. 2) Technically, the cause of the healing was divine power.

Remember how secondary causes work: If it’s a secondary cause, God is working naturally through a thing’s properties or nature. If we were to identify Peter as the secondary cause of the healing here, we would have to say that God was working according to Peter’s nature, or his natural ability to heal legs. But by nature, humans don’t have that kind of power, property, or ability.

So, it’s not quite the same as watering trees. If we used the scheme above for watering trees, we’d say God uses water to nourish the trees. So 1) the effect produced is a nourished tree, and 2) the nourishment effect was caused by water, according to its natural properties.

So, in the case of Peter and the lame man, God performed a miraculous healing. The cause of the healing was divine power, but the occasion of the healing was Peter’s words.