Search Results

NeoMoral Imperialism Morality in Western culture has become based on an insular view of what the majority thinks. By that I mean, the average man walking down the street often doesn’t believe that their morality comes from a concrete source of authority, but rather it comes from how they perceive “the majority” sees what is right and wrong.And with social media algorithms becoming better and better, how we perceive the majority becomes smaller and smaller. Heading 5 NeoMoral Imperialism Mitchell Leach December 10, 2025 There once was a day when Christians winced at the — once-progressive — notion of “coexist.” You remember the bumper stickers. I remember going on a youth retreat with my church, and my youth pastor saw that bumper sticker and laughed at it. This was the time when Christianity and Christian morals were the dominant view in American culture. I have heard Christians say — recently — that they wish the notion of coexistence could be extended to them. No longer is it acceptable to say, “I believe this, you believe something different. But we can look past that and live in peace.” Morality Based on Majority Morality in Western culture has become based on an insular view of what the majority thinks. By that I mean, the average man walking down the street often doesn’t believe that their morality comes from a concrete source of authority, but rather it comes from how they perceive “the majority” sees what is right and wrong. And with social media algorithms becoming better and better, how we perceive the majority becomes smaller and smaller. It becomes easy to see your world through the insular lens of your social media.[1] As wesaw in the 2016 and 2020 elections, and as we have seen every day since. This affects our view of morality drastically if our view is based on the how we perceive the majority. If we are seeing — on our feeds — the a rhetoric that proclaims that not only the acceptance of homosexuality, but the requirement to affirm homosexuality, we will begin to believe — wrongly — that this is the dominant belief in America. This leads us to a huge question... Is defending a religious position homophobic? This is a question that is progressively becoming more and more relevant in Western culture. Carl Truman, a professor at Grove City College, and author of TheRise and Triumph of the Modern Self argues, Mere tolerance of homosexuality is bound to become unacceptable. The issue is not one of simply decriminalizing behavior; that would certainly mean that homosexual acts were tolerated by society.[2] Truman hits on an important shift in the morality of what he calls a “culture of expressive individualism.” Simply being tolerant of a view of sexuality that goes against the religion you believe in is no longer acceptable. Now if you don’t celebrate these forms of sexuality, you are now a bigot and homophobic. It is ok for someone to be tolerant of an action, and to yet not affirm it because of areligious based moral belief. To say it isn't is to say my morality is the only true morality. Which is itself intolerance toward most of the world's religions. In a sense, this becomes a form of — what author Alan Ryan calls liberal imperialism[3], or what I call neo-moral imperialism. Where white men from Europe came to a new world and because they believed it was their duty to colonize the savage beliefs of the uneducated natives, so it is today. People who would find themselves in the top 90% of the global income, are condemning nearly two-thirds of the world's populations [4] beliefs as archaic. If it was wrong for Europeans to colonize the native tribes of America, then this new form of imperialism must also be wrong too. If you're saying that I can't believe what I believe about sexuality, because you think I'm wrong, you should then afford me that same right. Freedom of speech and religion Do we believe that freedom of speech is a universal right? Better yet, do we believe that for someone to talk about their own religious morality is protected by freedom of speech? If not then is it protected by freedom of religion? Either all theism is for idiots, or it is acceptable for people to believe that there is a God who has a moral code. If you want to believe the narrative that all theism is for idiots, you are easily in the global minority. It is insulting to legitimately oppressed groups. In fact, it is Islamophobic and antisemitic. How can you see the danger in wanting governments to require religions that don’t conform to a modern view of sexuality — that affirms homosexuality — to change their beliefs, as a huge danger to any belief system? [5] It takes a special kind of arrogance to call an entire religion; wrong, intolerant, hateful, bigoted, homophobic, and archaic, based on their experience alone. It may sound harsh, but it is genuinely arrogant to believe, “I’m right and everyone else is wrong,” when you have no authoritative source to draw that morality. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, they all have religious texts telling them what they believe their God tells them is right and wrong. As a Christian, I believe that my God has told humanity who He is by giving his people rules about what is right and wrong. To say it another way, I believe the most powerful and righteous being in all of the universe has told me — among many laws — that homosexuality is a sin. When someone — who isn’t committed to any form of theism, can stand on their own authority (void of any religious text or appeal), and condemn genuine religious beliefs, you’ve become the very intolerance you have fought so long and hard to defeat. Can we actually coexist? Or is it necessary to imperialize your form of morality up to everyone who disagrees with you? [1] Alexander George Theodoridis, “The Hyper-Polarization of America,” ScientificAmericanBlog Network (Scientific American, November 7, 2016), https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-hyper-polarization-of-america/ . [2] Carl R. Trueman and Rod Dreher, The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self: Cultural Amnesia, Expressive Individualism, and the Road to Sexual Revolution(Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2020). [3] Alan Ryan, “Liberal Imperialism,” The Making of Modern Liberalism, May 2012, https://doi.org/10.23943/princeton/9780691148403.003.0006 . [4] Conrad Hackett and David McClendon, “Christians Remain World's LargestReligiousGroup, but They Are Declining in Europe,” Pew Research Center (Research Center, May 31, 2020), https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/05/christians-remain-worlds-largest-religious-group-but-they-are-declining-in-europe/ . [5] Saskia Glas and Niels Spierings, “Rejecting Homosexuality but ToleratingHomosexuals: The Complex Relations between Religiosity and Opposition toHomosexuality in 9 ArabCountries,” Social Science Research 95 (2021): p.102533, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2021.102533 . You’ve probably heard the term legalism, or legalist used — not just in the church — but in culture abroad. Legalism carries a clearly negative connotation (and for good reason). Yet legalism isn’t a word found in the English Bible, but that doesn’t mean the Bible doesn’t say anything about it. Paul uses the phrase “works of the law” eight times in his writings (Romans 2:15, 3:20, 3:28, Galatians 2:16, 3:2, 3:5, 3:10). Drawing the Line of Legalism Read Learn More About What We Believe Prosper Christian Reformed Church holds that the Bible is the inerrant, divinely inspired Word of God and the highest authority for faith and life. We believe in the centrality of the gospel: that all people are sinners in need of salvation, which comes through Jesus Christ’s atoning death and resurrection, by grace alone through faith alone. We practices infant baptism as a sign of covenant inclusion and uphold traditional biblical teachings on marriage, gender roles, and sexuality. We affirm Reformed theology, including the five points of Calvinism, and embrace an amillennial view of Christ’s reign and the end times. What We Believe

How is Man Made Right With God? If you look at any human relationship – any meaningful one at that – you will find injustice from either party. It is inescapable, humanity defaults toward relational injustice, not towards relational justice. We inflict harm to those we love, and those who love us. Humanity has a strange propensity to cause brokenness in relationships. We do this not just in our horizontal relationships, but in our vertical relationship with God.  How is man made right with God? Heading 5 How is Man Made Right With God? Mitchell Leach October 15, 2024 If you look at any human relationship – any meaningful one at that – you will find injustice from either party. It is inescapable, humanity defaults toward relational injustice, not towards relational justice. We inflict harm to those we love, and those who love us. Humanity has a strange propensity to cause brokenness in relationships. We do this not just in our horizontal relationships, but in our vertical relationship with God. How is man made right with God? This is the question, the most important question anyone can ask. Therefore, the answer we come to must be correct. The question that all of humanity has asked, since time began. Life eternal hangs on our answer to this question. One may argue that this is the question scripture answers; in the Old Testament and New Testament, from Genesis to Revelation, we find the redemption plan for humanity. Paul lays this out succinctly in Romans 3:21-26. In this text we will find; the need for saving, the means by which we are saved, the responsibility of humans for salvation, and what happened in order for us to be counted as righteous. Over the years this passage has garnered some attention from notable scholars. John Piper calls this section of scripture the most important paragraph in the bible. Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones also says these are the most important verses in the bible. The doctrine that this passage uncovers – that of justification – Martin Luther says, is “appointed for the rise and fall of the church.” That means where the church gets off to call itself ordained by God is whether or not it believes and holds true to the central idea in this famous paragraph. Martin also says this is, “the chief point of, and the very central place of the Epistle, and of the whole Bible.” What Paul writes to the church in Rome – here in the next five verses – shapes what Christianity is. These verses have changed the history of the world. They have caused, wars, how cultures act, and changed morality. But most importantly, they have saved thousands of souls who would have been lost. What Paul writes in the next five verses may very well be some of the most important words you will ever read, ever teach your children, your congregation, and/or your family. It is crucial that we understand them well. 21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— Paul uses the language of “But now.” This is a clear contrast to what he was describing in previous verses. Paul just finished explaining how all humanity – under the law – will find guilt with God. Paul is moving from one era – under the law – to a new era; by grace, through faith, in Christ. As we make this shift from the old era to the new, we make a shift from the wrath of God to the righteousness of God. Paul’s point is to try to show the church in Rome - and to a further extent all who would ever read this letter – that anyone who is made right with God is made right apart from keeping the law. The law has done a bad job at justifying the Jews in the Old Testament. Here again, we see the beauty of the Gospel. We cannot make ourselves right by earning salvation through works, but wholly by God’s grace alone. This does not mean that God’s law is void or insufficient. We (who are in Christ) still must acknowledge the law and desire to keep its commandments, both in the Old Testament and the New Testament. Even though it was not through the Law and Prophets, the whole Old Testament foreshadows the coming Savior and the way to become right with God. 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. Paul repeats the words the righteousness of God, to add clarity to the statement in verse 21. This is great for us who are a considerable distance from the New Testament writer. This gives us no room to question the subject of this verse. Christianity is left richer because Paul mentioned this clarifying phrase here. Paul mentions the response of man to the justifying action that God does for us by mentioning faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. I believe that Paul does this to highlight the importance and availability of the universal nature of salvation. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, Paul gives us a beautiful piece of theology here in 22b-23. We see here that just as all who are equally separated from God because of sin – those who are in Christ – are equally declared righteous in His sight. Sin and grace are the great equalizers in this world. 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, When we blend the point of verse 23 and the new ideas about justification in verse 24 we see that the gracious nature of our justification shows the unworthiness of the recipient. The word justified – in the Greek – makes its first sighting in this verse. What we see in this verse is that even though all are guilty, all charges are dropped. This is the legal reality of our salvation. The doctrine of justification is central to this passage. Unfortunately, this work cannot give any worthwhile explanation of this doctrine. Although, I cannot do this topic “justice,” I will try to give a brief summery here. Justification encompasses together forensically – legal affirmation of the righteousness of the believer – together with the imputation of the righteousness of Christ as the center of their acceptance. The present tense of the word are, shows us that the legal verdict for the believer is not an eschatological one, but rather one that is made in the moment of belief. The idea that this is by His grace, means that this is not something we could earn or even accept. God did this before we could ever recognize Him, thus emphasizing the reformed doctrine of unconditional election. God acted first to give us this gift. This is a gift, and the very nature of a gift is that it is not earned. To earn a gift transforms it into a payment owed for work done. The beauty in this is that we could do nothing to earn our salvation, but God who loved us, died while we were still in rebellion to Him. This only glorifies Him more and should make our hearts respond with worship for the One who died to take our place. The Roman idea of redemption is an economical transaction. It means a liberation of a slave through a payment of a price. Typically, how this would work is, an affluent person would pay the price that a slave owed in debt, or was worth. Upon payment, the slave would be declared a free man, or woman. We understand that we once were a slave to sin and that we needed to be redeemed – set free – from that very sin. We then see that Jesus Christ is the only one who could provide such a payment for our freedom. On the one hand, the price that was paid (God Himself dying), far exceeded the worth of the object purchased (all who believe). While on the other hand, the price for sin and death required such a high price. In Western culture, we have a tendency to downplay sin, but in doing so, we downplay the price that had to be paid for sin and death to be defeated. Never more rang true the words of the songwriter, Matt Boswel, “Our sins, they are many, His mercy is more.” 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins God put forth Himself as a propitiation to propitiate Himself. The word propitiation carries the ancient idea of appeasement to a god. What we can understand is that Jesus propitiates the wrath of God the Father, the propitiated. God’s wrath has been tragically, downplayed, or played too highly. With that in mind, I would like to give – in my opinion – a neutral and more orthodox view of God’s wrath. The wrath of God is a reaction to the very opposite of God’s character. God, because of the holiness that is an essential part of His character, then must be put to fury or wrath in the sight of anything unholy. This comes from the Hebrew word in the Old Testament, ʾaph, occurring about 210 times. It is the word for “nose” or “face.” As weird as that is, the concept goes back to an idea of snorting, or wheezing as a sign of anger or disgust. We should note that because one character within the Trinity, is appeasing the other, does not mean that they are acting against each other, or undermining each other’s will. They did this in unity, as planned before the foundation of the world. The word blood harkens back to the Jewish festival of the Day of Atonement. Blood was seen as the life of an animal or a human. Therefore, this means, the very death – antithesis to life – of Jesus appeased the just wrath of God the Father. Paul uses further Old Testament language when he refers to how God he had passed over former sins. This would have been understood by the original audience in Rome. The church in Rome was comprised of both Jewish and Gentile Christians. The Jewish portion was probably there because of the persecution of Christians in Jerusalem, after Pentecost. These Jews would have clearly picked up the salvific overtones from the Passover, in reference to Israel’s physical salvation from slavery. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus In this verse, Paul continues off of the idea in vs 25 of him passing over former sins. In this verse we see the why, or the intended action. God passed over former sins so that he could give - to those who believe – His righteousness. Paul then says so that, to show the reason why God did this action. God must be legally just, yet He desired to bring us back to Himself. In being the justifier of us, He maintained his legal righteousness. Succinctly, Paul is explaining to the church in Rome how they are all separated from God – by nature and by choice. But man is made right with God, when Jesus propitiated God’s righteous wrath as a gift of grace to those who have faith in Him. Barrett, Matthew. The Doctrine on Which the Church Stands or Falls: Justification in Biblical, Theological, Historical, and Pastoral Perspective. 1st ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019) 223. Boswel, Matt. His Mercy is More, Church Songs. (Nashville, Getty Music, 2016) Chorus Easton, M. G. Easton’s Bible Dictionary. (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1893) In Logos Bible Software. Hodge, Charles. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1953. MacArthur, John. Romans 1-8. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1991) 204, 207. Martin Luther, Luther Bible, Margin at Rom. 3:22ff., quoted in Moo, Epistle to the Romans, 1st ed., 2218n1 Millikin, J. A. Wrath, Wrath of God. In C. Brand, C. Draper, A. England, S. Bond, E. R. Clendenen, & T. C. Butler (Eds.), Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary. (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003) p. 1688 In Logos Bible Software Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. Edited by Ned B. Stonehouse, F.F. Bruce, and Gordon D. Fee. 1st ed. Vol. 1. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2015) 221, 224, 227. Piper, John. “PDI Celebration East Conference.” PDI Celebration East Conference. May 31, 1999. Sproul, R. C. The Gospel of God: Expositions of Pauls Letter to the Romans. (Fearn: Christian Focus, 1999) 75. The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016) Romans 3:21-26, John 8:34–36, John 15:10, White, J. Justification. In C. Brand, C. Draper, A. England, S. Bond, E. R. Clendenen, & T. C. Butler (Eds.), Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003) p. 970 God cannot simply blink at sin and allow it to disappear magically. There is always a cost involved. The Bible is clear about the reality that we are sinful people (Genesis 3:6–7; Isaiah 59:1–2; Psalm 51:4). And the Bible states that there must be a penalty paid to make what was wrong, right again. God is just (Gen 18:25; Deut 32:4). Isaiah 5:16 says, “But the LORD of hosts is exalted in justice, and the Holy God shows himself holy in righteousness.” Is God Able To Forgive Sin Without The Cross? Read Learn More About What We Believe Prosper Christian Reformed Church holds that the Bible is the inerrant, divinely inspired Word of God and the highest authority for faith and life. We believe in the centrality of the gospel: that all people are sinners in need of salvation, which comes through Jesus Christ’s atoning death and resurrection, by grace alone through faith alone. We practices infant baptism as a sign of covenant inclusion and uphold traditional biblical teachings on marriage, gender roles, and sexuality. We affirm Reformed theology, including the five points of Calvinism, and embrace an amillennial view of Christ’s reign and the end times. What We Believe

He Gives Himself: A reflection on Matthew 26:26–28 and the Lord's Supper Before the meal ended, Jesus said something remarkable. He said he would not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the day he drank it new with them in his Father's kingdom.⁹ He said it knowing Judas was about to leave to betray him. He said it knowing Peter would deny him before morning. He said it knowing the cross was hours away. And still — he was already looking past it. Already speaking of another meal, another table, a feast on the other side. Heading 5 He Gives Himself: A reflection on Matthew 26:26–28 and the Lord's Supper Mitchell Leach April 7, 2026 The Night He Changed the Sentence There is a moment every year in the Jewish Passover seder when the presider lifts the unleavened bread and says, This is the bread of affliction which our fathers ate in the wilderness. ¹ It is a moment of memory — a reaching back across centuries to the night Israel fled Egypt, when bread was baked without leaven because there was no time to wait, when a lamb died so that a nation might live. Jesus was at that meal the night before his death. He knew the words. He had said them every year since childhood. But on this night, he did something no one expected. He took the bread, and he changed the sentence. This is my body. ² Not the bread of Israel's affliction. The bread of his. What he was doing — what Matthew wants us to see — is that Jesus was not merely observing a feast. He was reinterpreting it. The Passover had always pointed somewhere. The lamb, the blood on the doorpost, the angel of death passing over — all of it had been a shadow of something larger. On that Thursday night, Jesus announced that the thing it was pointing to had arrived. You think the Passover was significant , he was saying. What I am about to do will change the world. Then he took the cup. The One Who Walks Through Alone In the ancient world, when two parties entered a covenant, they would take animals, cut them in half, and walk between the pieces together. It was a binding oath — you were saying: if I break this, may what happened to these animals happen to me. In Genesis 15, God made a covenant with Abraham exactly this way. He laid out the pieces. But then he put Abraham into a deep sleep, and God alone walked through them.³ Abraham didn't walk. God did. The meaning is staggering: I will take the full weight of this. If this covenant is broken, it falls on me. At the Passover table, Jesus took the cup and said, This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. ⁴ Moses had once thrown blood on the people to seal the old covenant.⁵ But this is different. Jesus doesn't throw blood. He invites them to drink it. And he doesn't merely represent the covenant — he becomes the sacrifice that seals it. He is the one who walks through the pieces alone. The bread tells you who he is. The cup tells you what it costs. More Than a Symbol, More Than We Know For centuries the church has wrestled with what happens when we hold that bread and cup in our own hands. The Catholic tradition says the elements become his literal body and blood. The Reformation pushed back. But then the question became unavoidable: if it isn't literal, is it only symbolic? Just a ritual, a memorial, a solemn act of remembrance for a man who died two thousand years ago? The Reformed tradition says no — something real is happening. Something the word symbol is too small to hold. When we eat the bread and drink the cup, we aren't eating and drinking Jesus with our mouths. But we are with our souls. The sixteenth-century Scottish theologian Robert Bruce put it this way: in the Lord's Supper you receive what you receive in the Word — but better. We get Christ better. ⁶ Not a new thing. The same thing, more fully. A communion with the living Christ that is not merely cognitive or memorial, but real. The living bread comes down from heaven and gives life to the world, and faith receives him — not only in the ear, but in the eating.⁷ This is why Jesus, in John 6, speaks of the bread he will give as his flesh, and why he says that unless we eat of it we have no life in us.⁸ The language is jarring on purpose. He is not describing a casual exercise. He is describing an act of intimate union — a receiving of Christ into the soul that is as real and as nourishing as food is to the body. Between Two Tables But there is one more thing happening at that table that we might miss if we stay only at the bread and cup. Before the meal ended, Jesus said something remarkable. He said he would not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the day he drank it new with them in his Father's kingdom.⁹ He said it knowing Judas was about to leave to betray him. He said it knowing Peter would deny him before morning. He said it knowing the cross was hours away. And still — he was already looking past it. Already speaking of another meal, another table, a feast on the other side. There is a table behind us and a table ahead. The table behind: a Passover meal, a lamb, bread broken, a cup poured out, a covenant sealed in blood. The table ahead: a kingdom banquet, face to face, no more symbols, just him — the Lamb who died as the host. Every time we come to the Lord's Supper, we are living between those two tables. We remember what it cost. We anticipate what is coming. We receive the living Christ into our souls and are reminded that this meal is not the last one — only the foretaste of a feast that will have no end. Receive the King who gives himself for sinners. That is what the table is. That is what we are invited to do. Don't miss it. This reflection is based on a Maundy Thursday sermon preached from Matthew 26:26–28 at Prosper Christian Reformed Church. Notes ¹ From the traditional Passover Haggadah ( Ha Lachma Anya ), recited at the beginning of the Maggid section of the seder. ² Matthew 26:26, ESV. ³ Genesis 15:9–17, ESV. The image of God passing through the pieces as a smoking fire pot and flaming torch is a theophany — God himself binding the covenant oath unilaterally. ⁴ Matthew 26:28, ESV. ⁵ Exodus 24:8, ESV: "Behold the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words." ⁶ Robert Bruce, The Mystery of the Lord's Supper , trans. Thomas F. Torrance (London: James Clarke, 1958), 82–83. Originally preached in Edinburgh, 1589. ⁷ John 6:51, ESV: "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh." ⁸ John 6:53, ESV: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." ⁹ Matthew 26:29, ESV. You’ve probably heard the term legalism, or legalist used — not just in the church — but in culture abroad. Legalism carries a clearly negative connotation (and for good reason). Yet legalism isn’t a word found in the English Bible, but that doesn’t mean the Bible doesn’t say anything about it. Paul uses the phrase “works of the law” eight times in his writings (Romans 2:15, 3:20, 3:28, Galatians 2:16, 3:2, 3:5, 3:10). Drawing the Line of Legalism Read Learn More About What We Believe Prosper Christian Reformed Church holds that the Bible is the inerrant, divinely inspired Word of God and the highest authority for faith and life. We believe in the centrality of the gospel: that all people are sinners in need of salvation, which comes through Jesus Christ’s atoning death and resurrection, by grace alone through faith alone. We practices infant baptism as a sign of covenant inclusion and uphold traditional biblical teachings on marriage, gender roles, and sexuality. We affirm Reformed theology, including the five points of Calvinism, and embrace an amillennial view of Christ’s reign and the end times. What We Believe

How Did Jesus Understand Scripture? The danger of believing scripture was primarily written by man, is that it can then be wrong since to be man is to err. We would relegate ourselves to a few of scripture that shows us that we may question parts of scripture. Right around Christmas time, you will start to hear all of the amazing prophecies about Jesus concerning his birth life, and death. But did those prophets really know what they were saying? The short answer is no. Heading 5 How Did Jesus Understand Scripture? Mitchell Leach December 8, 2025 This may be a question you’ve never asked before but it’s extremely important to understanding Jesus, the Old Testament, and God’s covenantal nature. Some people will argue that Jesus didn’t see the Old Testament scripture as fully inspired by God. In fact, they will try to argue that our evangelical belief that Jesus saw scripture as God’s word is imposing too much into the gospel accounts of Jesus. To be fair, Jesus doesn’t come out as clearly as Paul or Peter does in his view of scripture. But a careful study of the gospels will show us that Jesus does believe all of the Old Testament scripture is God’s very word. What are the dangers of seeing scripture as mostly man-made? The danger of believing scripture was primarily written by man, is that it can then be wrong since to be man is to err. We would relegate ourselves to a few of scripture that shows us that we may question parts of scripture Did Jesus believe the Old Testament prophecies were about himself? Right around Christmas time, you will start to hear all of the amazing prophecies about Jesus concerning his birth life, and death. But did those prophets really know what they were saying? The short answer is no. When Isaiah said: 4 Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. 5 But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. [1] Surely he had no idea of the crucifixion that would come. So, how can we understand scripture differently than the original author? We can’t understand it differently, but we can understand it more fully. This is the idea — some theologians call — sensus plenior. In his book Canon, Covenant, and Christology, Matthew Barrett — the associate professor of Christian Theology at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary — defines sensus plenior like this, “when a [sensus plenior] is first revealed in scripture, it is at this point — its conception — that the human author’s purview is the most limited, not knowing all the intentions the divine author has in mind.” When Isaiah wrote this prophecy he could see dimly what we see clearly. He knew the Messiah would suffer, but how exactly he didn't know? Yet he was still very correct about the nature of his suffering. What this idea shows us about God’s nature and his revelation is that he must be understood in light of all of scripture, rather than a brief moment of the historical author’s understanding. In other words, God prophesied using humans in one time, so that humans in another time could recognize the prophecy in its fullest sense. It comes down to the question of how can we interpret the Bible. Is the only justifiable rating of scripture one that only sees the human author’s intent, or are we able to see Scripture as written by one divine author who knew the full scope of redemptive history? Did Jesus believe all scripture was about him? Jesus saw what the prophets couldn’t, by living into the promises they made centuries before he came to earth. By his recognition and living into these prophecies, Jesus is affirming the Old Testament scripture as the very word of God and not only of mere men. This is what we call the scripture’s plural authorship. This means that all scripture is written by both human and divine authors. Jesus affirms Israel’s view of Old Testament scripture Jesus was Jewish, while it may seem obvious. But he came into a world where — even his enemies within Judaism — saw scripture as God-breathed. This is most clearly seen by looking at the covenants of the Old Testament. Matthew Barrett, says “God spoke a saving word in and through the cutting of covenants with his people, covenants that not only explained Israel’s Genesis but maintained their relationship with Yahweh as his chosen people.” God's relationship with Israel was in the form of written words. Not merely words that he agreed with but works that came from his mouth. The fact that Jesus fulfills the covenant shows us that he sees, recognizes, and affirms the reality that the covenants in the Old Testament are not just a man’s words, but the precious words of the God of the universe. It is maybe clearest that the truthfulness and beauty of the Old Testament scriptures are upheld in the fulfillment of God’s covenant promises. The clearest passages You are probably familiar with the passage in Luke 24:13-27. This is the story of Jesus revealing himself to two disciples after his resurrection. As he makes known to the two disciples who he is Luke goes on to write this memorable verse, “And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.”[2] Jesus shows the disciples that all of the Old Testament scriptures were pointing toward Himself. 17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.[3] Here in Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus gives one of the clearest pictures of how he views scripture. Jesus loves the scriptures, not as wisdom from men, but as the word of God. In fact, the reality of Christmas — or God becoming flesh — is an inditement against worldly wisdom. Jesus couldn’t have seen scripture as merely from men, the incarnation is a testament against it. Jesus’ actions show that he loves the Old Testament scripture. In his commentary on Matthew, theologian, and professor, D.A. Carson says, “that Jesus fulfills the Law and the Prophets in that they point to him, and he is their fulfillment. The antithesis is not between ‘abolish’ and 'keep’ but between ‘abolish’ and ‘fulfill.’ ‘For Matthew, then, it is not the question of Jesus’ relation to the law that is in doubt but rather its relation to him!’”[4] Jesus’ obedience to the law confirms that he believes the law was God’s word. If Jesus didn’t believe that — and is still God himself — he would have had no need to keep them. If they weren’t authoritative, Jesus would have had no desire to be obedient, but we see the exact opposite. Jesus was obedient, “And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”[5] Jesus was the word of God. His closest friends on earth attested to this. Jesus loved the scripture because he embodied it. Have confidence that Jesus not only believed that the Old Testament scriptures were breathed out by God, but he loved, cherished, and was obedient to them. Therefore we — as Christians — ought to love, trust, and obey God’s holy word too. [1] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Is 53:4–6. [2] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Lk 24:27. [3] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Mt 5:17–19. [4] D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, Mark, Luke, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), 143–144. [5] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Php 2:8. [6] John Chrysostom, “Homilies of St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople on the Gospel according to St. Matthew,” in Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. George Prevost and M. B. Riddle, vol. 10, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1888), 104–105. You’ve probably heard the term legalism, or legalist used — not just in the church — but in culture abroad. Legalism carries a clearly negative connotation (and for good reason). Yet legalism isn’t a word found in the English Bible, but that doesn’t mean the Bible doesn’t say anything about it. Paul uses the phrase “works of the law” eight times in his writings (Romans 2:15, 3:20, 3:28, Galatians 2:16, 3:2, 3:5, 3:10). Drawing the Line of Legalism Read Learn More About What We Believe Prosper Christian Reformed Church holds that the Bible is the inerrant, divinely inspired Word of God and the highest authority for faith and life. We believe in the centrality of the gospel: that all people are sinners in need of salvation, which comes through Jesus Christ’s atoning death and resurrection, by grace alone through faith alone. We practices infant baptism as a sign of covenant inclusion and uphold traditional biblical teachings on marriage, gender roles, and sexuality. We affirm Reformed theology, including the five points of Calvinism, and embrace an amillennial view of Christ’s reign and the end times. What We Believe

Drawing the Line of Legalism You’ve probably heard the term legalism, or legalist used — not just in the church — but in culture abroad. Legalism carries a clearly negative connotation (and for good reason). Yet legalism isn’t a word found in the English Bible, but that doesn’t mean the Bible doesn’t say anything about it. Paul uses the phrase “works of the law” eight times in his writings (Romans 2:15, 3:20, 3:28, Galatians 2:16, 3:2, 3:5, 3:10).  Heading 5 Drawing the Line of Legalism Mitchell Leach February 11, 2025 Exploring the Delicate Balance Between Law and Love My kids are bad artists. It is a hard thing to say, but as I step back from my emotional connection to my kids and their art, and critically look at what they’ve made, it’s not something an art gallery would hang. Don’t get me wrong there is nothing better, or more precious than when my children make art out of their pure childish imagination, and give it to me out of pure love. I still have a — misspelled — card that my son made me in my office from two years ago, simply because when he gave it to me it was him saying “I made this for you because I love you and this is the best that I can do.” But later, this same son of mine (in an attempt to get out of cleaning the playroom) made me a crayon drawing and said “Here is a picture, now I don’t have to clean the playroom.” At that moment that artwork wasn’t something I wanted to cherish or even keep. It was a worthless piece of paper, because of the heart behind it. Our children’s art doesn’t have any monetary value, nor would it win any awards. When it’s given out of a heart that is trying to earn something from us, it actually disgusts us (or at least it did for me). But when given as an act of love in response to the love we’ve given to them, it is priceless. This is a similar way that God feels about us trying to earn his favor or love through our good works. This is called legalism. It’s not in our Bible You’ve probably heard the term legalism, or legalist used — not just in the church — but in culture abroad. Legalism carries a clearly negative connotation (and for good reason). Yet legalism isn’t a word found in the English Bible, but that doesn’t mean the Bible doesn’t say anything about it. Paul uses the phrase “works of the law” eight times in his writings (Romans 2:15, 3:20, 3:28, Galatians 2:16, 3:2, 3:5, 3:10). The point that Paul makes as he talks about “works of the law,” or legalism, is that no one can be justified by works of the law. Legalism is one of two heresies that deal with how we respond to God’s laws. Paul brings this topic up most often in his letter to the churches in Galatia because of the faction in the Galatian churches that insisted that to be saved, you must adhere to all Jewish customs in the Old Testament. Adding To Scripture Legalism is the attitude that identifies morality with the strict observance of laws or that views adherence to moral codes as defining the boundaries of a community. [1] Word Partners is an organization that equips pastors to put the Word of God in the driver’s seat of the church and put His glory on display. One of their teaching principles is the easiest way to visualize this concept. This is an easier way to think about legalism, that it adds to scripture. Legalism — at its core — is not trusting God and his word. It is saying subconsciously, “Not only is God’s grace not good enough for me, but also his word isn’t sufficient for my holiness. I must add more rules to his law so then I can make sure I’m extra holy.” Learn From the Pharisees This is exactly what the Pharisees are guilty of in John 9 when Jesus heals the man born blind. In this story, Jesus miraculously heals a man who had been blind since birth. This is so amazing that some people are questioning whether it is actually the same man, or if it is a look-a-like. This creates such a stir that the Pharisees check into this. As they question this man, they aren’t moved to worship as clearly a miracle has happened. Their sticking point was that this was done on the Sabbath. In their defense, God commands us to rest on the Sabbath. But sadly that’s where my defense of the Pharisees ends, because they had missed the point. They had added to that commandment to rest. They made up rules — initially to help people guard their Sabbath for rest — that made stricter regulations on what was and wasn’t rest. And by doing this they took a good thing God had given them, and in a twisted way made it oppressive. Replacing Jesus Legalism is a way that we think we can save ourselves. We think that we can please God by avoiding sin and doing what he commands. Before you write an angry email or comment, hear this. God is delighted when we are transformed by Jesus trading places with us on the cross by taking our sin, then by coming to new life with him through his resurrection and then responding by obeying his laws and commandments. This is precious to God. 1 Samuel 15:22 says, "But Samuel replied: 'Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the LORD? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams.’" But this isn’t only confined to the Old Testament, the apostle John in John 14:15 quotes Jesus when he writes, "If you love me, keep my commands.” God loves when we obey what he has told us to do because his law actually reveals part of who he is. When God commands us not to worship other gods, it’s because he is saying, “There’s only one God and I’m him.” When he tells us not to worship carved images — not just of false gods but also of the one true God, he is saying “I’m infinite and eternal. I cannot be contained in something material. Not even your mind.” God wants us to obey because he knows what is ultimately right and true and every time we don’t follow, we break away from our creator. God loves our obedience, when it is done with the right intention. Our Obedience as Rebellion But when we try to leverage our obedience towards God as an act to earn God’s favor it is disgusting to him. Isaiah 64:6 says, “We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.” [2] While this passage has some clearly strong language against good works, our English translations have softened what was communicated in the original Hebrew. Where we read polluted garments, the original Hebrew would have said something like a rag used by a woman while on her period. What Isaiah is saying is that our good works are as disgusting as a used tampon. This is because we’ve perverted what God designed for our good and turned it into evil. As if we could by our own self-made righteousness, twist God’s arm into loving us more, or blessing us more. Just like a child who tries to trick their parent out of cleaning their playroom, God is greatly displeased when we use his law as a weapon against him. Legalism is the opposite of the Gospel Legalism affirms that we can save ourselves. That if you somehow work hard enough God will say, “Well done good and faithful servant. This is what you deserve. You’ve been good, so I’m happy with you.” But the reality is that Christians can hear “Well done good and faithful servant” only because the Father treated Jesus like us to treat us like Jesus. For us to insist on getting what we are owed is to insist on our destruction. Bleeding Charity One of my favorite dialogues from all the books I've read is a passage from The Great Divorce by C.S. Lewis. In this dialogue, the Ghost (representing a soul from hell) clings to a sense of self-righteousness and entitlement based on its own deeds and perceived moral standing. It believes it deserves certain rights because of its actions and life choices. Look at me, now," said the Ghost, slapping its chest (but the slap made no noise). "I gone straight all my life. I don't say I was a religious man and I don't sav I had no faults, far from it. But I done my best all my life, see? I done my best by everyone, that's the sort of chap I was. I never asked for anything that wasn't mine by rights. If I wanted a drink I paid for it and if I took my wages I done my job, see? That's the sort I was and I don't care who knows it." "It would be much better not to go on about that now." "Who's going on? I'm not arguing. I'm just telling you the sort of chap I was, see? I'm asking for nothing but my rights. You may think you can put me down because you’re dressed up like that (which you weren't when you worked under me) and I'm only a poor man. But I got to have my rights same as you, see?" "Oh no. It's not so bad as that. I haven't got my rights, or I should not be here. You will not get yours either. You'll get something far better. Never fear." "That's just what I say. I haven't got my rights. I always done my best and I never done nothing wrong. And what I don't see is why I should be put below a bloody murderer like you." "Who knows whether you will be? Only be happy and come with me." "What do you keep on arguing for? I'm only telling you the sort of chap I am. I only want my rights. I'm not asking for anybody's bleeding charity." "Then do. At once. Ask for the Bleeding Charity. Everything is here for the asking and nothing can be bought." As Christians, our hope eternally is based on the reality that we are charity cases. We need the bleeding charity of Christ. This is the understanding that we are poor in spirit. Insisting on earning our favor or our righteousness is — as Tim Keller said — “being middle class in spirit.” The danger of believing scripture was primarily written by man, is that it can then be wrong since to be man is to err. We would relegate ourselves to a few of scripture that shows us that we may question parts of scripture. Right around Christmas time, you will start to hear all of the amazing prophecies about Jesus concerning his birth life, and death. But did those prophets really know what they were saying? The short answer is no. How Did Jesus Understand Scripture? Read Learn More About What We Believe Prosper Christian Reformed Church holds that the Bible is the inerrant, divinely inspired Word of God and the highest authority for faith and life. We believe in the centrality of the gospel: that all people are sinners in need of salvation, which comes through Jesus Christ’s atoning death and resurrection, by grace alone through faith alone. We practices infant baptism as a sign of covenant inclusion and uphold traditional biblical teachings on marriage, gender roles, and sexuality. We affirm Reformed theology, including the five points of Calvinism, and embrace an amillennial view of Christ’s reign and the end times. What We Believe

Rebaptism and the Promise That Does Not Repeat The question of rebaptism is not new. The church has wrestled with it for nearly two millennia, and the consistent testimony of the historic, catholic, and Reformed church is that baptism is once-for-all. The modern practice of rebaptism does not arise from Scripture or from historic Christianity; Heading 5 Rebaptism and the Promise That Does Not Repeat Mitchell Leach February 9, 2026 An issue has arisen regarding the request to be rebaptized in the Northern Michigan Classis of the Christian Reformed Church of North America. If a communicant member of a church requests to be rebaptized, can CRC churches accommodate this request? The answer is no. We should not rebaptize communicant or baptized members of Christian Reformed Churches. What follows is an explanation of why. Biblical Guidance Ephesians 4:1–6 says: I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit — just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call — one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. The key phrase that directly addresses rebaptism is Paul's words: "just as you were called to…one baptism." To become a communicant or baptized member of a Christian Reformed Church, a person must have been baptized — either as an infant by their parents, or as a believer upon their profession of faith. Every member of a CRC has been baptized. Paul's statement is clear: there is one baptism. This is rooted in the reality that there is one church, one faith, and one God and Father. The intent of this passage is the maintenance of the unity of the Spirit. Rebaptism undermines that unity. Historical Background The question of rebaptism is not new. The church has wrestled with it for nearly two millennia, and the consistent testimony of the historic, catholic, and Reformed church is that baptism is once-for-all. The modern practice of rebaptism does not arise from Scripture or from historic Christianity; it emerges from specific movements that departed from the church's understanding of the sacrament. 1. The Early Church: One Baptism as the Apostolic Teaching From the earliest centuries, Christians understood baptism as an unrepeatable sacrament because it signified God's once-for-all act of cleansing, regeneration, and incorporation into the church. No orthodox church father taught that baptism should be repeated.¹ In the 4th century, the Donatist controversy made rebaptism a major issue.² The Donatists argued that baptisms performed by morally compromised clergy were invalid and needed to be done again. The wider church rejected this, insisting that the validity of baptism rests not on the holiness of the minister but on Christ himself.³ Augustine articulated the principle that became standard Christian doctrine: "The efficacy of the sacrament depends on Christ, not on the one administering it." ⁴ If a baptism was done with water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, it was valid and never to be repeated. This conviction is embedded in the Nicene Creed (AD 381): "We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins." ⁵ This line didn't arise in a vacuum — it was written specifically to reject the idea of rebaptism. 2. The Medieval Church: Continuity of the One-Baptism Practice Even through the doctrinal confusion of the medieval period, the church maintained the ancient consensus: baptism is administered once,⁶ and a valid Trinitarian baptism is never repeated.⁷ The medieval church may have erred in many areas, but it never abandoned the catholic teaching of one baptism. 3. The Magisterial Reformation: Calvin, Luther, and the Reformed Confessions The Protestant Reformers did not introduce a new doctrine of baptism; they recovered the biblical and ancient one. Both Luther and Calvin rejected rebaptism because it undermines the nature of baptism as God's act and God's promise.⁸ Calvin argued that baptism is a sign and seal of God's covenant; that God's covenant promises are not repealed, redone, or repeated; and therefore that baptism cannot be repeated without accusing God of insufficiency. The Reformed confessions codify this clearly. The Belgic Confession, Article 34, rejects rebaptism and insists on the once-for-all nature of the sacrament.⁹ The Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 69–74, frames baptism as God's covenant promise to us and our children — a promise that does not expire or require renewal through a second baptism.¹⁰ The CRC stands squarely within this magisterial, catholic tradition. 4. The Radical Reformation: The Origin of Modern Rebaptism The first significant Christian movement to embrace rebaptism was the Anabaptist movement in the 16th century.¹¹ The Anabaptists rejected infant baptism entirely, declared all infant baptisms invalid, and insisted that every person must be baptized again as a believer. The Reformed churches rejected this movement because it denied God's initiative in salvation and covenant, treated baptism as the believer's testimony rather than God's promise, severed continuity with the church's historic teaching, and fractured the unity of the visible church by rejecting valid Christian baptisms.¹² Modern evangelical rebaptism is a direct descendant of this radical movement, not of Scripture or historic Christianity. 5. The Baptist Tradition and Contemporary Evangelicalism Later Baptist traditions kept the Anabaptist logic while softening its rhetoric. They argue that infant baptism is "ineffective," not sinful, and therefore insist on baptizing again upon profession of faith. This practice — now common in much of American evangelicalism — arises from a theological system that defines baptism primarily as the believer's personal declaration, not God's covenantal act.¹³ But this view remains outside the historic consensus of the early church, the global church, and the Reformed tradition. 6. The CRCNA's Place in This History As a confessional Reformed denomination, the Christian Reformed Church stands firmly in the line of the early church fathers, the Nicene Creed, Augustine, the magisterial Reformers, and the Three Forms of Unity.¹⁴ The CRC recognizes any baptism performed with water in the Triune name as valid. Because baptism is God's act, not ours, it is not repeated. To rebaptize someone who was already Trinitarianly baptized would imply that God's first promise was insufficient, ineffective, or void — a conclusion at odds with Scripture, with history, and with our confessions.¹⁵ A Place for Christian Charity We gladly affirm that many of our Baptist brothers and sisters are faithful Christians who love the Lord, honor Scripture, and seek to obey Christ in all things. They have a different understanding of when baptism should take place and what it primarily signifies, and we should be charitable and patient in those disagreements. We do not question their sincerity, their faith, or the fruit of the Holy Spirit in their congregations. Our disagreement on baptism is real, but it is not a question of orthodoxy or fidelity to Christ. It is a matter where faithful believers, reading the same Scriptures, draw different conclusions. Yet this is not the core issue confronting our churches today. The real pastoral and theological problem arises when individuals who themselves accept the legitimacy of their first baptism — whether administered in infancy or upon profession of faith — seek to be baptized again, or when churches actively encourage such repetition. At that point, we are no longer dealing with a denominational difference of interpretation. We are dealing with a practice that implicitly denies what Scripture, the early church, and the Reformed tradition all affirm: that baptism is a once-for-all act, grounded in God's promise, not in the quality or intensity of our spiritual experience. When a person says, "Yes, my first baptism was real and biblical," and then requests a second baptism because they feel they were not sincere enough, committed enough, or emotionally ready the first time, the underlying assumption is that baptism is chiefly a testimony of personal authenticity. This is precisely where the Reformed tradition must speak with clarity. Baptism is not a barometer of spiritual fervor; it is not a ceremonial reset button; it is not a symbolic recommitment of our faith. Baptism is God's act, God's promise, God's name placed upon His child. To repeat that sign is to imply that God's first promise was either defective or dependent on the maturity, clarity, or sincerity of the one receiving it. And such an implication contradicts the very nature of the covenantal God we proclaim at Prosper CRC — one who speaks, promises, seals, and sustains His people not on the basis of their performance, but on the basis of His steadfast faithfulness. Furthermore, when churches promote or allow rebaptism for those already baptized in the Triune name, they unintentionally cultivate a pastoral environment where spiritual assurance becomes tied to repeated external acts. In that system, baptism becomes a diagnostic tool for evaluating one's internal state rather than a sacrament God uses to anchor His people in His unchanging grace. The sacraments exist to assure weak believers, not to be repeated every time those believers feel weak. So yes — we must extend grace and honor to our Baptist neighbors. But charity cannot mean silence when God's promises are unintentionally diminished. Unity cannot mean permitting a practice that undermines both the catholic and Reformed understanding of one baptism. And humility does not require us to treat rebaptism as a harmless expression of personal piety when Scripture calls the church to guard its sacraments with clarity and conviction. If Christ, through His church, has placed His name on a person once, we dare not suggest — either through our words or our practices — that He needs to do it again. Paedobaptism and the God Who Always Initiates At the heart of the Reformed understanding of baptism is a simple but profound conviction: God always makes the first move. He calls before we respond, He loves before we love, and He lays hold of His people long before they can lay hold of Him. Infant baptism, therefore, is not a sentimental tradition or a convenience of church life; it is a visible proclamation of the gospel's central truth that salvation begins with God, not us. It is a sign that God's promises are anchored in His character, not in our maturity, understanding, or ability to choose Him. When we place the sign of the covenant on the child of believing parents, we are confessing that God's grace is prior, prevenient, and foundational. The child contributes nothing; the child understands nothing; the child cannot yet express love, obedience, or faith. And this is precisely the point: baptism is not first a declaration of human commitment — it is first a declaration of divine initiative. Paedobaptism dramatizes the truth that God binds Himself to His people before they can respond, and that our response — when it comes — is itself the fruit of His prior work. To baptize our children, then, is to say explicitly what Scripture teaches implicitly from cover to cover: "We love because He first loved us." Moreover, infant baptism guards the church from reducing baptism to a testimony of personal authenticity or a symbolic expression of spiritual readiness. If baptism is fundamentally about my decision, then it is fragile — because my decisions change, my zeal ebbs and flows, and my spiritual experiences rise and fall. But if baptism is fundamentally about God's decision, then it is stable, enduring, and trustworthy. This is why the Reformed tradition has always opposed rebaptism: to repeat the sign is to suggest that God's initial action was incomplete or contingent upon later spiritual performance. At Prosper CRC, where we affirm the confessions and hold tightly to the biblical truth of God's sovereign initiative, paedobaptism is not simply permitted — it is the natural and necessary expression of our theology of grace. Finally, the practice of infant baptism strengthens the unity of the covenant community. It proclaims that the children of believers are not spiritual outsiders waiting to prove themselves, but members of the visible church from the beginning, nurtured in the promises of God and called to later personally embrace those same promises. The entire congregation participates in that call, promising to instruct, guide, and pray for the baptized child so that they might one day publicly profess the very faith symbolized at the font. In this way, paedobaptism forms a community shaped by grace rather than performance, defined by God's initiative rather than human accomplishment. It teaches our people — young and old — that the Christian life is always a response to a God who has already moved toward us in covenant love. Notes ¹ Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition , in Paul F. Bradshaw, Maxwell E. Johnson, and L. Edward Phillips, The Apostolic Tradition: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002), 1–15; Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 857–860. ² Henry Bettenson and Chris Maunder, eds., Documents of the Christian Church , 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 64–66 (Council of Arles, Canon 8). ³ J. Stevenson and W.H.C. Frend, eds., Creeds, Councils and Controversies , 3rd ed. (London: SPCK, 2011), 72–73 (Council of Nicaea, Canon 19). ⁴ Augustine, On Baptism, Against the Donatists , in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers , Series 1, Vol. 4, ed. Philip Schaff (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 420–425; W.H.C. Frend, The Donatist Church: A Movement of Protest in Roman North Africa (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952), 231–250. ⁵ Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom , Vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), 57–59 (Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, 381). ⁶ Gratian, Decretum , Distinction 4, Canon 95, in Augustine Thompson and James Gordley, trans., The Decretum of Gratian (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, forthcoming). ⁷ Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica , III, Q. 66, Art. 9, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1947); Gary Macy, The Theologies of the Early Medieval Eucharist and Sacraments (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984), 88–90. ⁸ Martin Luther, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520), in Three Treatises (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1970), 148–150; John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion , ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960), 4.15.16–18. ⁹ Belgic Confession , Article 34, in The Three Forms of Unity (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011), 48–51. ¹⁰ Heidelberg Catechism , Q&A 69–74, in The Three Forms of Unity (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011), 112–114. ¹¹ Conrad Grebel, "Letter to Thomas Müntzer," in Spiritual and Anabaptist Writers , ed. George H. Williams and Angel M. Mergal (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1957), 62–64; Schleitheim Confession (1527), in George H. Williams, The Radical Reformation (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962), 907–915. ¹² William R. Estep, The Anabaptist Story: An Introduction to Sixteenth-Century Anabaptism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 32–48; John Smyth, The Character of the Beast (1609), in The Works of John Smyth , ed. W.T. Whitley (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1915), 228–232. ¹³ The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689), Chapter 29, in James M. Renihan, Edification and Beauty: The Practical Ecclesiology of the English Particular Baptists, 1675–1705 (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2008), 224–227. ¹⁴ Lyle D. Bierma, The Theology of the Heidelberg Catechism: A Reformation Synthesis (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005), 96–115. ¹⁵ Howard J. Vanderwell, ed., The Church Order Commentary (Grand Rapids: CRC Publications, 2011), 187–190; Christian Reformed Church in North America, Church Order and Its Supplements (Grand Rapids: CRC Publications, 2023), Articles 56–57. Why can the church feel this way? Because men cannot create new — correct theology — men can only discover it. Men can invent new heresy, but not orthodoxy. Men and women today and in antiquity can only recognize it. And this is what the modern church should find confidence in. As noted above, the implications of this inform nearly every subsequent theological position the church has taken since. The council of Nicaea was moved by the Holy Spirit to... Can we trust the Council of Nicaea? Read Learn More About What We Believe Prosper Christian Reformed Church holds that the Bible is the inerrant, divinely inspired Word of God and the highest authority for faith and life. We believe in the centrality of the gospel: that all people are sinners in need of salvation, which comes through Jesus Christ’s atoning death and resurrection, by grace alone through faith alone. We practices infant baptism as a sign of covenant inclusion and uphold traditional biblical teachings on marriage, gender roles, and sexuality. We affirm Reformed theology, including the five points of Calvinism, and embrace an amillennial view of Christ’s reign and the end times. What We Believe

What is Sin? Sin brings guilt because it is the soul’s way of responding to something that is incomprehensibly harmful to it. Like pain in the body when physically harmed, shame and guilt result when our souls have been damaged. Sin — by its very nature — brings shame, because it affirms that something has happened that never should have. It is more than someone making a wrong choice, but the reality that a wrong has happened against both individuals (Luke 15:21, Romans 3:23) and a community... Heading 5 What is Sin? Mitchell Leach December 10, 2024 What is Sin? If I were to ask someone at random from any church in America, “What is sin?” I’m not confident that I would get a full definition. It would be easier to ask someone to name some sins. This we can do well, but defining what sin is can be hard because sin distorts our reality. As humans who sin a lot, we should have the ability to define precisely what sin is. “Sin wraps itself in a cloak, spreads abroad dense fog, waits for darkest night and moves stealthily.” [1] Sin makes us unable to view the world rightly and therefore being aware of what sin is takes more than just being good at sinning. It takes the ability to step back and look at how God sees sin as described in the Bible. Defining Sin “God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes” [2] Ecclesiastes 7:29. I love the Westminster Shorter Catechism’s definition of sin: “Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God.” [3] When it says “Sin is any want of conformity…” this means — in plain language — that it isn’t simply violating when God prohibits something, but is also sin when we fail to conform to his positive commandments. For example, when God says to love your neighbor as yourself, a failure to do this is also sinful. You could also say that this is a covenantal way to view sin. Sin revolts against God’s good and just covenant, it sees God as an evil God whose covenant and word we cannot trust. From a church history perspective, the doctrine of sin has been something that has marked churches that were faithful to orthodox (or true) Christianity. Aside from a few minor heretics throughout church history, there hasn’t been pushback against the doctrine of sin until the last 50 years. Why would God need to remind us of something that brings us so much shame? Sin brings guilt because it is the soul’s way of responding to something that is incomprehensibly harmful to it. Like pain in the body when physically harmed, shame and guilt result when our souls have been damaged. Sin — by its very nature — brings shame, because it affirms that something has happened that never should have. It is more than someone making a wrong choice, but the reality that a wrong has happened against both individuals (Luke 15:21, Romans 3:23) and a community (Joshua 7:1, Nehemiah 1:6-7, Acts 2:40, 1 Corinthians 12:26). Sin is also — and most devastatingly — against God himself (Psalm 51:4, Genesis 39:9). We must address the origin of sin, and that it doesn’t come from God. [4] But it would be false to say that sin is an eternal thing, or somehow is equal to God. Sin came into the world through Adam and Eve. [5] Wayne Grudem describes three things that led to the fall of man. The first was to question God’s revelation, they questioned what was true. Second was to question God’s morality, they questioned what was good. And the third was to question rationality, it doesn’t make sense to go against God. [6] God commands us not to sin because it violates how we were created to function. The fall of man into sin plunged him “into an estate of sin and misery.” [7] God had warned them against this, but Adam and Eve didn’t listen. The results of this are that mankind felt shame and guilt for the first time. [8] Mankind once — in the garden — had the ability not to sin. Because of their disobedience, we lost this ability, and now we can’t seek God or seek righteousness apart from him. This is also called total depravity. This affected our relationship with God. We went from children in a perfect state with God to becoming children of wrath. We see this in the garden when God not only gives curses to Adam and Eve, but he exiles them from the garden. Mankind now lives subject to the judgment of God. And because of our sin, we are all guilty. [9] The nature of sin is that it destroys the soul. Sin is naturally bad for humans, this is why God commands us not to sin, [10] not to rob us of fun but to deliver us from the undoing of our souls. C.S. Lewis says this, “It begins with a grumbling mood, and yourself still distinct from it: perhaps criticizing it. And yourself, in a dark hour, may will that mood, embrace it. Ye can repent and come out of it again. But there may come a day when you can do that no longer. Then there will be no you left to criticize the mood, nor even to enjoy it, but just the grumble itself going on forever like a machine. It is not a question of God ‘sending us’ to hell. In each of us, there is something growing, which will BE hell unless it is nipped in the bud.” Sin is painful to talk about because it is the worst news there is, that we have done a cosmic injustice that we cannot repair. The good news is that God had a plan to fix sin. In a very real sense sin is the opponent he came to conquer on our behalf. God sent his son, to pay the debt for sin that we couldn’t pay, by dying on the cross. Jesus came to defeat sin and death once and for all. For those who are Christians, we can look forward to eternity where there will be no more sin, no more shame, and no more miseries of life. Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology: Man and Christ, vol. 2 (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2020), 325. ESV, Crossway, Ec 7:29. The Westminster Shorter Catechism: With Scripture Proofs, 3rd edition. (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996). Question 14 ESV, Crossway, Dt 32:4. 4 “The Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is he. ESV, Crossway, Ro 5:12. “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned” Grudem, Wayne. "Systematic Theology." 2nd ed. Zondervan, 2000, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 494. The Westminster Shorter Catechism: With Scripture Proofs, 3rd edition. (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996). The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Ge 3:10. “I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself.” The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Ro 3:22–23. “For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” ten commandments If you look at any human relationship – any meaningful one at that – you will find injustice from either party. It is inescapable, humanity defaults toward relational injustice, not towards relational justice. We inflict harm to those we love, and those who love us. Humanity has a strange propensity to cause brokenness in relationships. We do this not just in our horizontal relationships, but in our vertical relationship with God. How is man made right with God? How is Man Made Right With God? Read Learn More About What We Believe Prosper Christian Reformed Church holds that the Bible is the inerrant, divinely inspired Word of God and the highest authority for faith and life. We believe in the centrality of the gospel: that all people are sinners in need of salvation, which comes through Jesus Christ’s atoning death and resurrection, by grace alone through faith alone. We practices infant baptism as a sign of covenant inclusion and uphold traditional biblical teachings on marriage, gender roles, and sexuality. We affirm Reformed theology, including the five points of Calvinism, and embrace an amillennial view of Christ’s reign and the end times. What We Believe

Can we trust the Council of Nicaea? Why can the church feel this way? Because men cannot create new — correct theology — men can only discover it. Men can invent new heresy, but not orthodoxy. Men and women today and in antiquity can only recognize it. And this is what the modern church should find confidence in. As noted above, the implications of this inform nearly every subsequent theological position the church has taken since. The council of Nicaea was moved by the Holy Spirit to... Heading 5 Can we trust the Council of Nicaea? Mitchell Leach June 9, 2024 It may be surprising to the average churchgoer that, the council that produced one of the most well-known creeds of the early church and solidified the orthodoxy — or theological position — of the trinity, has a bit of controversy surrounding it. Not everyone in academia can look back on this event with the love for the doctrines that came out of it, but with the weariness of the political and governmental influences that surround it. But contemporary Christians shouldn’t worry about this event being tainted by the forces behind its acceptance. Rather Christians should trust and even worship the beauty that was simplified and clarified by the work of the men who formed it. Main Issue The council of Nicaea was brought together — by the newly Christian[1] — emperor Constantine in 325 AD.[2]As Constantine came to power in the death of Emperor Galerius, Constantine found himself in a situation where he needed to unify the new republic of Rome. During this time theological divides seemed to be popping up in the newly legalized religion that Constantine allowed. So for the first time in the life of the church, pastors/bishops were welcomed without threat of persecution, to settle the division in the church.[3] The major doctrinal issue that backed by Arian — a talented Baucalis preacher — who challenged the view of the Bishop in Alexandria on his belief in Homoousion (or the doctrine that Jesus was of the same substance as God). Arian believed homoousion was Sabellianism,[4] and instead professed the belief in homoiosion (or the doctrine that Jesus was of a similar substance as God). To the modern outsider, this seems to be a minor bit of doctrine, that nerdy theologians like to debate in their free time. It seems like this is one of those fights that Paul warns against in Romans 16:17-18.[5] But the implications of getting this correct were critical for the church. Worship, and how it understands the God of the Bible, and many other practical parts of the church, hinged on understanding the person of Jesus correctly. In fact, this issue was so theologically important that is was impossible to look past each other’s view. Each side believed that the other’s view was so different that they were — ultimately — worshiping a different God. The implications of this were either — in Arian’s view — that Jesus was created, and that the son was not part of God.[6] Encouragement for the modern church During the actual council the view that Jesus was of the same essence as God was overwhelmingly adopted. Of the numerous bishops and clergymen in attendance at the Council of Nicaea (between 250-310), only two dissented. This was a huge victory for the ancient church but is also a huge source of confidence in the modern church. The modern church can look back on this event and find confidence that these men came out with the correct interpretation of scripture. Why can the church feel this way? Because men cannot create new — correct theology — men can only discover it. Men can invent new heresy, but not orthodoxy. Men and women today and in antiquity can only recognize it. And this is what the modern church should find confidence in. As noted above, the implications of this inform nearly every subsequent theological position the church has taken since. The council of Nicaea was moved by the Holy Spirit to see the Word of God correctly and identified Jesus as wholly God and wholly man. Whether that was the view of Constantine, or maybe just his wish, is irrelevant. The church can be confident in the beauty of the person of Jesus as stated by the Nicene Creed. If this were mere political pressure by Constantine, bishops would have revolted. They weren’t moved by fear of dissent. Here gathered at Nicaea were men who had been marked with scars from their previous persecution. They were not afraid of a man or the state. They feared God and in near unanimity, affirmed the truth of the Lord and Savior of the universe Jesus. [1] Or at least newly compassionate toward christian emperor. [2] Kenneth Scott Latourette, “Christianity Takes Shape in Organization, Doctrine,” in A History of Christianity, 4th ed., vol. 1 (Prince Press, 2007), pp. 154-156. [3] Bruce Shelley, “Splitting Important Hairs,” in Church History in Plain Language, 5th ed. (S.l.: ZONDERVAN, 2021), pp. 131-136. [4] Kenneth Scott Latourette, pp. 152. [5] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Ro 16:17–18. I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive. [6] Kenneth Scott Latourette, pp. 154. "So anyone who thinks he has understood the divine scriptures or any part of them, but cannot by his understanding buildup this double love of God and neighbor, has not yet succeeded in understanding them”(Augustine, On Christian Teaching, 1.86). St. Augustine — accurately — describes that true comprehension of the Bible comes through a combination of prayer, faith, and an attitude of submission to God's will. It is by loving God and being compelled into action, Can unbelievers understand and interpret the Bible? Read Learn More About What We Believe Prosper Christian Reformed Church holds that the Bible is the inerrant, divinely inspired Word of God and the highest authority for faith and life. We believe in the centrality of the gospel: that all people are sinners in need of salvation, which comes through Jesus Christ’s atoning death and resurrection, by grace alone through faith alone. We practices infant baptism as a sign of covenant inclusion and uphold traditional biblical teachings on marriage, gender roles, and sexuality. We affirm Reformed theology, including the five points of Calvinism, and embrace an amillennial view of Christ’s reign and the end times. What We Believe

Is God Able To Forgive Sin Without The Cross? God cannot simply blink at sin and allow it to disappear magically. There is always a cost involved. The Bible is clear about the reality that we are sinful people (Genesis 3:6–7; Isaiah 59:1–2; Psalm  51:4). And the Bible states that there must be a penalty paid to make what was wrong, right again. God is just (Gen 18:25; Deut 32:4). Isaiah 5:16 says, “But the LORD of hosts is exalted in justice, and the Holy God shows himself holy in righteousness.” Heading 5 Is God Able To Forgive Sin Without The Cross? Mitchell Leach December 23, 2025 Could God the Father have forgiven sin without Jesus dying on the cross? Would it have been possible for God to do this? Whenever we ask questions like these, our knee-jerk reaction is to think, “God can do whatever he wants.” But the implications of this question will show us a lot about what we believe about God. If God could On one side if God can forgive sin without Jesus dying on the cross, then what we see happen to Jesus at the end of the gospels is totally unnecessary. To say that God could forgive sin without the cross makes what happens at the end of the gospels a worthless act of torture towards his own son. If God cannot On the other side, it seems like saying God cannot do something is putting a rule or law on God that supersedes his power as if there were a higher authority that he had to submit to. If God can’t why can’t he? So which is it? Imagine you invited me and my family over for dinner, and after dinner, it is revealed that my youngest child has broken a window in your house. Not just any window but your big beautiful bay window that faces the road. In that situation, you have two options. You can demand that I pay to fix it. This would be just. My child broke a window, I should pay to make it right. Or you can forgive me. But in that situation, someone still has to pay, but rather than it being the offending party (me), the cost is shifted to the offended party (you). It’s not like this is something you can leave broken. Similarly, God cannot simply blink at sin and allow it to disappear magically. There is always a cost involved. The Bible is clear about the reality that we are sinful people (Genesis 3:6–7; Isaiah 59:1–2; Psalm 51:4). And the Bible states that there must be a penalty paid to make what was wrong, right again. God’s Justice God is just (Gen 18:25; Deut 32:4). Isaiah 5:16 says, “But the LORD of hosts is exalted in justice, and the Holy God shows himself holy in righteousness.” [1] Wayne Grudem, the Professor of Theology and Biblical Studies at Phoenix Seminary defines what it means that God is just in his profound book Systematic Theology, “God’s righteousness means that God always acts in accordance with what is right and is himself the final moral standard of what is right.” [2] God is Who He is God’s justice or righteousness is a very part of who God is. So rather than thinking that God not being able to forgive sin must be him submitting to a higher authority, think about it as God not being able to go against his very nature. This is also called the doctrine of simplicity. “God’s simplicity entails that his essence and existence are identical, signifying that there is no composition or division within the divine nature.” [3] This means that God is what describes him. The way we describe God doesn’t divide up his essence but is who he is and how he acts together. God tells us this in Exodus 3:14, when, “God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” God therefore cannot “throw off” his justice for a moment to forgive universal sin. To do this would make him cease to be God, as his justice is part of his “Godness.” God’s Wrath Because God is perfectly righteous, he has a perfect hate for sin itself. “It is his indignation at sin, his revulsion to evil and all that opposes him, his displeasure at it and the venting of that displeasure. It is his passionate resistance to every will that is set against him.” [4] This is what we call God’s wrath. J.I. Packer, who is widely regarded as one of the most important and influential theologians of the 20th Century, connects God’s holiness to his disdain of sin when he says, “Every facet of God’s nature and every aspect of his character may properly be spoken of as holy, just because it is his. The core of the concept, however, is God’s purity, which cannot tolerate any form of sin (Hab. 1:13) and thus calls sinners to constant self-abasement in his presence (Isa. 6:5).” [5] God’s wrath is something that we can feel uncomfortable with. The idea that God hates not only sin, but even certain people is unsettling to us in the global west. In recent years liberal theologians have argued that this idea is false and paints God as a vindictive deity. What this essentially boils down to is whether God can be both good and just at the same time. But this objection isn’t an enlightened response to this doctrine. This has been a point of contention since 300 AD. [6] But this — like the idea of God’s justice — is part of God’s character and nature, and it is beautiful. God’s wrath (or deep hatred of evil) has always been a part of his character. God’s holiness has been — throughout history — something that sinful man has had to deal with when encountering the living God. System to Cover Sin This is why understanding the whole Old Testament is so important. As Christians, it is easy to focus our attention on the New Testament because it seems like that’s where the best parts happen. As someone who loves theology, the New Testament is easy because it almost reads like a Western theological work. Yet neglecting to understand the essential ways that God worked throughout the Old Testament will leave us to make major errors in our theology. One main area this happens today is around the idea of atonement. Mankind’s problem — since the fall — has been that we cannot interact with a holy God. So, back in Leviticus, God lays out a system to atone for sin through the sacrifice of a goat on Yom Kippur (or the day of atonement). This goat would — ceremonially — take the place of the people, and would die for their sin. The reason for this is that the blood of an animal symbolizes its life. Something’s blood is needed to take the rightful place of our own. One life needed to be substituted for our own. This system was a foreshadowing of what was to be fully realized in the New Testament by the death of Jesus. Because while this was the system God set up for Israel, the blood of bulls and goats couldn’t satisfy God’s wrath against our sin. We needed someone to come to take on our sin so that we could be made right with God. We needed, not an animal, but a human to die to make right what man had made wrong. The Good News of the Gospel When Jesus went to the cross he took the full wrath from God the Father for sin on himself. Jesus would die for all those whom God had chosen to be his children. Romans 3:22–25 says “For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.” [7] The important word to focus on is the word propitiation. It’s an uncommon word in our vocabulary. It means to appease the wrath of a God. This passage is saying that Jesus (on the cross) was the thing that satisfied the wrath of God for sinners. In other words, Jesus traded places with me on the cross, because he received what I should have received. He got the full measure of God’s wrath for my sin. And in return, I get to be treated like Jesus should have been treated. This means (among many things) I can have oneness with the Father, freedom from sin, eternal life, and favor in the eyes of God the Father. It’s like our analogy earlier. On a cosmic scale, there are two options for us. We can either receive justice for our sin. This is what Hell is. It is us paying the price for our sin, which requires an eternal death because our debt is against an eternal God. Or we can receive forgiveness because Jesus took Hell on himself. He paid, in full, the penalty for our sin. Theologically this doctrine is called penal substitutionary atonement. This is a fancy way to say, “Jesus traded places with me on the cross (substitute), paid my penalty, and has atoned for my sins.” This is the core message of the Christian faith and the reason we worship God. He paid for my sin and took my place. This is a kind of love that is unbelievable. It is the kind of love that propels us to worship and sing Nothing in my hands I bring, Simply to Thy cross I cling; Naked, come to Thee for dress, Helpless, look to Thee for grace: Foul, I to the fountain fly, Wash me, Savior, or I die. The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Is 5:16. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 203. Brandon Smith, “God’s Simplicity,” in Lexham Survey of Theology, ed. Mark Ward et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2018). Tony Lane, “God’s Wrath,” in Lexham Survey of Theology, ed. Mark Ward et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2018). J. I. Packer, Concise Theology: A Guide to Historic Christian Beliefs (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1993), 43. Origen, “De Principiis,” in Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Frederick Crombie, vol. 4, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 278. “Now, since this consideration has weight with some, that the leaders of that heresy (of which we have been speaking) think they have established a kind of division, according to which they have declared that justice is one thing and goodness another, and have applied this division even to divine things, maintaining that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is indeed a good God, but not a just one, whereas the God of the law and the prophets is just, but not good” Origen refutes a heresy that distinguishes between a good God (Father of Jesus Christ) and a just but not good God (God of the Old Testament). He argues that this view misinterprets God's nature, as it fails to recognize that divine justice and goodness are not mutually exclusive but are harmoniously unified in God. He challenges the heretics' understanding of justice and goodness, illustrating through scriptural examples that God's actions, whether seemingly harsh or compassionate, are always just and good. Origen emphasizes that God's justice is not merely punitive but aims at correction and improvement, revealing a deeper, harmonious nature of divine justice and goodness. Origen concludes that the God of the Old Testament and the New Testament is the same, both just and good, rewarding and punishing appropriately. He encourages a deeper understanding of the Scriptures to appreciate the unity of God's nature, rejecting the dualistic view that separates God's justice from His goodness. The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Ro 3:22–25. If you look at any human relationship – any meaningful one at that – you will find injustice from either party. It is inescapable, humanity defaults toward relational injustice, not towards relational justice. We inflict harm to those we love, and those who love us. Humanity has a strange propensity to cause brokenness in relationships. We do this not just in our horizontal relationships, but in our vertical relationship with God. How is man made right with God? How is Man Made Right With God? Read Learn More About What We Believe Prosper Christian Reformed Church holds that the Bible is the inerrant, divinely inspired Word of God and the highest authority for faith and life. We believe in the centrality of the gospel: that all people are sinners in need of salvation, which comes through Jesus Christ’s atoning death and resurrection, by grace alone through faith alone. We practices infant baptism as a sign of covenant inclusion and uphold traditional biblical teachings on marriage, gender roles, and sexuality. We affirm Reformed theology, including the five points of Calvinism, and embrace an amillennial view of Christ’s reign and the end times. What We Believe

Money vs. Ministry There are two types of churches. Churches who are good at supporting missions (giving money to missionaries or mission organizations), or doing missions (sending people to do mission work). Both of these are scriptural commands. It is very clear that as Jesus ascends, He is calling the church to evangelize the world (Matthew 28:16-20). And we also see that it is the call of the local church to support missionaries (2 Corinthians 8). Heading 5 Money vs. Ministry Mitchell Leach December 12, 2025 There are two types of churches. Churches who are good at supporting missions (giving money to missionaries or mission organizations), or doing missions (sending people to do mission work). Both of these are scriptural commands. It is very clear that as Jesus ascends, He is calling the church to evangelize the world (Matthew 28:16-20). And we also see that it is the call of the local church to support missionaries (2 Corinthians 8). But there are dangers on both sides of this mission paradigm. I am going to focus - in this article - on the dangers of simply supporting missions. How could supporting missions be dangerous? How could sending money to trained missionaries hurt the church? Export What hurts the global church is when the primary missional agent of the church is only monetarily. Churches that swing too far to one side will become reliant on others to do mission work, to the point where the church will no longer see the need or desire to physically do the work - locally or globally - that God calls the church to. Churches that do this often reflect it in their budgets. Churches can give far beyond 10% (which is typically the standard for churches to shoot for). Churches will support missionaries fiscally, without equipping the local church to do any kind of missional work in their surrounding area. These churches will say, "When someone wants to do local missional work, we will put money towards it!" The problem with this philosophy of missions becomes that nothing is planned, and because they have become dependent on others to do missions, no one thinks that they need to do missions themselves. Numbness Another challenging and dangerous side effect of this ministry philosophy is tracking all of the missionaries that the local church supports. When missionaries come to report what they have done the church can become numb to hearing how God is at work. That or they will become proud because we are a church that loves missions. Not realizing that although they give serious money to the mission speaker, that missionary of organization isn't meeting the objectives that the church is giving them money to meet. That reality, pared with congregations' serious lack of understanding of what healthy missions looks like, results in congregations who - most often oversee mission committees - continuing to do what has always been done. That is supporting missionaries who are primarily in regions or countries where the church is already heavily established. Apathy Lastly, the danger that faces the church with a mindset like this is accountability. When a church is supporting lots of missionaries it is hard to keep track of what they are doing. They lose track of what fruit their ministry is producing. What this can result in is churches throwing money away to ministries and missionaries that aren't producing results for God's Kingdom. It breeds this apathetic culture within the local church that believes that mission is important as long as I don’t need to be bothered to do it. Unfortunately, this isn’t the only area in the local church that has this attitude. The result of this is that we end up exporting the very same kind of nominal churches to the rest of the world, which are killing the American church. Why can the church feel this way? Because men cannot create new — correct theology — men can only discover it. Men can invent new heresy, but not orthodoxy. Men and women today and in antiquity can only recognize it. And this is what the modern church should find confidence in. As noted above, the implications of this inform nearly every subsequent theological position the church has taken since. The council of Nicaea was moved by the Holy Spirit to... Can we trust the Council of Nicaea? Read Learn More About What We Believe Prosper Christian Reformed Church holds that the Bible is the inerrant, divinely inspired Word of God and the highest authority for faith and life. We believe in the centrality of the gospel: that all people are sinners in need of salvation, which comes through Jesus Christ’s atoning death and resurrection, by grace alone through faith alone. We practices infant baptism as a sign of covenant inclusion and uphold traditional biblical teachings on marriage, gender roles, and sexuality. We affirm Reformed theology, including the five points of Calvinism, and embrace an amillennial view of Christ’s reign and the end times. What We Believe

Can unbelievers understand and interpret the Bible? "So anyone who thinks he has understood the divine scriptures or any part of them, but cannot by his understanding buildup this double love of God and neighbor, has not yet succeeded in understanding them”(Augustine, On Christian Teaching, 1.86). St. Augustine — accurately — describes that true comprehension of the Bible comes through a combination of prayer, faith, and an attitude of submission to God's will. It is by loving God and being compelled into action, Heading 5 Can unbelievers understand and interpret the Bible? Mitchell Leach September 15, 2024 Imagine it is your senior season of high school football, and the school you attend has historically been — let’s just say — less than excellent. So this year your school has hired a computer to be your head coach that is programmed to perfectly analyze each play. But there’s one glaring problem. While it could technically call plays based on trends and relevant data, it doesn’t love the game. There is a huge difference between understanding the game — technically — and actually calling the plays — in reality. You can’t simply expect theory to translate into intuition. What is missing is a love for the game. At this point could you just replace the coach with a computer? If you’ve ever played a sport before you’ll answer emphatically, no! Imagine getting into halftime, anticipating a rousing speech on overcoming adversity from your coach, only to be met with statistics on rushing yards verse their cover three concepts. You could hate football and become an analyst, but you can’t coach without loving the game. The same is true for biblical interpretation. St. Augustine, an influential early church father, wrote, "So anyone who thinks he has understood the divine scriptures or any part of them, but cannot by his understanding buildup this double love of God and neighbor, has not yet succeeded in understanding them”(Augustine, On Christian Teaching, 1.86). St. Augustine — accurately — describes that true comprehension of the Bible comes through a combination of prayer, faith, and an attitude of submission to God's will. It is by loving God and being compelled into action, by the text that shows that we truly understand the text. All of this is impossible without the work of the Holy Spirit regenerating one's heart to love the God they once hated and hate the sin they once loved. But Can unbelievers understand and interpret the Bible? True biblical interpretation must include the Holy Spirit’s guidance. Sometimes a straw man can be made of this statement, where people will — incorrectly — conclude that this means biblical interpretation (via the Holy Spirit) relies wholly on one’s discernment of the text.Therefore it could have infinite possibilities for interpretation. Much more than this could lead people to falsely interpret scripture because they falsely interpret or misjudge the HolySpirit. To this, I would say that the pendulum has swung too far. Never should biblical interpretation become a sort of fortune-telling-like practice where the text itself is mostly disregarded for feeling. Rather, the text has a concrete main idea and transformational intent from the original author. Where the Holy Spirit comes in is to quicken us to respond in application to this inspired work before us. While biblical interpretation — in the technical sense — can be done well by anyone because there are clear steps in its approach, it fails more seriously to faithfully interpret the text holistically. This is because it will fail to see the very nature of the text itself, let alone what that text insists it to be. The Bible declares itself to be the very word of God. It is a story about God revealing himself to his creation to enter into a relationship with them. It's about a God who loves his people so deeply that he would die in their place. To technically interpret the story of Elijah, but failing to be transformed into worship by God working to bring sinners to justice and salvation to his chosen people is to fundamentally misinterpret the story. Why? Because worship was the author’s (and authors’) transformational intent. Take, for example, the story of Ruth. You could spend a multitude of time and research to bring great analysis to the four chapters in this book. You could; breakdown the narrative arc, identify the historical context in which this is placed, and how that shows an even dire situation for Ruth and Naomi and exemplifies the character of Boaz, you could trace the cross-references to other parts of scripture, or get to the root meaning of theHebrew word for Kinsman redeemer. But to do all of this — and to miss being in awe of the subtle sovereignty of God working to uphold his covenant to his people while sustainingRuth and Naomi, and how that leads to King David and eventually King Jesus — is a gross failure of proper biblical interpretation. Luther's Four Stranded Garland Only a regeneration of the Holy Spirit allows the Christian to interpret the text correctly. Martin Luther coined his hermeneutical tool "the four-stranded garland." In which he told people to think of four things while reading a passage of scripture. First, What instruction is God teaching me? Second, What in this passage causes me to praise God? Third, What causes me to confess in this passage? Fourth, what guidance do I now feel that I need from God? Luther's questions were giving the Christians a way to allow themself to be sensitive to the Holy Spirit during their biblical interpretation. A non-Christian may be able to technically answer the first question, but they cannot answer the last three without faking their answer, or at minimum pretending to act as they believe a Christian should. The work of the Spirit to convict us of our sinful nature and our daily sins is something the non-Christian doesn't have access to. God's work to make me fall on my knees and beg for mercy because He has convinced me that I do not open my heart up to God as the Psalms do, is not on the surface of the text. Therefore it isn't something a non-Christian can authentically do. This is even more true with the last question in Luther's strand. This is the question of application. This is the most spiritually significant, and dependent question. What the Holy Spirit is calling you to do in response to his word is ever-changing. This is one of the reasons Christians have loved scripture over the centuries, and equate a living aspect to it. It's not the meaning of the text that changes, it's the depth to which it calls us to be more connected to the image of the Son. This is the role of the Holy Spirit in interpretation. My question would be why would you want to interpret this story if you don’t desire to see the supremacy of Christ? Why would you care to work on scripture to get to its technical meaning without worshiping a Holy God at the end of it? What use is that literary analysis? Who will you present this to, if not to preach the Word and to exalt the most precious and glorious God of which it is most certainly about? My conclusion is that not only is a true biblical interpretation not possible for those who don’t believe, but it is also a waste to perform literary analysis on scripture without believing the whole story of which it is about. It would be as nonsensical as hiring a computer as a football coach. The danger of believing scripture was primarily written by man, is that it can then be wrong since to be man is to err. We would relegate ourselves to a few of scripture that shows us that we may question parts of scripture. Right around Christmas time, you will start to hear all of the amazing prophecies about Jesus concerning his birth life, and death. But did those prophets really know what they were saying? The short answer is no. How Did Jesus Understand Scripture? Read Learn More About What We Believe Prosper Christian Reformed Church holds that the Bible is the inerrant, divinely inspired Word of God and the highest authority for faith and life. We believe in the centrality of the gospel: that all people are sinners in need of salvation, which comes through Jesus Christ’s atoning death and resurrection, by grace alone through faith alone. We practices infant baptism as a sign of covenant inclusion and uphold traditional biblical teachings on marriage, gender roles, and sexuality. We affirm Reformed theology, including the five points of Calvinism, and embrace an amillennial view of Christ’s reign and the end times. What We Believe

Read what Pastor Mitchell has to say on a variety of different topics Prosper Blog Rebaptism and the Promise That Does Not Repeat Mitchell Leach Rebaptism and the Promise That Does Not Repeat Mitchell Leach The question of rebaptism is not new. The church has wrestled with it for nearly two millennia, and the consistent testimony of the historic, catholic, and Reformed church is that baptism is once-for-all. The modern practice of rebaptism does not arise from Scripture or from historic Christianity; He Gives Himself: A reflection on Matthew 26:26–28 and the Lord's Supper Mitchell Leach Before the meal ended, Jesus said something remarkable. He said he would not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the day he drank it new with them in his Father's kingdom.⁹ He said it knowing Judas was about to leave to betray him. He said it knowing Peter would deny him before morning. He said it knowing the cross was hours away. And still — he was already looking past it. Already speaking of another meal, another table, a feast on the other side. Drawing the Line of Legalism Mitchell Leach You’ve probably heard the term legalism, or legalist used — not just in the church — but in culture abroad. Legalism carries a clearly negative connotation (and for good reason). Yet legalism isn’t a word found in the English Bible, but that doesn’t mean the Bible doesn’t say anything about it. Paul uses the phrase “works of the law” eight times in his writings (Romans 2:15, 3:20, 3:28, Galatians 2:16, 3:2, 3:5, 3:10). Can we trust the Council of Nicaea? Mitchell Leach Why can the church feel this way? Because men cannot create new — correct theology — men can only discover it. Men can invent new heresy, but not orthodoxy. Men and women today and in antiquity can only recognize it. And this is what the modern church should find confidence in. As noted above, the implications of this inform nearly every subsequent theological position the church has taken since. The council of Nicaea was moved by the Holy Spirit to... How is Man Made Right With God? Mitchell Leach If you look at any human relationship – any meaningful one at that – you will find injustice from either party. It is inescapable, humanity defaults toward relational injustice, not towards relational justice. We inflict harm to those we love, and those who love us. Humanity has a strange propensity to cause brokenness in relationships. We do this not just in our horizontal relationships, but in our vertical relationship with God. How is man made right with God? First Prev 1 Page 1 Next Last