Mothers Day Sermon Series Description

Come And Live Sermon Series Description Come and Live is a series about a Jesus who is bigger than the help we came looking for. In John 5, a man who has been unable to walk for thirty-eight years lies beside a pool, waiting for someone to carry him into the water. Jesus doesn't carry him into the water. He tells him to get up — and the man does. But what begins as a healing story quickly becomes something far larger. Jesus claims to do what only God does: give life to the dead, execute judgment over the world, and fulfill everything the Scriptures have been pointing toward. The religious leaders see the same evidence and reach for stones instead of worship. Over three weeks, we will watch the testimony pile up — miracle, teaching, Scripture, the Father himself — and face the question John wants every reader to answer: will you come to the Son and live, or will you stand next to the evidence and refuse to move? Jesus is the Father's life-giving Son who heals the helpless, raises the dead, and fulfills the Scriptures — and the only fitting response is to come to him and live.

Come And Eat Sermon Series Description Come and Eat is a series about a Jesus who refuses to be your caterer. In John 6, Jesus feeds five thousand people with five loaves and two fish, walks across a stormy sea in the dark, and then loses most of his following in a single sermon. The crowd loves the bread. They want more of it. They will chase him across a lake to get it. But when Jesus tells them that he himself is the bread — that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood to have life — the enthusiasm disappears. Over four weeks, we will watch Jesus reenact the exodus story at Passover, reveal himself as the true manna from heaven, say the hardest thing he has said yet in John's Gospel, and thin his own crowd down to twelve. The question John 6 forces is not whether Jesus can provide for you. He obviously can. The question is whether you will stay when he stops being what you expected and starts being who he actually is. Jesus is the true Bread from heaven who gives his flesh for the life of the world — and true disciples remain with him not because his words are easy but because his words are life.

Come And Drink Sermon Series Description Come and Drink is a series about a God who shows up to his own party uninvited. The Feast of Booths was supposed to celebrate God's wilderness provision — water from the rock, shelter in the desert, the presence that sustained Israel when nothing else could. But when the one to whom all that provision pointed walks into the feast, he has to sneak in because the hosts want to kill him. Over three weeks, we will watch everyone form an opinion about Jesus — his brothers, the crowds, the leaders, the officers sent to arrest him — and every one of them will get something wrong. They judge by appearances. They assume they know where he comes from. They argue about his credentials while ignoring his claims. And then, on the last and greatest day of the feast, Jesus stands up and shouts: if anyone is thirsty, come to me and drink. The whole chapter forces a single question — will you stand with the crowd debating Jesus from a distance, or will you come to him thirsty? At the Feast of Booths, Jesus exposes every shallow judgment about his identity and offers the Spirit to anyone who will stop arguing about him and come to him thirsty.

Read what Pastor Mitchell has to say on a variety of different topics Prosper Blog What is Sin? Mitchell Leach Why the Lord's Supper Does What Believer's Baptism Doesn't Mitchell Leach Reformed Christians do not wait for baptism to profess faith. Baptism marks God’s covenant promise; public profession and admission to the Lord’s Table become the ordinary way believers confess Christ before the church. Grace Makes You a Charity Case Mitchell Leach We want to work for what we receive. We want to pay our own way and earn our place. This is true in nearly every part of life, and it often becomes true of the way we relate to God. We begin to think that if we work hard enough, obey consistently enough, or become useful enough, God will be pleased with us. This is the question that will wear out your soul: Am I working hard enough for God? Paul addresses this directly in Galatians 3: Bible, Theology A Plain Guide to What We Believe About Dispensationalism Mitchell Leach Is God a God who tests humanity, watches it fail, and starts over with a new arrangement? Or is he a God whose purpose never wavers — whose covenant never changes, whose plan was never derailed, never improvised, never interrupted by human failure? That is the question this paper is about. And it is not abstract at all. The answer determines how you read every page of your Bible, how you understand the church you belong to, and what you believe about the God you worship. Position Paper, Theology What We Believe About Dispensationalism Mitchell Leach Prosper Christian Reformed Church rejects dispensationalism and its theological interpretations. While we wouldn’t call this faulty belief system heretical, we would strongly declare that it is erroneous and an improper way to handle God’s word. The failure in this theology is that it divorces God from his steadfast love, or covenant love. God’s covenantal love for his people becomes dependent on the time in which he speaks. Bible, Position Paper The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978) The following Statement affirms this inerrancy of Scripture afresh, making clear our understanding of it and warning against its denial. We are persuaded that to deny it is to set aside the witness of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit and to refuse that submission to the claims of God's own Word which marks true Christian faith. Position Paper, Theology First Prev 1 Page 1 Next Last

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 Why the Lord's Supper Does What Believer's Baptism Doesn't Mitchell Leach April 7, 2026 Bible, Theology, Position Paper 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

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 Why the Lord's Supper Does What Believer's Baptism Doesn't Mitchell Leach June 9, 2024 Theology, Church History 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

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 Why the Lord's Supper Does What Believer's Baptism Doesn't Mitchell Leach February 9, 2026 Position Paper, Theology 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, 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

Grace Makes You a Charity Case We want to work for what we receive. We want to pay our own way and earn our place. This is true in nearly every part of life, and it often becomes true of the way we relate to God. We begin to think that if we work hard enough, obey consistently enough, or become useful enough, God will be pleased with us. This is the question that will wear out your soul: Am I working hard enough for God? Paul addresses this directly in Galatians 3: Heading 5 Why the Lord's Supper Does What Believer's Baptism Doesn't Mitchell Leach July 27, 2026 Theology, Bible Most of us don’t want to be charity cases. We want to work for what we receive. We want to pay our own way and earn our place. This is true in nearly every part of life, and it often becomes true of the way we relate to God. We begin to think that if we work hard enough, obey consistently enough, or become useful enough, God will be pleased with us. This is the question that will wear out your soul: Am I working hard enough for God? Paul addresses this directly in Galatians 3: “O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?”—Galatians 3:1–3 The Galatians had received the gospel. Jesus Christ had been publicly portrayed before them as crucified. They understood that they were saved through faith in Christ. Yet now they were living as though Christ had begun their salvation, but they would need to finish it through their own effort. Paul’s question is simple: Did God come to you as a boss paying wages, or as a Father giving gifts? Grace Is Offensive to Hard Workers Grace is difficult for hardworking people because grace makes you a charity case before it makes you useful. Legalism affirms that we can save ourselves. It says 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 in order to treat us like Jesus. For us to insist on getting what we are owed is to insist on our destruction. Paul writes: “For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.’”—Galatians 3:10 The problem is not God’s law. God’s law is good. The problem is our attempt to use the law to make ourselves righteous. If we want to stand before God based on our obedience, we must obey everything. We do not get to present our best moments and ignore the rest. We cannot offer God sincere effort and demand that he call it righteousness. The law requires perfect obedience. We have not given it. God Loves Obedience 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. First Samuel 15:22 says: “Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the Lord? To obey is better than sacrifice.” This isn’t only confined to the Old Testament. In John 14:15, Jesus says: “If you love me, keep my commands.” God loves when we obey what he has told us to do because his law 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 right and true. Every time we don’t follow him, we break away from our Creator. God loves our obedience when it is done with the right intention. But when we try to leverage our obedience toward God as an act to earn God’s favor, it is disgusting to him. My Kids Are Bad Artists 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 it is given as an act of love in response to the love we’ve given them, it is priceless. This is similar to the way God feels about us trying to earn his favor or love through our good works. Our works aren’t impressive enough to place God in our debt. Yet when they come from a heart of love in response to the love he has given us, they are precious to him. The difference is not the quality of the artwork. It is the heart behind it. Our Obedience Can Become Rebellion 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.” This passage uses clearly strong language against our righteous deeds. The original Hebrew is even stronger than many English translations communicate. The polluted garment Isaiah describes was a ceremonially unclean rag. Why does Isaiah describe our righteous deeds this way? Because we have perverted what God designed for our good and turned it into evil. We take obedience, which should be a loving response to God, and turn it into a way to twist God’s arm into loving us more or blessing us more. Just like a child who tries to trick his parent out of cleaning the playroom, God is greatly displeased when we use his law as a weapon against him. Our obedience becomes an act of rebellion when we use it to replace grace. Religion says, “I obey; therefore, God accepts me.” The gospel says, “God has accepted me in Christ; therefore, I obey.” The order matters. Abraham Believed God Paul continues his argument by pointing back to Abraham: “Just as Abraham ‘believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.’ Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham.”—Galatians 3:6–7 Abraham was not made righteous because he had done enough. He believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness. Abraham brought no credentials. He came with faith in the promise of God. Paul’s argument is that this has always been the way God saves his people. God does not save people because they have earned his blessing. He gives the blessing through faith. The gospel was announced beforehand to Abraham when God said, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” This blessing would not remain within one family or one nation. It would come to all those who share Abraham’s faith. We are not brought into God’s family through our ancestry, our religious background, or our performance. We are brought in through faith in Christ. Christ Became a Curse for Us The law does not save us. It exposes our guilt. Paul writes: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us.”—Galatians 3:13 The cross is where your earnings go to die. Christ did not come to help us pay the rest of our debt. He came because we could not pay it. We stood under the curse of the law. Jesus took that curse upon himself. He traded places with us on the cross. He received what we should have received, and in return, we are treated as he deserves to be treated. Paul says this happened: “So that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.”—Galatians 3:14 Christ took the curse so that we could receive the blessing. We do not receive the Holy Spirit as a wage. We receive the Spirit as a gift. We do not become God’s children because we have proven ourselves useful. We become useful because God has first made us his children. 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 his own deeds and perceived moral standing. He believes he deserves certain rights because of his actions and life choices. He explains that he has gone straight all his life. He admits that he was not religious and had faults, but insists that he did his best. He paid for what he took. If he received wages, it was because he did the work. He wants nothing more than his rights. The other man tells him that getting his rights would not be good news. He says, “I haven’t got my rights, or I should not be here. You will not get yours either. You’ll get something far better.” Still, the Ghost insists that he does not want anyone’s “bleeding charity.” The response is: “Then do. At once. Ask for the Bleeding Charity. Everything is here for the asking and nothing can be bought.” Christianity isn’t a marketplace. It’s a mercy seat. 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 poor in spirit know they cannot pay. They know they do not have enough righteousness to bargain with God. They do not ask for their rights. They ask for mercy. Everything Is Here for the Asking The question is not whether you have worked hard enough. You haven’t. The question is not whether you have obeyed enough, prayed enough, served enough, or made yourself useful enough. You haven’t. The question is whether Christ has done enough. He has. The Christian life begins when we stop bargaining with God. We come before him without leverage, without credentials, and without any claim that he owes us something. We ask for the Bleeding Charity. Everything is here for the asking, and nothing can be bought. Whether or not prayer is effective (and it is effective), we are called to be followers of Christ. The question shouldn’t be “Does prayer change things?” But rather “Is Jesus God?” Because if he is in fact God, then what he says goes. Questioning God on whether his commandments make sense to us is a grievously offensive practice. In doing so we (as finite creatures) are inferring that we — somehow — have a better perspective... If God Is Sovereign, Why Pray? 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

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 Why the Lord's Supper Does What Believer's Baptism Doesn't Mitchell Leach December 10, 2025 Bible, Theology 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

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 Why the Lord's Supper Does What Believer's Baptism Doesn't Mitchell Leach February 11, 2025 Theology, Bible 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

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 Why the Lord's Supper Does What Believer's Baptism Doesn't Mitchell Leach October 15, 2024 Bible, Theology 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