Soli Deo Gloria

Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto thy name give glory, for thy mercy, and for thy truth’s sake.” Glory to God alone!

“I am the Lord: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.” Glory to God alone!

“Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.” Glory to God alone!

Glory to God alone! This was the first song ever uttered by a creature. This was the song of the sons of God, those flaming spirits and morning stars who witnessed God’s creative act in the beginning. When God called the world into existence by the word of his power—glory to God alone! When he formed the seas and the dry land—glory to God alone! When he filled the skies and the seas and the earth with their creatures—glory to God alone! When he formed man from the dust of the earth and when he formed the male’s perfect female counterpart from the rib—glory to God alone!

Glory to God alone! This was the very breath of Adam during that brief moment in Eden.

Glory to God alone! This has been the refrain of the church that God creates for himself in the world by his marvelous call while she passes the time of her sojourning here below in fear.

Glory to God alone! This is the melody of the souls of just men made perfect in heaven.

Glory to God alone! This will be the everlasting chorus of the redeemed and glorified creation into the ages without end in new Jerusalem. The apostle John, being lifted up in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, beheld, and lo! a great multitude that no man could number of all nations, kindreds, people, and tongues, clothed with white robes and palms in their hands—stood before the throne and the Lamb. And that great multitude cried with a loud voice, saying, “Salvation to our God who sits upon the throne, and unto the Lamb!” And all the angels stood round about the throne and about the elders and the four beasts and fell before the throne on their faces and worshiped God, saying, “Amen. Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honor, and power, and might, be unto our God for ever and ever! Amen.”

Good is God because he is goodness. Good is he, being righteousness and justice and truth, love and holiness and spotless purity, the implication of all his infinite perfections. Good is he in all his divine being. Good is he in all his thinking and willing. God is not the supreme good alongside other goods. Nay, he is the sole good and the overflowing fountain of all good. There is none good but God. Man’s most precious possession is to be possessed by the only good and ever-blessed God.

Glory be to the eternally good God who determines to reveal his glory outside himself. Glory be to God who in his counsel purposes to reveal the glory of his name antithetically, in order that the glory of his most perfect and adorable being be set over against the dark backdrop of all evil. He determines from everlasting not only to reveal that he is truth but also to do this in opposition to the lie. He is righteousness over against all unrighteousness. He is light over against all darkness and shadow of turning. He is life over against death. He conceives in his free and determinative counsel to reveal his spotless perfection and radiant being, full of grace and truth, in antithesis to the horror and ugliness of sin and corruption. He conceives all that is opposed to him as an object of his terrible wrath and hatred for that specific purpose of magnifying the glory of his most holy name. And there is a day that comes quickly when this antithesis shall be made manifest before every rational and moral creature—the day of the Lord! Then every tongue shall confess, whether willingly or nillingly, that he is God to the praise of his most excellent name.

Antithesis. We use this term, but what comes to mind when we say it?

The term antithesis most basically refers to two entities or principles that are set over against each other. The term conjoins the Greek prefix anti (against) with the Greek verb tithemi (to set) and connotes the idea of opposition.

When the term first entered theological discourse is unclear. Henry Stob, a professor of philosophical and moral theology at Calvin Theological Seminary until his retirement in 1975, wrote,

The use of the term antithesis in theological discourse dates, as far as I can determine, from the post-Hegelian era [referring to the early nineteenth-century philosopher Georg W. F. Hegel, a philosopher who employed the term in his philosophical system]. It appears not to have been used by John Calvin or by his seventeenth- and eighteenth-century disciples. It came into prominence, however, with the so-called Neo-Calvinism that arose in the Netherlands during the latter half of the 19th century. Guillame Groen van Prinsterer and Abraham Kuyper popularized the term, but they did not accept its Hegelian connotations…They posited the view that a vast gulf exists between Jerusalem and Athens, and that a commitment to Christ cannot be harmonized by a purely humanistic outlook on life. At an early age Kuyper…proclaimed with word and deed that a radical antithesis exists between those who do and those who do not live their lives out of obedience to Jesus Christ. And in so doing he believed himself to have the support of the gospel and also of the classical Christian tradition.

And so indeed he did. Even though the term antithesis was not at all, or only scarcely, employed by theologians before his time, the thing to which the term itself is applicable had been in the purview of religious thinkers for ages.¹

Therefore, it is likely that the term antithesis arose within the Dutch Reformed tradition less than two centuries ago.

However, the term was present in the doctrine of the Protestant Reformed Churches from the very beginning of its existence. This is evident by an early article that Herman Hoeksema wrote in the Standard Bearer.² And the peculiar emphasis of the Protestant Reformed Churches concerning the antithesis was that the antithesis is to be traced back to God’s eternal counsel and determination to glorify his name to the highest possible degree. In his counsel God conceives of the antithesis as the revelation of his most perfect and adorable being over against all that is corrupt and perverse.

Thus when we use the term antithesis, this must be foremost in our minds: glory to God alone!

No Concern for God’s Glory

In his letter to the consistory and congregation of Zion Reformed Protestant Church, Mr. Meelker expresses his concern. He expresses his concern about pastors and individuals, churches and denominations outside the Reformed Protestant denomination. He expresses his concern about members of the congregation who have fellowship with family members who have left the Reformed Protestant denomination in disgust over its doctrine. He expresses concern for members of Zion who felt exhausted and beaten under the preaching at Zion. He expresses concern that the little children of the congregation were being trained as warmongers. He expresses concern for the Protestant Reformed family with whom he has close friendship.

With great sorrow he expresses these concerns.

But not once does Mr. Meelker’s letter express concern for the glory of God. You do not need to take my word for it. Let me set Mr. Meelker’s letter before you once more:

Dear consistory of Zion RPC,

It is with much sorrow that I write this letter to you. For many months our congregation has been divided, and we are growing more and more divided by the day. We could try to point at specific doctrines that the denomination holds to, which members of the congregation disagree with. We could point at the way we treat each other and how we walk together in the life of the body. We could look high and low for the problems each member has and attempt to diagnose the cause of our division. But in doing so, we won’t get to the root of our division. It wasn’t until recently that the root has been brought to light. It has been brought to the consistory by members of the congregation that the preaching is dividing our church. It has been discussed at length in our consistory meetings. It has been discussed at family visitation. It has been protested against.

The issue is our view of polemics and antithetical preaching. To be clear, the issue is not antithetical preaching (truth vs. lie) altogether, as this is a necessary part of the preaching. The issue is our consistory’s perception of how the antithesis ought to be preached. This is the view our church holds to. The churches in the Reformed Protestant denomination are the only churches who have the uncorrupted truth. No other church of no other denomination has this truth. And since the antithesis requires a continual warfare against all that is untrue, we will draw the sword against all who are not Reformed Protestant. This view requires us to condemn every church, preacher, and individual with the harshest possible condemnation if they do not belong to this particular institution. We view them as “dogs and pigs,” feral pigs who you mow down with a machine gun from a helicopter. We despise and hate them because they are not of us. We are to separate ourselves from our families, shunning them as though they have no place in the kingdom of heaven, regardless of their godly walk and confession. The office bearers are to rebuke the members of the congregation who have fellowship with family members outside of the RPC. If we do not continually rebuke them, then the office bearers, along with those “wandering” members, have no love for the truth.

These rebukes and condemnations have come. They have come relentlessly from the consistory and the pulpit. Many in the congregation feel beaten and are exhausted. Some have cried out to the consistory for help. Others have told the pastor directly. The consistory’s response has been this. “The truth hurts. It cuts as a sharp sword, and our flesh needs this cutting. Our flesh doesn’t like to be cut but we need it, and if they don’t believe it, it is because they don’t love the truth!” (This is a paraphrased quote, not verbatim)

The consistory knows the pushing of this antithetical view is what is dividing our congregation. What the congregation hears after bringing their grievances is not a word of comfort for their weary souls. It is not what Isaiah brought to a downcast people. Isaiah 61:1–3 “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; [2] To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn; [3] To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the Lord, that he might be glorified.” When the sheep are downcast, they need to hear that they are “trees of righteousness” rather than that they “wander to Sodom.”

What is of additional concern is that we are not teaching the lambs of the congregation to fight for the truth. We are preparing them to be warmongers who hate all those outside of the RPC. We are teaching them to condemn everybody. I say this from personal experience. After church a couple weeks ago our 8 year old son told us that a Protestant Reformed family with whom we have a close friendship does not love God. “They can’t love God because they go to a church who doesn’t preach about God. They preach about man. If they loved God they would not be in that church. That’s why we had to leave.”

Our consistory would have rejoiced at this child’s “confession,” except he really doesn’t believe it. He was repeating what he hears at church. Oh, he understands quite well why we left the PRC, but he doesn’t believe that everyone there hates God. He doesn’t believe it because he is taught contrary to that in the home. I refuse to teach him to condemn everyone outside the RPC. Rather, I teach him to judge whether a man shows himself to be a child of God by his walk and confession.

I am convinced that the preaching will not change in this church. As an office bearer, I cannot teach what this church would require me to teach. As a father, I cannot continue to defend my minister and denomination by telling my children “that’s not what they mean.” For this reason, I cannot remain in this church. And while it grieves me to leave, I am confident that the Lord, as our faithful Shepherd will guide our family, never unto Sodom, but always in the way of truth. With this letter, I request that my membership papers, along with those of Sonja, James, Jorie, Maggie, and Vivian be sent to my home.

Your brother in Christ, Nick Meelker

Oops! I stand corrected. There is concern for the glory of God in Mr. Meelker’s letter. However, this did not come from the mouth of Mr. Meelker but from the lips of his eight-year-old son. It was the child who set things in terms of God and God’s glory over against man and man’s glory. But Mr. Meelker quickly silenced his son. Mr. Meelker would not let the glory of God come from the mouth of babes.

Oh, how Mr. Meelker comes swooping down to defend the honor of men! Yet he has nothing to say about the glory of God. For Mr. Meelker the concerning thing at Zion was not the glory of God alone. It was everything but God’s glory. Mr. Meelker sorrows greatly, but not because there was anything preached that diminished the glory of God’s name. He sorrows greatly because men were abased. This fact itself condemns his whole letter, and I could let the matter rest here.

But I will not.

A Beggarly Description

Under this rubric Our Doctrine, I have been examining Mr. Meelker’s letter that was sent to the consistory and congregation of Zion Reformed Protestant Church. And it is pertinent to examine this letter under the present rubric because the issue at Zion was a doctrinal matter. The issue was the doctrine of God’s sovereign decree of reprobation. More specifically, the issue was the doctrine of God’s sovereign decree of reprobation as it manifests itself not merely between churchmen and pagans but also as it manifests itself within the church and sphere of the covenant.

That Zion was divided over the doctrine of reprobation is not how Mr. Meelker frames the issue in his letter. In his letter Mr. Meelker explains the division at Zion this way:

The issue is our view of polemics and antithetical preaching. To be clear, the issue is not antithetical preaching (truth vs. lie) altogether, as this is a necessary part of the preaching. The issue is our consistory’s perception of how the antithesis ought to be preached.

According to Mr. Meelker, the issue was the consistory’s perception of how the antithesis ought to be preached. Mr. Meelker claims that he does not reject antithetical preaching altogether. He says that preaching of the truth over against the lie is a necessary part of the preaching. And he presents the doctrine of the antithesis in terms of truth against lie.

Now certainly this portrayal of the antithesis as “truth vs. lie” is not wrong in itself. The truth is absolutely antithetical to the lie, and there can be no synthesis of the two. And to maintain this antithesis between the truth and the lie requires continual warfare on the part of the church. This is reflected everywhere in our Reformed liturgical forms. I give two examples to briefly underscore this point.

That the antithesis involves standing for the truth and rejecting the lie is reflected, first, in the second question asked of those members of the church who make public confession of faith:

Have you resolved by the grace of God to adhere to this doctrine [contained in the Old and New Testaments and in the articles of the Christian faith and taught here in this Christian church]; to reject all heresies repugnant thereto; and to lead a new, godly life? (Confessions and Church Order, 266)

Second, that the antithesis involves standing for the truth and rejecting the lie is reflected in the Formula of Subscription, to which the undersigned and every other officebearer in a Reformed church must subscribe:

We promise therefore diligently to teach and faithfully to defend the aforesaid doctrine [of the three forms of unity], without either directly or indirectly contradicting the same, by our public preaching and writing.

We declare, moreover, that we not only reject all errors that militate against this doctrine, and particularly those which were condemned by the above mentioned synod [of Dordrecht, 1618–19], but that we are disposed to refute and contradict these, and to exert ourselves in keeping the church free from such errors. (Confessions and Church Order, 326)

And I could also quote from the Form for Ordination of Ministers of God’s Word and the Form for Ordination of Elders and Deacons (Confessions and Church Order, 284–85, 291). I could point to Church Order article 55 (Confessions and Church Order, 397). And I could also quote scripture at length. The antithesis requires continual warfare on the part of the church over against all that contradicts the truth of scripture.

However, there is a deeper matter to the doctrine of the antithesis that Mr. Meelker purposefully ignores. In fact, when Mr. Meelker asserts that the antithesis consists in “truth vs. lie,” his assertion is a thinly veiled dismissal and jettison of the whole doctrine of the antithesis. What he rejects is that the antithesis is not merely a matter of truth over against the lie. What he hates is that the antithesis includes the idea of reprobation.

This is evident by the quotations from my sermon series on 2 Peter that Mr. Meelker uses to denounce the consistory’s doctrine of the antithesis. (Having explored these sermons last time,³ I only briefly refer to them here to show that there was a stark doctrinal difference in Zion regarding the truth of reprobation in connection with the truth of the antithesis.) These sermons expounded the presence of false teachers and their damnable heresies and the massive wake of apostasy that follows them in light of the doctrine of sovereign reprobation. God’s eternal decree discriminates the human race into those whom he elects in his free and sovereign love and those whom he rejects in his wrath and hatred. And in 2 Peter, this eternal decree of God manifests itself concretely within the church whenever false teachers and their disciples, having known the way of righteousness, depart from the truth and entangle themselves again with the pollutions of the world. God’s eternal decree explains why some cleave to the truth and others blaspheme the truth. God’s eternal decree explains why that happened in Peter’s day, and God’s eternal decree explains why that happens yet today.

But Mr. Meelker refers to these sermons in his rejection of the consistory’s position regarding the antithesis. Why? Because he wishes to gut the antithesis of any weight or substance. Under the guise of standing for the doctrine of the antithesis, he presents a dry skeleton devoid of any flesh and substance. He does not confess that what must be preached about the antithesis includes the idea of sovereign reprobation in the sphere of the covenant. He does not believe that the doctrine of God’s decree should govern and interpret the rise of false teachers in the church today. He does not believe that the doctrine of God’s decree should govern and interpret the massive wake of apostasy that follows false teachers today.

But if one talks about the antithesis, he is not talking about mere “truth vs. lie.” When one talks about the antithesis, he is immediately confronted with the glory of God—with God’s holy being, with God’s glorious sovereignty, with God’s faultless wisdom, with God’s determination to reveal his light over against the darkness, with God as the potter who forms for himself vessels of mercy and vessels of wrath and who chooses that the latter must always serve the former.

Across every natural distinction of race, color, sex, age, and position, there is a cleavage that separates men into two different and opposing camps. There are children of light and children of darkness. Sons of Christ and sons of Belial. There are two cities: the city of God and the city of the world. And these two peoples stand in complete opposition, for they serve either God or god, he who dwells in the heavens or a stock of wood and stone, the truth or the lie. The testimony of the former camp is “Glory to God alone!” The testimony of the latter camp is “Glory to man alone!” The cause of the former is that God is all in all in the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ. The cause of the latter is that man is all in all in the kingdom of the man of sin who sits in the temple of God claiming to be God.

Furthermore, the antithesis has to do with God’s covenant. The antithesis is not a mere logical implication of God’s covenant. The antithesis is not a mere good and practical application of God’s covenant. The antithesis is intrinsic to God’s covenant with his people. How does God express his covenant of grace in Genesis 3:15? “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed.” That is how God reveals his covenant of grace for the first time in scripture! In scripture God also speaks of his covenant in these terms: “I will be a God unto you and to your seed.” He says, “I will be to you a father, and you shall be to me a son.” He says, “I am married to you.” Yet never out of view when God speaks of his covenant is the antithesis of Genesis 3:15. Or as James says in the New Testament: “Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God” (4:4).

The antithesis is about God. The antithesis is about how God will be glorified. God ordained the darkness. God determined that the evil and all his reprobate enemies should serve his glory. His holiness and purity and righteousness stand in glorious relief against the pollution and corruption and unrighteousness of this present age. God willed the darkness, but always as an object of his fierce hatred that his glory might be served. The antithesis is not a bare speaking of the truth and a condemning of the lie, for the covenant is a relationship of love for God, which necessarily includes hatred of whatever is not of God. For those whom God has brought into covenant relationship with himself, the antithesis involves an abhorrence toward whatever is not holy. Covenant life with God expresses itself with loathing whatever is not consecrated to the glory of God.

There is no common ground between those who follow the truth and those who follow after a lie. Sure, in this world all men have natural things in common. But it is this world that is also the spiritual battleground upon which two seeds continually clash. The calling is to be an enemy of those who hate God. The calling is to be an enemy of those who profane the glory of God with their false doctrine. The calling is to be an enemy of those who manifest their hatred of God by their miserable indifference when false doctrine drags Christ down from heaven and makes him beg and wait on man until man first does his part. And the loss of the antithesis in the lives of God’s people shows that they are not thinking covenantally.

It is this aspect of the antithesis that Mr. Meelker rejects. And to cloak his unbelief in the truth of God’s sovereign reprobation within the church and sphere of God’s covenant, he gives the antithesis a beggarly description of “truth vs. lie.”

A Wandering from a Peculiar Heritage

Though Mr. Meelker is very assertive in his letter that he does not wander from the truth but rather is led by the Lord in the way of truth, he now foolishly strays from the precious heritage of the truth that God gave to him.

That the antithesis is grounded in the decree of election and reprobation is the peculiar heritage that was passed down to Zion Reformed Protestant Church from her spiritual fathers. Even the opponents of Herman Hoeksema recognized that he constructed the idea of the antithesis in terms of election and reprobation.⁴

I now quote Hoeksema at length to demonstrate our peculiar heritage:

For this purpose [of glorifying his name] God wills a people of His covenant, that shall exist to the glory of His Name and whose sole purpose is to shew forth His praises and to manifest His glorious virtues. They must be partakers of His nature and life, they must be bearers of His image, they must be vessels of His light, manifestations of His righteousness and truth, of His Holiness and grace and love. For the realization of the counsel of God, they must be of His party. And since it was God’s eternal purpose to reveal this glory antithetically, as over against the darkness of the lie, unrighteousness and corruption [and] this power of darkness must be there in the vessels of wrath and the children of light must be brought into closest connection with them, in order that they may manifest the light and condemn the darkness, stand for the truth and condemn the lie, walk in holiness and love and condemn corruption and enmity of God. Thus God conceives of the vessels of mercy and those of wrath, that the former may reveal the glory of God’s virtues over against and in opposition to the powers of darkness. Thus is God’s eternal purpose. For He is the potter and we are the clay. And it is His sovereign prerogative to make known His power and glory in vessels of honour and of dishonour, and to raise Pharaoh for the purpose of revealing the glory of His infinite Name. Such is the counsel of election and reprobation. They are not two coordinate parts of God’s counsel, but the latter serves the former. Reprobation serves both to bring out the glory of election and to lead in a way of opposition and sin God’s covenant to highest conceivable glory.

Such is the idea of the antithesis.⁵

And that the antithesis does not involve merely “truth vs. lie” but encompasses the entire life and worldview of the Reformed believer was also taught to us. Here is what Prof. David Engelsma wrote:

In sharp contrast to the conforming mentality of the worldview of common grace, the Reformed worldview is antithetical—unashamedly, boldly, urgently antithetical…Two radically different groups of people, hostile to each other, live in the closest proximity. They develop two fundamentally different cultures in the same spheres of creation. One group confesses the sovereignty of the triune God and Father of Jesus Christ and willingly submit to the Lordship of the crucified and risen Jesus Christ. The other rebels against God and His Messiah. The Reformed worldview calls Christians to be separate from those who deny Jesus Christ and thus the one, true God.

Is any truth clearer, or more emphatic, in Scripture than the antithesis?

God Himself set the history of the human race on its way with the word of Genesis 3:15, dividing the race into two antagonistic families: “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” Old Testament Israel must dwell in safety alone (Deut. 33:28). It is no different for the New Testament church and child of God.

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty (II Cor. 6:14–18).⁶

And further from Professor Engelsma:

The worldview of the Bible is antithetical, and the antithesis is grounded in divine predestination. Whatever worldview fails to reckon with the antithesis, weakens the antithesis, or denies the antithesis is false.

The antithesis that is basic to the biblical worldview for the church and Christian in the New Testament is spiritual. It is the separation and warfare between faith and unbelief. The believer thinks God’s thoughts after Him; God is not in all the unbeliever’s thoughts. The believer does all to the glory of God; the unbeliever lives for self, humanity, and sin. The believer trusts in God in Jesus Christ for salvation and, indeed, all things; the unbeliever trusts in the arm of human flesh, or frankly despairs. The believer obeys God in love; the unbeliever either tramples the commandments of God underfoot, or outwardly observes the laws of God out of self-interest.

The antithesis between the seed of the woman— Jesus Christ and those who are His by divine election—and the seed of the serpent—those who are Satan’s progeny according to divine reprobation— in the New Testament age is not physical. The antithesis certainly must, and does, come to physical expression. The Christian does not worship with the pagans or with the false church (I Cor. 10:14–22). He may not date and marry an unbeliever (I Cor. 7:39). He may not cultivate friendship with an unbeliever (II Cor. 6:14–18). He may not cooperate with unbelievers in ungodly enterprises, for example, building an earthly kingdom of God apart from Jesus Christ, the pardon of sins, and lives of holiness (II Chron. 19:2). Reformed parents educate the children of the covenant in their own schools, where the instruction is based on Scripture and the Reformed confessions and where the law of God rules the speech and conduct of all the students (Eph. 6:4).⁷

An antithetical attitude must be assumed by the believer in every sphere of life in the midst of the world toward the world of darkness. It is not his calling to leave the world but to live the whole of his life from a different spiritual and ethical principle than the natural man. The believer is in the world but not of the world. What is our Lord’s prayer? “I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil” (John 17:15). By virtue of God’s call to his elect church, drawing them out of darkness into his marvelous light, the antithesis must necessarily dominate the entire life of the Christian in the world. Why? Because God decreed it and because God establishes this by his wonderwork of regeneration and because God himself works it by his word and Spirit.

Although this doctrine of the antithesis has long been taught to Mr. Meelker, he now holds it in contempt as a yoke of bondage and not the way of perfect liberty. This understanding of the antithesis Mr. Meelker flatly rejects in his letter. Mr. Meelker speaks of the antithesis, but he speaks of it in word only. No, he has not silenced the concept of the antithesis into oblivion. However, if he maintains what he asserts about the antithesis in his letter, then a complete silence of the antithesis is soon to follow. Currently he pretends to defend it, only claiming that the antithesis in a Christian’s life is never absolute but relative in actual manifestation and practice. He believes that the antithesis is absolute in some respect—in terms of “truth vs. lie”—but he also maintains a certain practical synthesis in this world between the children of light and those of darkness. He claims himself the theory but not the practice. And soon he will lose both.

If Mr. Meelker does not believe what his son said about the Protestant Reformed Churches—“They can’t love God because they go to a church who doesn’t preach about God. They preach about man. If they loved God they would not be in that church. That’s why we had to leave”—if Mr. Meelker does not believe that, then why did he leave Hope Protestant Reformed Church in Redlands in the first place? The very existence of Zion was a testimony against the Protestant Reformed church in Southern California that she had rejected the truth of God and embraced a doctrine of man. Who rejects the truth of God and embraces a doctrine of man—one who loves God? Who can stomach preaching that proclaims that the cross of Jesus Christ was not enough, that one must approach the table of the Lord’s supper with their own righteousness that exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, that one must avail himself of available grace to preserve himself in this present waste-howling wilderness, that if a man would be saved there is that which he must do, that good works and obedience must not be slighted in their ability to give a child of God possession of his salvation—one who loves God?

The mouth of babes and sucklings was instructing Mr. Meelker. And he detested it. He detested it because he does not believe that there may be friends and family members whom God has hated from all eternity and willed their destruction. He does not believe that when those enemies of God manifest themselves in the church and sphere of the covenant by their rejection of the truth, we hate them too.

Yes, we hate them.

That hatred does not preclude real sorrow.

What does Paul utter in the epistle to the Romans?

1. I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,

2. That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.

3. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh. (Rom. 9:1–3)

What an astounding confession that the inspired apostle makes with an oath! If confronted with the choice between being accursed from Christ and his brethren saved or being saved and his brethren accursed—he would himself be accursed everlastingly. I confess that I understand that expression of the apostle’s grief only a little. But is there anything more grievous than seeing your own children and your own parents and your own siblings—kinsmen according to the flesh—walk in the way of destruction?

And further,

1. Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

2. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. (Rom. 10:1–2)

But we also confess with the psalmist:

21. Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee?

22. I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies. (Ps. 139:21–22)

Why?

“Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto thy name give glory, for thy mercy, and for thy truth’s sake.” Glory to God alone.