We received an article exposing Francis Collins:
THE MOST EVIL MAN IN EVANGELICALISM, AND THOSE WHO PLATFORMED HIM
Victor had this to say in response to the article:
“Not sure I can say Collins is the most evil; he has plenty of competition. Certainly no less evil than any.”
July 13, 2024
We notified the author, Seth Gruber, of our posting of his article:
From: Ronnie Tanner <ronnie@thepathoftruth.com>
Date: Sat, Jul 13, 2024 at 10:52 AM
Subject: Francis Collins and Abortion
To: <contact@thewhiterose.life>
Cc: Victor Hafichuk <victor@thepathoftruth.com>, Marilyn Hafichuk <marilyn@harvesthaven.com>
Hello Seth,
We received your article exposing Francis Collins, and we’ve posted it at our website:
https://www.thepathoftruth.com/false-teachers/francis-collins.htm
You’ll find we have many other such people listed at our site – those professing and teaching faith in Jesus Christ while denying Him in reality.
Considering your work with abortion, I’ll share a poem, Abortion, written by Victor Hafichuk (author of The Path of Truth), along with the adapted song, The Inconvenient Truth. Have a read and listen.
https://www.thepathoftruth.com/poems/abortion.htm
https://www.victorhafichuk.com/recordings/the-inconvenient-truth/
Ronnie Tanner
We received a response, presumably from Seth although he didn’t identify himself:
From: Support | The White Rose Resistance <service@thewhiterose.life>
Date: Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 8:25 AM
Subject: Re: Francis Collins and Abortion
To: Support | The White Rose Resistance <service@thewhiterose.life>
Cc: Ronnie Tanner <ronnie@thepathoftruth.com>, Victor Hafichuk <victor@thepathoftruth.com>, Marilyn Hafichuk <marilyn@harvesthaven.com>
Morning Ronnie,
Thank you for the share and posting our content on your page.
We will continue to expose the bad faith players of the church as we seek to once again establish a culture of life and God first in all we do.
Keep up the good fight and God Bless,
[END]July 20, 2024
Paul Cohen replied to the article with an important correction for the author, Seth Gruber, and a clarification for our readers.
Paul said:
One thing stood out to me in this article, Victor. The author (Gruber) makes two statements comparing Collins’ supporters such as Rick Warren to Lot:
1) “Like Lot in Genesis, these ‘righteous men’ listed above also like to refer to pagans engaged in all manner of public evil as their ‘brothers and sisters.'”
2) “Like Lot, if provided with the right incentives, our theological betters will not hesitate to toss God’s children into the arms of the mob.”
But Lot wasn’t a false teacher serving mammon like Warren and his ilk. Neither was Lot unaware or supportive of the evil in his community.
“For if God… turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;)” (2Pe 2:4,7-8).
It’s not right for Gruber to make such a comparison contrary to the testimony of the Word of God. By doing so Gruber is promoting self-righteousness and pride of flesh versus the righteousness of God that comes through weakness and humility of spirit.
Victor responded:
Hello, Paul!
You’re right. Yes, I’ve often wondered if I should post articles that had some worthwhile things to say but which also had errors of doctrine and theological perspective. I suppose one way to address that is to not post at all unless it is clean in its entirety (which has normally been the case).
Another way would be to add qualifiers and “notwithstandings,” which would serve to reach a broader spectrum of readership of professors of faith and provide the opportunity to inform them of their error, as you do here. We’ve done that in the past.
I recall wanting to write a paper on Lot and the predominant references of his carnal nature and tendencies from the outset of his journey with Abraham. I marveled at Peter’s commendation of “righteous” Lot, but now understand that it’s not about virtue, works, or relationships, but of faith. True righteousness is despite our faults and weaknesses. It is the righteousness from above, imputed. Lot was a weak man but he still believed, unlike his wife and daughters – which God was still willing to spare. Take a look at Genesis 13 and the following):
First, there was strife between Abraham’s and Lot’s herdsmen. Should such have been or not? Who was at fault, if anyone? It doesn’t say. Perhaps we can allow that Abraham was partly to blame in that he was to leave his kinfolk, which would include Lot, but Abraham allowed him to come with him. A compromise of sorts, and seed of trouble and trials to come? Been there and done it.
What I do know is that Abraham was the principal man of faith personally called of God, and leader of the party out of Ur.
While it doesn’t seem a certain thing, I should think that Abraham would have been more earnest in gathering more faithful or upright men, referred to as “trained,” than Lot. Looking down the road on this issue of “virtue” or quality of character, wasn’t it Abraham’s servants who laid down their lives with Abraham to rescue Lot and his servants from their kidnappers? Also, we know that Abraham’s chief servant, the Syrian Eliezer, was known as faithful as he sought to get a wife for Isaac at Abraham’s request.
Perhaps in a form of covetousness and unbelief, Lot chose the better portion of land, the plain of Jordan and its fertility instead of conceding to his uncle Abraham whom he should have/could have respectfully acknowledged as the one worthy to receive the better choice.
Of course, Abraham, in faith, gave Lot the choice, likely knowing Lot would choose so, but also knowing that at the end of the day, Abraham would fully receive what God had promised him, regardless of his arrangement with his nephew. Immediately upon fulfilling his obedience to the Lord of the first commandment to leave his country and kindred, and sanctifying himself of Lot, God told Abraham to look in all directions and see that he would have it all, including, of course, the luscious Jordan plain.
Consider it says that Lot “pitched his tent toward Sodom” (13:12). I’ve always taken that as more than a physical direction.
Also, Lot fell victim to the power of men and this world while Abraham and his house exercised his authority over this world and men by faith in God.
Taking the superior choice in the world didn’t bode well later for Lot, so much so that Abraham had to come and rescue him in his captivity.
Then came Lot’s inevitable connections and ties with Sodom. His daughters married their sons, living in the vexing debauchery and filth of the inhabitants of the fertile land he had chosen. His calling those of Sodom, “brothers,” and willing to sacrifice his daughters to them is somewhat difficult to comprehend. Couldn’t he have trusted the angels to rescue them? His focus was off and had been so consistently so. What am I missing? Of course, it’s easy to talk, isn’t it?
And why did the angels have to take him and his family by force? Why were they so reluctant to believe the angels’ warning and receive their urgent help? Yes, Lot’s was a walk of faith but a weak one, notwithstanding. As a righteous man with the righteousness that is God’s gift of faith and not one of man’s faith, it seems the city had no respect or admiration for him. His sons-in-law didn’t believe him when he tried to warn them of the imminent destruction. He was no respected person to the people.
There are two externally identical “brands” of faith, one external, the other the one from above, the internal righteousness of faith hidden in Christ. Which is which?
So, having escaped God’s wrath and destruction, still bargaining with the angels for some preferable conditions, Lot ends up in a cave of his choice of fertile country. His daughters schemed, seduced, and got him drunk. What kind of daughters were they, anyway? How did he and his wife, who loved Sodom, raise them? What kind of moral values? There’s conviction and there’s conviction. What does it take? Which faith yields the overcoming conviction?
“It was different then,” comes the answer. Was it? How so? As in the days of Calvin, perhaps? Reformers and Calvinists defend Calvin’s murder of believers, sagaciously saying, “One must understand the times he lived in.” When Moses gave the Law and Jesus explained the requirement and fulfillment of it, did He say, “Under certain circumstances, one may break the Inviolable Law of God and kill his brother?” The fact is, of course, that Calvin was no brother in Christ to Christ or His faithful brothers like Michael Servetus. Calvin was the rabid Trinitarian heretic and not Servetus, who believed God’s Word, which declared, “Hear, O Israel, your God is One Lord.”
Yes, Calvin understood the times, alright. He was out to be a superior Catholic and this was a golden opportunity for him to show his stuff. By the way, he died prematurely from an agonizing death by illness. Such is the consequence of living an egregiously wicked life. Isn’t it remarkable how so many millions worship, venerate, or revere him as a Godly man?
But, as the saying goes, “I digress.” Back to Lot and his infirmities. I assure you, Lot with all his faults was not the wicked man John Calvin was, and still is, by Calvinist’s followers. The heroes are ever venerated by those pretentiously faithful to God. But then, weren’t God’s prophets also venerated by the wicked? To the religious phonies, Jesus said, “You garnish the tombs of the prophets, saying that if you had lived in their day, we wouldn’t have persecuted and killed them.”
Francis Collins is a brother-in-arms to John Calvin and a worshipper of Baal, the Baby Eater. More digression, excuse me… I could do this again and again and I don’t mind. There’s so much we can learn on the side, by the way, isn’t there?
Then we have Lot’s children of incest as Israel’s future constant enemies, the Moabites and Ammonites. Our willingness at any time to compromise with God’s Directions of Faith is a costly one. Many Scriptural examples. I’m guilty of these things. Aren’t we all?
Abraham was a weak man, but mighty in faith, God’s faith, by God’s election. Thus, the Scripture calls him the friend of God.
Perhaps we can wonder if Lot realized what kind of women his daughters were that he was willing to give them up to the murderous mob of Sodomy. What did he know about his daughters that is hidden from us?
I thought, “Peter, what are you saying? HOW was Lot righteous? But we know it’s a matter of election and not one of natural goodness. Two righteousnesses, one pitted against the other. Abraham was displaying one righteousness over another and so was Lot, only the other way around.
So much more could be said, and I stand to be corrected by anyone in the things I’ve been expressing here, you included, Paul. I invite it. God’s will be done.
Victor
[END]We notified Seth of our posting and the additional comments above. We will update this page with any response we receive.