The Best Defense is a Good Offense

In a 2006 correspondence regarding the exposure of an SDA minister - Frank Steyn - who raped a teenaged houseguest, now a grown woman - Carol - confessing her guilt over never having said anything about the incident, another SDA writes us seeking to justify the minister by finding fault with the messengers and the victim. Here are his letters, followed by our reply:

Victor,

I have looked at your Testimonies [now “About Us”]. You say I will not find doctrinal answers to my questions, although that is exactly what I had hoped to obtain. To these I now also add: Do you believe that ultimately all the wicked will be saved? and Do you believe in reincarnation -- as well as communication with the dead, through séances or channeling?

You say I need to find “The Answer to your essential religious query,” which sounds like mysticism, but it sidesteps the issue. I therefore look forward to your letter.

I recall a fairly recent Jewish visitor of mine, who had embraced Unitarian Universalism or something of that sort. It was a movement which permitted such a wide spectrum of doctrines that anybody could join it, irrespective of his beliefs. Against that background your being Jewish, embracing Universalism, and rejecting the concept that the wicked dead would perish sounds rather familiar.

Edwin

The next day, Edwin sent this note to a few on the list:

Chris(sie) McClintock

Dear unknown, distant friend,

You may want an answer to the following question: Who are these people who are attacking Frank Steyn?

Go to Google and look at www.thepathoftruth.com and details on its web page. The names Victor Hafichuk, Paul Cohen, and Sara Schmidt all appear on it under “Our Testimonies.” [Now “About Us.”] Carol communicated with the last mentioned at saraschmidt@bresnan.net, but she also has the e-mail sara@thepathoftruth.com.

According to their names, they all seem to be Jewish, possibly of the Messianic variety. They are definitely not Seventh-day Adventists, as may already be observed from their following statement:

“The church of God is seen, yet not seen. Members are real but not identified as a formal organization. When they meet, it is not to have ‘church services.’ There will be prayer, a discussion of spiritual matters as well as mundane, some Bible study, gifts manifest, song, and ministering to one another. A few of these elements or activities could be missing from time to time. The thing is that it is God Who leads and directs; the Shepherd makes the decisions and the sheep follow. Much of the time, they do not meet but they function in spirit as the body of Christ nevertheless, everywhere they are, in all that they do, together or apart, He being ever with and in them. The Church is a living organism at all times.”

The Path of Truth rejects the concept of any organized church as evil and therefore also Seventh-day Adventism. Specifically it condemns a variety of beliefs as “Diabolic Doctrines.” The following teachings, which Adventists believe, are some of them:

1. “God is three persons.”
2. “You must belong or go to a ‘church.’“
3. “God is trying to save the whole world now.”
4. “Man has been given a free will.”
5. “The Lord’s Supper”
6. “The dead are unconscious.”
7. “The wicked are annihilated.”

On the other hand, the Path of Truth also rejects the idea of eternal torment for the wicked. It is most probably a variety of Trinitarian Universalism, blending Unitarianism (which rejects the Trinity) and Universalism (which teaches that all people, possibly even Satan) will one day be saved. But this movement is very elastic and can accommodate just about any religious persuasion.

I have written to Victor Hafichuk for further details about their doctrines. What I also wanted to know was whether they believed in reincarnation and communicating with the dead. To these specifics I have not yet received an answer.

Another thing, the Path of Truth is very judgmental and prone to attacking organizations and, apparently, individuals. They are, it seems, religious busy bodies, somewhere on the lunatic fringe of Christianity. I wonder whether each of them has always been so pure and righteous throughout their lives.

Regarding Carol, I know next to nothing. It has been suggested to me that she has been divorced and remarried about five times, although I do not know and do not care to pursue this matter further. Perhaps her accusation is largely the product of a crush on Frank and sexual fantasies, which ? nursed over the years and frustrated -- eventually turned to hatred and a desire to destroy his ministry as well as his family. In this, however, she has probably been abetted by members of the Path of Truth, of which she may be an adherent.

The alleged incident would have occurred about thirty-five years ago. A few questions emerge, particularly three: if what she says did happen, it may well have been largely with her cooperation, otherwise she would have screamed, regardless; she had many years to confront him with the issue but, according to her own statement, never did; above all, why now?

Even secular judiciaries have statutes of limitations. Should we not also, in our dealings with other people, forgive? And if we do not, can we be sure that the Lord will forgive us? He said he would not.

I resent being dragged into this affair through the mailing of Cohen, Hafichuk, and Schmidt, nor do I at 75 and my heart impairment have the energy or time to dig more deeply into such muck. You may, however, send this letter to all the people you are now addressing (I have the e-mail addresses of only a few), so they will know a little more about what they have been so gratuitously involved in.

Edwin de Kock

Paul’s reply:

Edwin,

The only thing worse than a young fool is an old one. How is it that you answer your own questions to us when you do not know the answers, and, furthermore, when pointed to the material that contains the answers, you completely disregard what you read there? How sad and tragic it is to see a man nearing the end of life who has not learned this most elementary lesson - to keep one’s mouth shut when one does not know what he or she is talking about. How much sadder it is when that one professes to be Christ’s, and does such things contrary to Him! But a fool is a fool, whether young or old, and displays the nature of a fool:

“Every wise one deals with knowledge, but a fool lays open his folly” (Proverbs 13:16 MKJV).

Yet there is something worse than a fool, which is one who speaks before he hears anything, as you do:

“Do you see a man hasty in his words? There is more hope for a fool than for him” (Proverbs 29:20 MKJV).

And also one who thinks he knows something, when he does not:

“Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him” (Proverbs 26:12 MKJV).

You fault us for proclaiming that God will judge, correct, and cleanse all of His creation, for which He laid down His life. Tell us, then, what purpose did His sacrifice serve, if it did not accomplish that for which He stated beforehand it was expressly made (John 3:16)? You of all people should be most thankful to hear this good news, having less hope than a fool in your present ways! But I will proceed in the hope of better things, which I have by the sure knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, knowing full well that illusions, lies, and foolishness must be addressed before it can be put away and anything good be established.

Now, perhaps you are senile or suffering from Alzheimer’s, and it would appear rude of me to expose your mental incapacity (for those with eyes to see). But your incapacities are not to be pitied because they are the result of the wrath of God on your wicked ways that are contrary to Him. Your only hope and chance for renewal and a sound mind is to repent from those wicked ways.

You wrote to Victor, and now to everyone else, stating that we seem to be “Jewish, possibly of the Messianic variety.” This was after we had directed you to, and you had red, our testimonies under About Us, in which it is stated, quite clearly, in the very first sentence, that Victor was born Ukrainian Catholic. In Sara’s testimony she states she was raised Lutheran (Schmidt is a German name). In mine, I said I was born a Jew.

On such a superficial matter it is of no concern to us that you are wrong on two out of three counts. I bring this up rather as an indication of how blind, inattentive, and disrespectful you are towards the facts and those with whom you have to do. If you cannot be trusted with being accurate in such simple matters, who in their right mind would believe you to be competent to exercise discernment in higher matters?

Here is an example of blindness coming from an evil eye, by which you speak falsely of us:

“I wonder whether each of them has always been so pure and righteous throughout their lives.”

Again, you red our testimonies, which answer this question in living color. In there are the candid confessions of our all having been sinners, with Victor even specifically listing many of his sins. I am thankful he did, because we are then able to shut the mouths of fools like you. Why do I call you foolish and wicked? Because you look to find fault to justify yourself when light exposes your darkened mind. You have no use or love for truth. That is the definition of a wicked fool. The wise will see, but the fool will not, even that which is right before him:

“Wisdom is before him who has understanding, but the eyes of a fool are in the ends of the earth” (Proverbs 17:24 MKJV).

And:

“The way of the wicked is as darkness; they do not know at what they stumble” (Proverbs 4:19 LITV).

You say: “The Path of Truth rejects the concept of any organized church as evil and therefore also Seventh-day Adventism.”

Without a doubt we reject the works of men, in general and specifically, such as the Seventh Day Adventist Church. We do so because the Lord rejects them with great passion and unequivocal hatred of the things they do and preach in His Name. Many are the blasphemies of the SDA’s, coming from that false prophetess Ellen G. White, which we give evidence of in some of the links you mention from “Diabolical Doctrines,” such as:

6) “God is three persons.”
12) “You must belong or go to a ‘church.’”
19) “God is trying to save the whole world now.”
20) “Man has been given a free will.”
31) “The Lord’s Supper”
33) “The dead are unconscious.”
34) “The wicked are annihilated.”

The worse part is not your diabolical doctrines, but the stubborn, presumptuous, and self-righteous spirit of the SDA’s, passed down by Ellen White, that produces and loves these lies. How hard you people are against the Lord, Who is, here and now, and is not only coming as you have erred from the beginning with William Miller:

“I am the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the Ending, says the Lord, Who is and Who was and Who is to come, the Almighty” (Revelation 1:8 MKJV).

He is here. He is with us, and has sent us to speak as His mouth to you, just as Enoch prophesied:

“And Enoch, the seventh from Adam, also prophesied to these, saying, Behold, the Lord came with myriads of His saints, to do judgment against all, and to rebuke all the ungodly of them concerning all their ungodly works which they ungodly did, and concerning all the hard things ungodly sinners spoke against Him” (Jude 1:14-15 MKJV).

You resist God, not man.

How darkened and foolish of you, Edwin, to ask about communicating with the dead and reincarnation! Find one thing on our site that disagrees with the Word of God. You say you disagree, and your church disagrees, but you have not shown us one thing that you can conclusively point to, and give us Scripture to illuminate, where God disagrees with us. Not one. You don’t even try.

Regarding Carol you write:

“Perhaps her accusation is largely the product of a crush on Frank and sexual fantasies, which ? nursed over the years and frustrated -- eventually turned to hatred and a desire to destroy his ministry as well as his family.”

Your evil surmisings and speculations serve what purpose? Frank has not denied one word of Carol’s account, though he does not take any personal responsibility for what happened, not even apologizing to her. Carol did not ask us to write to Frank, nor has she ever mentioned him until his recent email. She was confessing her sin; in her ignorance she thought it best to keep her mouth shut for the sake of others. Your reasoning is asinine, Edwin. Only one who has not confessed and forsaken his sins would think like you do. Woe to you that you try to hide yourself in the name of “Christian” religion and blasphemy. Do you think God does not see you?

You go on to say:

“The alleged incident would have occurred about thirty-five years ago. A few questions emerge, particularly three: if what she says did happen, it may well have been largely with her cooperation, otherwise she would have screamed, regardless; she had many years to confront him with the issue but, according to her own statement, never did; above all, why now?”

Here is more of your inattentiveness; it was twenty five years ago. And Carol said why she did not yell. Read her letter again, if you really want to know why. She also said she has moved on, releasing any hurt feelings, forgiving Frank. So why did she tell us, and, “why now,” you ask? Because she has recently come to genuine repentance, which is ever accompanied by confession. She now believes the Lord, Who would have all things out in the open. How wrong is that, our aged defender of the unrepentant guilty? Frank was and is still hiding his sins from everyone, but she could not hide what happened and continue to live with the shame Frank was still bringing on her; by not saying anything, she was, in effect, sanctioning and agreeing with that sin. You just do not get it, do you? Frank was still writing to Carol as if what he did to her was not a problem.

Do you have a daughter? How would you feel about a man slipping into bed with her when she was 19, and he was 41, while his wife and children were in the house and your daughter thought herself safe? Only Carol had no father or mother to turn to. The only father figure there was Frank, the man who jumps her.

But why should I ask you these questions and expect you to answer rationally and honestly? You obviously would send your family, and anyone else that got in the way, to hell, just to maintain your own righteousness. That is what you are doing here with your asinine questions and arguments.

With more of the same you write:

“Even secular judiciaries have statutes of limitations. Should we not also, in our dealings with other people, forgive? And if we do not, can we be sure that the Lord will forgive us? He said he would not.”

“Even secular judiciaries have statutes of limitations,” you say, as if time itself can erase sin. Only the blood of Christ, which is effectual by the confessing and forsaking of sins by faith in Him, can bring forgiveness. Does not the commandment say that God visits the iniquities of the fathers to the third and fourth generations of them that hate Him? And what is this about forgiveness, placing the onus on those wronged who confronted those who have offended, according to Scripture? How is it you automatically defend an unrepentant scoundrel who refuses confession, apology, or any kind of decent, godly reconciliation with one he has violated, and even condemn the victim with insinuations and evil speculations, though her letter clearly declares confession toward God?

You ask the wrong questions of the wrong people. You should be talking to Frank about why he is unrepentant. Why has he never apologized to Carol? Why does he threaten us when we bring these things up, that which would be for his good? He is where the problem lies. You are protecting a scoundrel because you are also a scoundrel. Your appeal to the “Christian charity” of others is the last refuge of a scoundrel. You wicked old man! Time is up on you all.

You say, “I resent being dragged into this affair....”

Yet you bring in additional negative details about Carol to discredit her further, (whether or not they are true is not the issue). Hypocrite! So do many criminals resent being hauled before the judge. So do many gnash their teeth when thrown in the clink. You hitch your wagon to a boatload of scofflaws, being one yourself, and answer for your ways you must. It is not only Frank but all those, like yourself, who justify him that are being judged here.

“He that justifies the wicked, and he that condemns the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD” (Proverbs 17:15 KJV).

You write: “Regarding Carol, I know next to nothing,” yet you readily condemn her and side with Frank. Why? Because he is SDA? Because you have sins yourself you do not relish being exposed? And who filled you in on those details you do know concerning Carol? Can we guess who it is? Will that serve to support our point? Not that we need any support, or that Carol is hiding anything. She is making herself transparent in a godly way, unlike the crowd the Lord is now exposing.

In a letter to Victor, you asked, “Do you believe that ultimately all the wicked will be saved?” You better hope that is the case; otherwise, you have no hope; you, Frank, and all those who refuse to repent, taking Jesus Christ’s Name in vain and using His sacrifice for all men to justify yourselves in your wickedness.

We will indeed share this with the list, as you request. It is our great pleasure and immense privilege. Everyone should and will know what is at stake, which is life and forgiveness or sin unto death. This matter is the very opposite of “gratuitous,” which only a light and treacherous fool would think to call it, as you have. The Lord is finished winking at your wickedness.

His will be done.

Paul Cohen