Definition of False Teacher: One who presumes to teach in the Name of the Lord when God has not sent him.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Hallelujah Diet

Greetings in the Lord Jesus, George,

The Lord appeared to me in 1972, brought me to repentance in 1973, gave me a wife in 1974, filled me and my wife with His Spirit in 1975, and has led and taught us ever since. Today (February 2005), I, and a brother in Christ, whom we met in Israel in 1979, and to whom we spoke the Word of the Lord, are in a ministry, contending for the faith once delivered to the saints. We stand in a world full of darkness, false doctrine, and pagan religion, primarily in “Christendom.” God has called us to bring light not only to those who are in darkness and do not profess faith, but also to those who are in darkness but claim to have light in Christ. I now write to take issue with what you are doing, because of the error involved.

We are a group of believers in Alberta, Canada, near Lethbridge and elsewhere, who have an organic, mixed, market farm called “Harvest Haven.” God has blessed us wonderfully, though fearfully, over these past years, taking us back to the “basics of life.” Years before it happened, He spoke, telling me He was going to do so, although I had no idea what it meant, or all that it involved. Well, it involved everything, and food was but one of those basics.

I do not address you as “Reverend,” and I am sure that you do not mind, although I think you should mind being addressed or titled so. Peter was Peter, Paul was Paul, John was John, and Timothy was Timothy. God alone was “Reverend.” True servants of the Lord Jesus Christ are not trained as ministers of the Gospel in seminaries or Bible schools, nor do they receive titles and papers from their own religious clique of commenders, to impress the world, so that they may be more respected and thus heeded. God is not in the business of earthly credentials and commendations of men by way of formal study or any other. Jesus Himself did not take on a title of any sort.

There is no question whatsoever that you are helping many people with their health problems by changing their diets. Sadly, as you well know, it often does not take much to make an improvement. The world, particularly “the West,” has gone mad with its self-destructive eating habits. I would not wish to interfere in any way with the positive impact you are having on the physical, mental and emotional health of many by your dietary teachings. However, I do find fault with your claim that we are not meant or intended by God to eat meat. I find fault with your ungodly rationalizations to support the theories and speculations you teach as gospel truth, like the evolutionists who teach their theories as rational science. I will also reveal to you the ungodly, even blasphemous, implications of your doctrine.

No doubt, you have had hundreds, and likely thousands, of such similar statements, but please hear me out. Perhaps you may gain something here. I hope you do not doubt that, which would be a bad sign, although becoming jaded is quite understandable, knowing full well all the foolish notions and spurious arguments offered, in almost everything that can be discussed, with which you have doubtlessly been bombarded. I promise you, I will not be giving you foolish, Scripturally-unsubstantiated, argument, and I will not be unrighteously “dividing the Word of Truth.” By the Lord, I will speak, and you will know it. I will also prove to you, by Scripture and by spiritual reason, that you have not been “rightly dividing the Word of Truth.”

I looked at your FAQs on this subject and found very little. However, the following letter will do, because I think that it sums up your stance and philosophy, which are in error. Allow me to reply within your response to the person asking you:

“Rev. Malkmus, why did Jesus eat fish if meat is bad for us?”

Your reply was as follows, in rust colored text, and my comments follow your words:

As for Jesus eating fish, I am not sure of the answer. I have been studying the Bible for answers to the consuming of flesh for some 21 years now and I am still puzzled as to the ‘why’ in several verses. As for Jesus consuming and serving fish – the only answer I have been able to come up with is that Jesus did not come to change the social structure of that day’s society, but rather to prove who He was and to die on the cross for our sins. An example of His not coming to change the social structure would be that He didn’t even condemn slavery while He was here or ever address diet.

You are “still puzzled” as to why the Bible sanctioned meat in so many ways, because you refuse to believe the whole counsel of God and His will as expressed in all of His actions and relationships with man, as testified by the Word of God. Examples:

ONE – God spoke to Noah after the flood (Gen 9:3), informing him that they could eat the flesh of clean animals. I say, “clean” because those were already categorized when they came aboard the ark. The categorization certainly had the diet aspect in mind as we find later with Moses.

TWO – Abraham offered meat to the Lord and His angels when they appeared to him. He would not offer something he did not eat himself, and furthermore, he would have offered nothing but the best possible. They did not correct him for what he did. If vegetarian diet was so important, why would Abraham and the other patriarchs not have said something?

THREE – Why would God not have given any kind of instruction toward vegetarian diet, anywhere, at any time, to anyone? George? Yes, Daniel and his companions ate “pulse,” and fared well for it. However, the Babylonians were eating unclean animal flesh, who knows what else, and that was what Daniel and his companions chose to refuse. They purposed not to “defile themselves,” according to the Mosaic Law of clean and unclean foods. There is no evidence that they were strictly vegetarian by the Law of Moses; quite the contrary.

FOUR – The Law of Moses covered many aspects of life. Some of these were sterilization, quarantine, disease diagnosis and control, appropriate clothing, military affairs, authority, religious and secular responsibility, waste disposal, hygiene, and laws pertaining to all conduct. And what did God say to them? Consider, George:

"And he said, If you will carefully listen to the voice of Jehovah your God, and will do that which is right in His sight, and will give ear to His commandments, and keep all His Laws, I will put none of these diseases upon you, which I have brought upon the Egyptians; for I am Jehovah Who heals you" (Exodus 15:26 MKJV).

NONE of these diseases! He said nothing about abstaining from clean animal flesh to avoid disease. You, George, are going against the Word of God. You are calling God a liar in that He said, in effect, “Meat or no meat, if you keep My laws and commandments, there will be no disease.” Not only was there not one commandment to abstain from clean animal flesh, but the whole sacrificial system, for fifteen hundred years, pointing to no less than God Himself, the Lamb of God, the Savior of all men, Whose flesh was to be “eaten,” clearly and unequivocally required that these sacrifices of clean animals be made and eaten, not only by common people, but by the Levitical priesthood, including the high priest himself.

Your argument that God allowed eating meat to curb human population is utterly ridiculous, an expression of man’s reasoning and unbelief that flies in His face. If you refuse to believe the truth, you, of necessity, must come up with a lie. Is that not so? You are calling God a liar and a schemer, George. You preach a false gospel. You can save your body, those of your adherents, and even gain the whole world, and you still lose your soul.

FIVE – If God thought that eating meat was so wrong or inappropriate, why would He have not said at least something, though much is spoken of food in Scripture? But He said nothing, George, nothing at all. Even when persons took a solemn Nazarite vow (Numbers 6), while they were commanded not to cut their hair or to partake of any of the fruits of the vine, or to defile themselves with the dead, they were not instructed to abstain from animal flesh.

Is it not also clear that all the herds and flocks were not only for clothing, footwear and soap, but also for food? Who can deny it? Reverend George Malkmus can. You may say that you don’t, in that you have rationalized that God was controlling the population. Yet He was promising long life with health, regardless of meat-eating, to those who honored father and mother and kept His commandments!

SIX – What of Peter’s vision in Acts 10? Here was one of the “inner circle” of Christ’s apostles, after the resurrection, with new life, as a new creature, not denying that he ate or would eat animal flesh, but denying that he would eat unclean animal flesh. Therefore, in his discrimination, it is evident that he ate meat. Clearly, vegetarianism was not on the table for this new dispensation either. Why not, if it is as important as you say it is?

SEVEN – In Acts 15, we read about the freshly created Church of God, the Body of Christ, with the apostles and elders discussing dietary laws. They mention not eating things strangled, or blood, but they do not mention abstinence from animal flesh:

“Therefore my judgment is that we do not trouble those who have turned to God from among the nations, but that we write to them that they should abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses from ages past has those in every city proclaiming him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day. Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men from them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; Judas, whose last name was Barsabas; and Silas, chief men among the brothers” (Acts 15:19-22 MKJV).

If vegetarianism was as important as you say it is, then why is there nary a word spoken about it to the saints, those born again people who have not only repented from sin, but have taken up the preaching of the gospel to turn men from sin, thus making their “longer lives” quite useful and as important as they can possibly be, instead of “trouble making” as you speculate, as recorded later in this letter?

EIGHT – You say: “As for Jesus consuming and serving fish – the only answer I have been able to come up with is that Jesus did not come to change the social structure of that day’s society, but rather to prove who He was and to die on the cross for our sins. An example of His not coming to change the social structure would be that He didn’t even condemn slavery while He was here or ever address diet.

Jesus certainly did “come to change the social structure of that day’s society.” He came to do it by demonstrating Who God is, what He is like, and what is His will. He came to give us the Supreme Example, and to lay down His life to enable sinners to be saved and to live according to the will of God. Peter’s words are ideally suited here:

“Therefore, Christ having suffered for us in the flesh, also you arm yourselves with the same thought, that he suffering in the flesh has been made to rest from sin, in order no longer to live in the lusts of men, but in the will of God the remaining time in the flesh. For the time of life which is past is enough for us to have worked out the will of the nations, having gone on in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, parties, carousings, and abominable idolatries. In these things they are surprised, that you are not running with them into the same excess of riot, blaspheming. But they shall give account to Him Who is ready to judge the living and the dead. For to this end the gospel was preached also to the dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the Spirit” (1 Peter 4:1-6 MKJV).

Instead of serving up cooked fish, thereby breaking two of your “commandments” at once, Jesus could just as easily have provided raw vegetables and fruits, don’t you think? Are you proposing that while He came to deliver us from sin, He was quite content to flow with the world and its ways of darkness? Is that not absurd, George? Or could it be, according to your theory, that He did not wish for His disciples to live too long, lest they create trouble?

God says, “A new nature in Christ will deliver man from being a troublemaker.” George says, “Eating meat will deliver man from being a troublemaker.” Why, if you are against trouble, George, will you not teach men to eat, rather than to abstain from eating, meat? If you think that Christians can live longer and not cause trouble, because they are Christian, why would Jesus serve up cooked fish, particularly after the resurrection, to His own apostles?

As for your example of slavery, can you conceive Jesus owning and leading about slaves, simply because He was “not there to change the social structure”? George, your teachings are so very foolish! Do you hear? Can you humble yourself? For your sake, I hope so. If not, may God humble you. If you don’t receive this instruction and rebuke, I hope to awaken others to your antiScriptural and ungodly doctrine.

There is nothing to be puzzled about. Why don’t you simply believe? Your confusion comes from a rejection of very significant portions of God’s testimony in Scripture concerning meat. Remember the solemn admonition:

“And if anyone takes away from the Words of the Book of this prophecy, God will take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which have been written in this Book” (Revelation 22:19 MKJV).

Apparently you do not believe that warning, or you would not strive so hard to prove the unprovable by, and in, Scripture. George, you may be improving the health of the carnal man, but what are you doing to your spiritual being and to that of those who heed you? So you gain the whole world and lose your soul. So what? Healthy bodies like Goliath’s go to hell. To what profit? As Paul wrote:

“Meats for the belly and the belly for meats, but God shall destroy both it and them. But the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord is for the body” (1 Corinthians 6:13 MKJV).

When you distort the Word of God, or omit or deny portions, you are in spiritual fornication, serving other gods, be they health, recognition, or whatever.

You write: “Regarding the vision of Peter in Acts 10, I do not believe God was advocating the eating of meat, but was using the dietary laws of the Old Testament as an illustration so that Peter could understand that he should take the Gospel to the Gentiles. Immediately after Peter saw the vision, Gentiles, who were considered ‘unclean’ by Jewish believers, were knocking at Peter’s door. I do not believe this verse gives anyone justification to eat those flesh foods God condemned in the Old Testament.

You are right. The message was clearly allegorical, and foolish and unlearned are those who take that passage to justify their lustful appetites for “strange flesh.”

You write: “A study of the original Greek in I Timothy 4:3 will show that the use of the word ‘meat’ in the King James Bible is a poor translation. A proper translation from the Greek would be ‘certain foods.’ In fact, there are 17 times in the New Testament where the word ‘meat’ appears in error in the King James text.

Right again. Furthermore, even if the word “meats” was speaking of animal flesh, it would still only refer to that which the Word of God has sanctified. The Word of God then was the Old Testament, the Torah, and God, in it, never did sanctify unclean animals; quite the contrary. As it says:

“For every creation of God is good, and nothing to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving. For it is sanctified through the Word of God and prayer” (1 Timothy 4:4-5 MKJV).

And of what value would a prayer of blessing be upon the food when contrary to God’s Word?

You write: “For many years I have had great difficulty understanding why God would teach one thing in one place – originally telling man he was to be a raw vegetarian as He did in Genesis 1:29 – and then telling man it was ‘OK’ to eat meat as He did in Genesis 9:3.If we took these two teachings at face value, it would certainly appear to be a contradiction. However, I do not believe there are any contradictions in the Bible! Only our inability to understand.

How true, George! There are no contradictions. So stop contradicting God by placing contradictions in the Bible. Your difficulty is in accepting the Truth, by “leaning on your own understanding,” making false assumptions.

“It is hard to kick against the pricks.”

You write: “So here is my personal belief based on years of searching the Bible:

First, there is no question that God’s Original Diet for mankind was completely vegetarian as clearly set forth in Genesis 1:29! That man ate his food raw for an extended period of time after creation would be a natural conclusion. And thus, the consuming of vegetarian food in a natural raw state had to be God’s original plan for man.

While you are right on the vegetarian part for that time, and of the original plan, for the time, you again call God a liar. Beginning with Noah, going on to the patriarchs, fire and cooking were involved by both righteous and unrighteous, by Abraham, serving even unto God that which was cooked, Isaac as well as Ishmael, Jacob as well as Esau, his sons composing the twelve tribes of Israel as well as Esau’s progeny, Moses, all of Israel, including the Levitical priesthood, all the way down to Jesus Christ Who roasted fish on a fire, after His resurrection!

George, what would you have said to Jesus on that day at the beach? “Lord, how about a raw vegetarian diet?” I think that your “Biblical” emphasis on vegetarian diet would have robbed you of the sense and importance of the resurrection! Indeed, it does so even now, George.

You write: “If we look at the rest of the animal kingdom that God also created, apart from man, even to this present day, the animals in the wild still consume their food in the natural raw state as served up by nature. This is how God designed His animal kingdom, including man, to be nourished. Even the flesh-eating animals, to this present day, still consume their food in a natural raw state.

“Animals in the wild still consume their food in the natural state”? Do you think that one day we will see animals cooking their food? I see two things wrong here with your argument, George. If my points are not relevant, then what are your points in this discourse? Two things I see:

Your logic seems to go this way:

One, “Because animals don’t cook, and we are animals, we should not cook.” Stop teaching vegetarianism, George. You will find no animal doing so. Start eating flesh, George. Carnivores, who are animals, do so. Get off the internet, George. When is the last time you saw an animal, other than a human, use a computer? Stop speaking, reading and writing, George. To this day, animals do not speak, read or write. Build your house under water, as do beavers, live in a cave as do bears, or in a hole as does a badger to this day, from the beginning. Perhaps you ought to shed your skin, as do snakes? How about their toilet habits, George? Will you copy those as well?

Two, “Though animals can’t cook, we ought to follow their example.” How can you rationally expect humanity to follow the example of creatures not made in God’s image, which cannot love, reason, pray or worship God? What kind of silly nonsense is this you teach?

In another of your newsletters, you write:

And the longevity of Carnivorous animals is usually half or less that of the vegetarian animals. For example, a horse (a pure vegetarian animal) will still be birthing offspring at 20 plus years of age, and can live to 50 years of age. And then look at the elephant, an animal that consumes a 100% plant based diet. The elephant has incredible strength, can weigh as much as 9 tons, and can live to an age of 70 plus years.

What about a mouse, George? Or a rabbit? How strong are these, and how long do they live? Might we attain to the strength and longevity of a mouse if we but become raw vegetarian?

Is it possible that God, in His wisdom, made all kinds of creatures, as they are, with their distinct differences, vegetarian or otherwise? Truly, when a man refuses to believe the Truth, he becomes a damned fool, damned because he does not believe, and a fool because he denies God. Believe it or not, George, you are saying, “There is no God!”

You write: “When man started to cook his food is up for speculation. I personally do not believe man started to cook his food until after the flood, which would be at the same time man started to eat meat. Why did God add meat to man’s diet in Genesis 9:3, after He had clearly created an anatomy designed to be vegetarian and told man he was to eat only a vegetarian diet in Genesis 1:29? This is also open to speculation. Was it because all vegetation had been destroyed by the flood and man had nothing else to eat or is there possibly another reason? My personal belief is that man was living too long, getting into too much trouble, and thus God used the consuming of flesh to shorten man’s lifespan.

This is all speculation, rationalization and plain unbelieving reason, all to feed your belly, George, and to be physically healthy as an end in itself! Let me ask you this: Why would God promise long life and health to those who obeyed Him and then instruct them, yes, instruct (we have covered that in discussing the sacrificial system representing Jesus Christ and His will) them to eat meat, if, as you say, man “was getting into too much trouble”? Were Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, Deborah, Jeremiah, and other righteous persons “getting into too much trouble”? Why did God double Job’s life, and how do you think He did it? By letting him in on your little secret? Wasn’t he afraid Job might have time to get himself into trouble?

You say God thought men were living too long, but you obviously think and judge differently, so now we have a battle in the heavens for men’s bodies and age durations, between the two big “G’s”? George, are you presuming to change God’s thinking and plan, and save everybody, as you propose in your manifesto, so that they will have more time “to get into trouble”? Just stop and think of your insane and, yes diabolical, reasonings, George!

You write: “To support this speculation I offer the following – It is interesting to note that God originally created man to live forever (Genesis 3:22) and on this raw vegetarian diet, man lived an average of 912 years prior to the flood without a single recorded instance of sickness. Yet, in Genesis 6:3, God said He was going to shorten man’s life span to 120 years. How was God going to accomplish this? If you look at the dramatic consequences the addition of meat had on the human race in the book of Genesis, it certainly causes one to do some serious thinking! Because, after meat was added to the diet, man’s life span rapidly started to decline from an average of 912 years on the raw vegetarian diet prior to the flood, to 100 years by the time you reach the end of the Book of Genesis on the meat-based, cooked food diet. This rapid decrease in man’s life span took place in just ten short generations after meat was added to the diet.

You say, “To support this speculation…” then go on to give yet more speculation. You call yourself “Reverend,” and have never learned that there is such a thing as Truth, that one can know the truth, and does not have to be living in the realm of speculation, reasonings of the carnal mind (which is at enmity with God…Romans 8:7) and foolish imaginations (Romans 1:21; II Cor 10:5), contrary to Scriptural instruction and witness.

What gives you the right to conclude that eating meat was the sole or primary, or even a small part of the cause of God’s will in the shortening of man’s life span? If God decrees something, does He need an “age-cutting, meat-eating program” to accomplish His will? On the other hand, if it is His will to do so, who are you, O presumptuous man, that you should successfully thwart His will, or even propose to do so?

You write, yea, declare:

“Hallelujah Acres is a Christian Ministry that teaches health from a Biblical perspective! Hallelujah Acres is trying to help the Christian community (as well as anyone else who will listen) realize that God’s ORIGINAL diet, as given by God in the Bible, in Genesis 1:29, was God’s perfect plan for the proper nourishment of his human creation.

And: “These Health Tips come to you at no charge. This is a labor of love. Rhonda and I have dedicated our lives to eradicating physical problems from the world, and especially from the Christian community.

God’s original programs were changed. He changed them. He likely has good reason to do so, don’t you think? Assuming you are right, even you speculate that men are living too long and getting into trouble. Has man suddenly changed, and now warrants living longer? Do you see the trouble in this world dissipating any, George? Or are you wiser than He? But you are wrong as to why God gave the go-ahead for meat consumption.

You write: “Then when we look at the anatomy of man, we find verification that man, indeed, was designed by God to sustain life on vegetarian fare. Man does not have the teeth to rip and tear flesh as do the carnivores (meat eating animals).Man does not possess the high hydrochloric acid in his stomach, which is necessary to break down and digest the flesh. Nor does man have a short digestive tract as do flesh eating animals. Rather, man has a very long digestive tract with many pockets and loops and bends. Because of this long digestive tract, when meat is consumed, it putrefies. This is the cause of almost all body odor. When a person adapts a vegetarian diet, usually body odor will just disappear. Also, when a person stops consuming animal products it eliminates almost any fear of ever having colon problems — including colon cancer, diverticulitis, colitis, etc. In fact, the consuming of cooked flesh can be traced to the cause of, or at least a contributing cause of, approximately 90% of all physical problems being experienced by man today! My research reveals that the consumption of cooked flesh along with cooked dairy (pasteurized milk) are among the most dangerous substances we can put into our bodies!

You are indeed amazing in your “godliness,” “Reverend.” Where is God then? Is He sovereign or is He not? With your description of the human anatomy, and judgment of it and its capabilities, and consequences of acting against those supposed capabilities, you in effect, condemn God, His wisdom and His Word altogether. According to you, God and Jesus Christ were and are wrong in all the points I have already listed above. So were all the prophets, apostles and saints of God. The whole Bible does not make sense, so Reverend George is going to find a way to explain it for us, with his clever speculations. He can’t do away with the “contradictions,” which exist only in his wicked speculations and rationalizations, so he will present more wicked speculations and rationalizations to explain away all the contradictions, which he creates in the first place.

If our anatomy is so designed and incapable of processing meat properly, as by the wisdom of God, then, according to you, God has been to us a liar and a murderer; a liar because He not only did not warn us not to eat meat, but rather told us to do so, and He is a murderer in that He predates us, according to you, by suggesting, yea, commanding us to eat meat. Reverend George now comes, in shining armor, riding on a black and white pinto, with the word “Raw Vegetables” written on his thigh, and his vesture dipped in carrot juice, to make war with God, the arch liar and murderer. George, will you save the flesh, who is the liar and murderer, by a false gospel? You tell me. Further on, I will tell you the implications of your teaching.

NOTE: Make no mistake: I am not equating longevity of life with godliness. One need only check the Scriptures to find godly souls dying at early ages (not from martyrdom only), while wicked kings of Israel lived to reign for several decades. It is not about longevity of life in this world.

You write: “For example, by simply eliminating animal products from our diet, we can reduce our chances of ever having a heart attack or stroke by over 90%. When people leave the cooked flesh based diet and change to a basically raw vegetarian diet, we see well over 90% of all physical problems just disappear in six months or less.

George, that is your judgment and speculation, but it is contrary to God, His promises, laws, testimonies, systems of things, and to the Scriptures entirely, and you know it. You look at people getting sick and dying, and attribute it not to sin (the breaking of His commandments), but to meat-eating. You let these same people live on in their sins while feeling good about themselves because they are now vegetarian.

You are salving evil consciences with your gospel by teaching that the root cause of sickness and disease is meat eating.

Yes, man has defiled everything, so that not only unclean meats should not be eaten, but the “clean” are now killers. That is not because of meat, but because of man’s greed for money and power. That goes for present-day vegetables and fruits as well. We have an organic farm and we grow and buy organic. We are not vegetarians, but speak against the meat industry. We condemn not only conventionally-raised meat, but all conventional food production, for its vile practices, poisoning that which God has given us to eat with thanksgiving and health.

The problem is not with certain meats, but with what mankind is doing with them.

People are prey to disease and destruction not because they are meat-eaters, but because they are in their sins. You have grossly distorted and confused the issues. Consider also gluttony, diet imbalance, wilful ignorance, and all sins.

I have written two papers on food: Christian Physical Diet and The Perfect Diet. Read those, as well as Our Testimonies, and you will understand our walk in Christ, at least in part.

I won’t question the statistics on meat eaters and vegetarians as Cousins put them forth, except that he does not take into account all factors, such as temperance and balance, or kinds of meats, for example. I don’t question the testimonies of the dramatic changes in health, though you well know that some of these can be quite subjective and biased. Yes, you are countering disease. Wonderful! Yes, professing believers have presumed they can eat anything they wish, deceived by the world and its merchandisers, and are destroying themselves. Awful! Satan comes at the body too, and not only at the soul. Yes, you are making people healthy in many cases. That is quite understandable, given the hideous ways people eat. A raw vegetarian diet certainly has advantages over poisoned, ill-prepared, and denatured foods, not to mention those classified as unclean by God. I don’t have a problem with you promoting physical health, or improving people’s diets, or even with a choice to be vegetarian, but don’t go telling people that God does not mean for us to eat meat, or that meat-eating is the prime cause of death. You call God a liar and murderer in doing so, as I have shown. You say He doesn’t intend for us to eat meat, yet you say He does, so that people will kill themselves and not get into trouble, as if shortening life span is the answer.

Imagine that! Death, the result of sin, is, according to Reverend George Malkmus, the answer to sin!

George, how you contradict yourself! Man has waxed worse and worse, destroying the earth, and you are not helping with your gospel of vegetarianism, contrary to Scripture and God, teaching people lies.

You attach the Name of God to your diet, calling it "The Hallelujah Diet,” but your doing so, with your teachings, ought to be more accurately called, “The Hell with You, God Diet.”

In Issue #373 of your newsletters, you attempt to cover some spiritual ground and make qualification, writing:

The truth is that a person can eat the very worst diet, loaded with sugar and white flour and animal products, and if they know the Lord, they will go to God’s Heaven, though usually much sooner than if they had consumed the Genesis/Hallelujah Diet. And conversely, a person can eat a mostly raw, totally organic plant based diet, including the abundant use of fresh vegetable juices and even BarleyMax, and live to 120 years old in perfect health, but if they have never received Jesus into their hearts, they will not make it to God’s Heaven. Jesus said: ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.’ (John 14:6)

Those “who receive Jesus into their hearts” and think that is all there is to it, fall prey to “another gospel,” a gospel without the cross and obedience. No wonder they perish. They fail not only in physical diet, but in all things of faith. Those who believe the true gospel, and obey, will be profited in all ways, because they are faithful and obedient to God. They will seek to receive instruction from God and not from men.

As it is written: “Concerning the works of men, by the Word of Your lips, I have kept me from the paths of the destroyer” (Psalm 17:4).

May God open your eyes and heart to the error and implications of your teachings.

Contending for the faith once delivered to the saints, for His sake,

Victor Hafichuk

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Provide your email if you would like to receive periodic correspondence from us.

You can leave a comment herex