The Easy Divorce Religious Fundamental. In the Old Testament, the Lord granted the Israelite men the right to an easy divorce, provided they gave their wives a letter certifying that they were being divorced. Jesus came and said: Moses said ... but I say ... thus doing away with a fundamental religious practice authorized by God.

The Circumcission Religious fundamental. I am sure you are aware that God established an everlasting covenant with the spiritual father of the Christian faith: Abraham. This covenat required the ritual act of circumcision. Paul argued against this fundamental religious ritual established by the Lord, and the nascent Christian church decided to drop what had been mandated by the Lord and designed to last forever.

The Food Offered to Idols fundamental. The Israelites considered the non-partaking of food that had been offered to idols as a religious practice so fundamental that Daniel risked his life insisting on a vegetarian diet rather than violating the belief he shared with his community of Jewish believers. This ritual was so fundamental that they imposed it even on non-Jewish converts to Christianity [Acts 15], but Paul decided that this requirement was not so fundamental after all, and eventually prevailed in opposition to what the church had determined.

The Issue of Slavery Fundamental. In the Old Testament, the Lord authorized the Israelites to hold slaves. When Abraham Lincoln decided it was time to free them, the religious slave holders in the South determined that this religious right granted by God was worth fighting for. This resulted in the Civil War, where thousands of soldiers died on both sides of this religious controversy. The North won the conflict, and eventually the religious leaders agreed that it was time to drop this fundamental right they received from God.

The Issue of Polygamy Fundamental. In the Old Testament the Lord granted his people the right to have several wives at the same time, and many of the most respected religious leaders of that time took advantage of such a right granted by God. David had half a dozen wives plus some concubines, and so did many others. This fundamental religious right authorized by God was eventually done away with by the Christian nations, as well and by other secular societies.

The Second Coming of the Lord Fundamental. Back in 1844, the pioneers of the SDA denomination held that their belief in the immediate coming of the Lord was so fundamental, that many of them sold their farms, abandoned their employment, and eagerly awaited for the return of Jesus Christ. The events that followed forced them to abandon this cherished fundamental religious belief.

The Non-Trinitarian View of the Godhead Fundamental. You are very likely aware that our early SDA pioneers were non-trinitarian. This fundamental doctrinal view slowly evolved into a Trinitarian belief system which is now strongly defended by the church in spite of the fact that it was originally developed and refined by Catholic systematic theologians. You might agree with me that systematic theology is actually a branch of philosophy. The result is that reason prevailed in the absence of a clear "thus said the Lord."

The shut Door Fundamental Belief. Following the 1844 terrible disappointment, and considering that the rest of the religious world had rejected their message of the soon coming of the Lord, the leaders of the SDA movement adopted the Shut Door dectrine, supported by a misinterpreted vision, and ceased all evangelistic efforts, believing that the rest of the world had moved past the line of probationary time, and were doomed to destruction. When time continued, and the delayed return of the Lord did not take place, they abandoned this religious Shut Door fundamental.

The Neutrality SDA Religious Fundamental. When Hitler rose to power and started to kill the Jews in his concentration camps, the religious leaders of that time, including those of the SDA church, decided that the proper role of Christians was to remain neutral while this genocide was taking place. This fundamental religious belief by the SDA community was recently officially condemned by the SDA leaders of both Germany and Austria.

The SDA Pro-Choice Fundamental Religious Belief. Back in 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court legalized the killing of the unborn. The leadership of the SDA church decided that women did have the God-given right to decide whether to take the life of their children or not [If you have any doubt regarding this, I can provide documentation to verify it]. This alleged fundamental women's right goes contrary to the one of the Ten Commandments, which is as sacred, or even more than the Sabbath Commandment, since the Sabbath is a mere symbol of our allegiance to the Lord, while the murder of our children represents a violation of said allegiance, and we do know that actions speak louder than words.

The Age of Animals Fossils Religious fundamental. After reading your E-mails, it seems to me that you want to elevate the age of animal fossils into a religious fundamental based on a literal interpretation of the Genesis story of creation. You did grant that you do not interpret every biblical passage in a literal manner, yet you have chosen to do so in the case of Genesis one in spite of the fact that the internal evidence seems to indicate that such writing is the result of human research instead of a visionary experience.

You think that such a view is so fundamental that you would be willing to abandon Crhistianity in the event Science were to provide evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the animal fossils are significantly older than human remains. You claim to be in possession of enough scientific evidence to support your position. I wish you would share said scientific evidence in a non-technical manner that I could understand. I do believe in a relatively short chronology, but I would not bet my allegiance to Christianity on it. I admire your zeal, and if your view is eventually confirmed, I will rejoice. I it were to be disconfirmed, my Christian faith would not be shaken.

The Reason I Reject Evolution. You asked me to explain the reason I do reject Darwin's theory of evolution based on common descent instead of common design. The answer is very simple: If I were to embrace Darwin's theory of common descent, I would have to reject the literal resurrection of Jesus and the literal resurrection of the saints at the Second Coming. Darwins theory of evolution diminishes God's power and glory, and quite often results in the denial of God's existence.

Can Satan Create Life?. You affirm that Satan has no power to create life. It all depends on how you define the term "create." We do not have the power to create life "ex nihilo," but we do possess the power to create human life, and we have been doing this since God told Adam and Eve to populate the earth. If we do possess that power, why would you deny this to Satan, who at one time held a high position in the heavenly courts? Perhaps he is unable to create life from non-living inert matter, but this is something I would not gamble my Christianity on.

When Moses, empowered by God, managed to turn his wooden staff into a serpent, Pharaoh's magician managed to do likewise, probably aided by Satan's power. The only difference between those serpents was that Moses' serpent swallowed the others. If Satan did not create the animals that pre-dated the creation of Adam and Eve [if in fact animal fossils are older than human remains], then perhaps God did so. We do not have a detailed and exhaustive record of God's creating activity since eternity. Did not Jesus state that there were many things he would like to tell his disciples, but that they were not ready for it?

The Role of Ellen G. White. When I read your E-mails, I do notice a heavy reliance on information you gleaned from E.G. White. I do have most of her books, and I think I have read most of them. I do believe that she was inspired by God, and that her influence was instrumental in the development of the SDA church. Nevertheless, I do not think that her writings were infallible, because she herself did state that only God is infallible, and she constantly encouraged us to rely on the Bible as a source of truth. She also challenged us to reject her writings if they were not in harmony with the Bible. History has demonstrated that some of her statements were in error, for which reason they were edited on more than one occasion.

Now My Question to You. I believe that I have addressed all the issues you raised in your latest E-mail. Now I want to ask you something I have asked you almost in every E-mail I sent your way since this exchange started: In the event science succeeds in providing indisputable evidence that animal fossils are truly older than human remains, do you see any alternative way to preserve our common faith in the resurrection of Jesus and the resurrection of the saints at his second coming? Is there any reason why you remain silent in response to my hypothetical question?

Conclusion. I would like to conclude by repeating that I hope your strong view in the literal reading of Genesis prevails, and that science eventually is able to verify your belief that animal fossils are not older than human remains. In the event this fails to materialize and the evidence leads us in the opposite direction, I hope you would consider joining me, instead of abandoning Christianity.

No on Jack Provonsha's Alternative

by Sean Pitman

Yes to Provonsha's Alternative!

by Nic Samojluk