To perform a search, click on ==> Search  

 

The Evolution of Religious

Fundamentals

by Nic Samojluk

The Main Issue Between Us. I would like to start by suggesting that in the future we center our discussion on the main issue remaining between you and me, which is the age of animal fossils. You say that you possess enough scientific evidence to support your belief that the age of our planet and everything that is in it is not older than a few thousand years. I have read some of the articles you have posted on your web site, and I value them very much. Nevertheless, much of the material is technical in nature, for which reason I am not in a position to discuss its contents with confidence. I will rather defer this to the experts.

The Side Issues and the Non-Issues. In your response you make reference in the first three paragraphs to millions of years of Darwinian-style evolution which you reject. This is a non-issue in your discussion with me. Is there any reason why you bring this again and again when you know that I have stated on repeated occasions that I do not share Darwin's view? You do not believe in Darwinian evolution, and I don't either. You do not believe that millions of years were involved in life on planet earth, and I don't either. You don't believe in the evolution of life from a common ancestor, and I don't believe in it either.

Can we drop these non-issues, since they tend rather to cloud the main issue remaining, which is the age of animal fossils? I do not mind talking about some of the side issues, but I do not see any point in wasting our time on non-issues. I suspect that by the time science manages to refine their dating techniques, the millions of years assigned to life on earth will probably shrink a great deal the way ice cores ages drop when interpreted as seasonal changes instead of yearly markers. The sticking question to resolve is: are animal fossils significantly older than human remains?

The Evolution of Religious Fundamentals. The only kind of evolution I believe in is: The evolution of dogs into a diverse kinds of dogs. The evolution of viruses into a constantly new strains of viruses, and the evolution of religious fundamentals. This is also a main issue on which we seem to differ. Therefore, I believe it might be useful for our discussion to refresh our memory related to the evolution of religious fundamentals.

And bear in mind that one of the functions of religious fundamentals is not to bring people into the church, but rather to keep those who do not share our views out. The church needs to draw the line somewhere, but sometimes we go overboard. This is illustrated by the small number of fundamentals the church set up at the Jerusalem Christian Council. The total number was five, according to my count, and only one of them survived, but we added 27 more.

Quote:
It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meat of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage.


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

Dear Nic,

Perhaps we can discuss this more face to face? I don't think you really understand where I'm coming from here or the reasons why I believe Christianity is tied up with the literal reading of Genesis 1 and 2. In short, if the literal reading of these texts is shown to be in error, a great deal of falsifiable support for Christianity disappears. You basically cut out a big part of the rational basis for belief in Christianity. Many are leaving the church over this very issue - and rightly so. I know you think you see another alternative. But, as far as I can tell, your other alternative explanation leaves in ruins the logical "intelligent" basis of our church. I might still believe in a higher power if I became convinced by the "long-age" notions of population science, but I would certainly not believe in the Christian notion of that higher power any longer.

I look forward to discussing this further with you personally. Until then, I don't think we are making much headway doing it this way.

Sean

Yes to Provonsha's Alternative!

by Nic Samojluk

Dear Sean,

I think that it is time for me to reveal the source of my other alternative for the age of the animal fossils connundrum: I got this from Jack Provonsha. I sat at his feet for a decade, and he succeded in convincing me that, in the event science were to provide convincing evidence that animal fossils do significantly predate human remains, then the only reasonable alternative for Christians is to consider the possibility that there was suffering and death prior to the creation of Adam and Eve. This does not necessarily equate with Darwin's doctrine of common descent, of course.

May the good Lord bless you and me; and the readers of this forum!

Death Before Sin? No Way!

by Sean Pitman 

Dear Nic,

Jack Provansha, though a brilliant man in many respects, was seriously in error in at least a few points of doctrine - at least in my opinion. I can discuss this with you more, personally, but the notion that death and suffering existed before the fall on this planet is untenable from the SDA position - it would remove a significant basis for belief.

For example, it is easy to say that one believes in little green men that live in the middle of the moon. It is another thing to show falsifiable evidence to support that belief. A big part of the evidence for the SDA position comes in the form of scientific support for various Biblical statements. This is what makes the Bible quite unique amoung "good books" that are out there. It is what makes SDAism and Christianity at large an "intelligent" religion. The Bible says, "Come, let us reason together" and "Be prepaired to give everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is within you."

The Gospel, as presented by the SDA church, is much more than a bunch of "cunningly devised fables". There is good evidence to support the Good News. The basis for much of what the Bible says about things that we cannot see or test comes from what the Bible does say about what we can see and test. If the Bible is shown to be significantly off base with what it says about what we can actually see, test, and comprehend, what is left to convince the thoughtful mind that the Bible might actually be right when it comes to those things that we cannot see, test, or even really comprehend? - like the nature of God?

You may think otherwise, but the recent and literal creation week, along with a recent and literal worldwide flood, is in fact a stated fundamental position of the SDA church. It really doesn't matter if the early church had only a handful of stated fundamental positions (they actually had a lot more than that if you read the arguments that went on between Peter and Paul). The fact is that we as a church body have moved from where we started. We've learned and grown and come to certain conclusions that we, as an organization, hold to be fundamental.

Hired representatives of that organization simply cannot promote or personally start the public preaching and teaching of ideas that directly go against these fundamental positions if the organization is to survive. It isn't right or honest. If one feels strongly enough that the church is fundamentally wrong, they are free to leave it and teach and preach their ideas elsewhere. They cannot, however, continue to do so under the flag of the church.

I look forward to chatting with you more about this next time we get together. I'm giving the talk at Sabbath-school next week. Perhaps we can discuss this more there after the class?

Sean

Is the Age of Animal Fossils Falsifiable?

by Nic Samojluk

Dear Sean,

Are Human Beings Free From Doctrinal Errors? You state the following:

Quote:

Jack Provansha, though a brilliant man in many respects, was seriously in error in at least a few points of doctrine - at least in my opinion.

Who is Jack Provansha? I was talking about Jack Provonsha! I hope we are talking about the same individual [Just kidding!]. I wouln't be surprised if he was in error on some of his teachings. He never claimed infallibility, and even Ellen White, whom you highly respect, was not infallible. And even St. Peter did err, and Paul had to reprimand him publicly. Only God is infallible. Of course, I am interested in learning where Dr. Provonsha was wrong, so that I might hopefully avoid his doctrinal errors.

Are Church doctrinal Pronouncements Infallible? You also state that:

Quote:

the notion that death and suffering existed before the fall on this planet is untenable from the SDA position.

It is untenable for those who believe that all doctrinal teaching of the church are infallible, which is a fallible affirmation. If the doctrinal pronouncements of the church were infallible, then they would be not subject to modification or alteration. This is not the case, as you can see by the following quotation taken from the introduction to the Fundamental Beliefs of the SDA Church:

Quote:

Revision of these statements may be expected at a General Conference session when the church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding of the Bible truths.

Do Church Leaders Have a Monopoly on Religious Insights? My question to you is: Do the leaders of the church have a monopoly on the Holy Spirit? How can changes to the fundamental doctrines of the church be implemented if we discourage all public discussion of doctrinal issues that might deviate from what has been previously approved by the church? Doesn't the Bible state the following?

Quote:

I will pour my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions. And also upon the servants and the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit [Joel 2:28,29].

Based on this text, I conclude that in the last days simple people will contribute to the development of church doctrine. How can these simple members of the church do this if any view that does not have the stamp of approval of the church is discouraged by those who believe that the fundamentals doctrines of the church are unnassailable? How can a proper revision or modification of said fundamentals be implemented without the imput of a cross section of the church?

Should Those Holding the Minority Doctrinal Position Leave the Church? Besides, once the church has voted on certain doctrinal positions, is it fair to ask the minority, whose views are at the moment not the most popular, to leave the organization if they don't like the way the voting has turned out? Is it fair for the majority to discourage the minority from raising the issues dear to them based on their own interpretation of what is fundamental?

Take the case of the killing of the innocent, for example. In Germany, six million innocent Jews were murdered, and the Christian church remained silent for fear of reprisals. Half a century later the SDA German and Austrian SDA church apologized for their cooperation with Hitler. Today, an average of 3,000 innocent babies are killed, and our church has declared to be pro-choice. Am I suppossed to remain silent because the officials of my church prefer to be silent? Should I leave the church because I consider the church has erred on this?

Should Church Employees Be Silent on Divergent Beliefs? You further state the following:

Quote:

Hired representatives of that organization simply cannot promote or personally start the public preaching and teaching of ideas that directly go against these fundamental positions if the organization is to survive.

I am not an employee of the SDA church, but if I were, I would speak even louder against the SDA erroneous defense of women's righ to murder their unborn children, and I hope I wouldn't fear the wrath of those who believe otherwise. The Sabbath is holy, but nobody has lost his life for worshipping God on the wong day of the week, while thousands of innocent babies are butchered before they have a chance to see the light of day, and my church is silent!

By the way, Jack Provonsha was a highly respected employee of the church, and he openly proclaimed his belief that in the event science were to provide overwhelming evidence that animals predated the creation of humans, then he would opt for admitting that the deaths of those animals were unrelated to Adam and Eve's sin, but rather connected with the rebellion of Lucifer against God. Was he ever fired for teadching what I am suggesting? Not a chance! Do you think that he should have been fired for teaching doctrinal error according to your view?

The Sabbath is a symbol of our allegiance to God, and symbols are important, but murder evidences that our allegiance to God is already broken! The church does have the power of firing those who openly question some of the fundamentals beliefs of the organization, and the church has exercised said power in the past, sometimes for good reasons, and other times unjustly. Let God be the final judge.

Is the Age of Animal Fossils Falsifiable? You also affirm what follows:

Quote:

For example, it is easy to say that one believes in little green men that live in the middle of the moon. It is another thing to show falsifiable evidence to support that belief.

Are you trying to tell me that the age of animal fossils is not falsifiable? Scientific dating techniques have been refined and are being refined, and they yield verifiable scientific data. How can you suggest that testing the date of animal fossils and human remains is not falsifiable? You can question their accuracy, and I do, but I would not venture to say that they are not falsifiable! Personally, I believe that when our dating techniques become more reliable, then the millions of years will shrink significantly to perhaps thousand of years.

Now the Main Issue that Started this Thread! I cannot avoid mentioning the main issue that gave birth to this forum thread: the seemingly significant gap between the age of animal fossils and the human remains. I have asked you almost in every posting the following question: In the event science provides convincing evidence that there was death among animals on this planet prior to the existence of humans, and you became convinced that the evidence is overwhelming. What alternative would you provide to me besides admitting that perhaps Satan was responsible for those deaths instead of Adam and Eve? And I am not talking about green men on the moon, but rather the bones of real animals whose existence seems to predate Adam and Eve. Of course, this is a hypothetical, but said hypothetical was what prompted this thread!

Free Mailing List Club!

 

If you would like to be on our SDA Forum Mailing List, please take a minute to sign up today and join hundreds of others who have done already so. It is free, and you will have the choice of unsuscribing at will. We do not share, nor do we sell your E-mail to others.

Sign Up Today!

* required

Email Address: *

Name:



Email Marketing by VerticalResponse

Back to the Top? Click Here ==>

 Back to the Editorial Index? Click Here ==>