Is Bahai faith in favor with “Unity of Religions” ? (Christianity)

Is Bahai faith in favor with “Unity of Religions” ? (Christianity)

How Bahai faith is in favor with “Unity of Religions” when Christians do not see Baha'u'llah as the Second Coming of Jesus !

BAHA'I-CHRISTIAN DIALOGUE

by Francis J. Beckwith

Description

In February 1988 on a Boston radio program I had the opportunity to dialogue with Robert Stockman, a Baha'i leader and doctoral candidate at Harvard Divinity School. Stockman argued that just as the Jewish leaders were mistaken about Jesus' fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, so also the Christian church has failed to see how Baha'u'llah fulfilled a number of biblical prophecies. In his view, Jesus was rejected because the Jews interpreted the Old Testament prophecies literally, and in the same manner, Christians do not see Baha'u'llah as the Second Coming of Jesus because they interpret the New Testament prophecies literally.

Another interesting response came from a Baha'i in southern Nevada, Bill Garbett, who told me that Baha'ism has suffered no divisions as has Christianity in its many schisms. He concluded from this that the Baha'i World Faith must be God's religion.

* * * * *

One religious group to originate in the past two centuries that has not received enough attention from evangelical Christians is the Baha'i World Faith.¹ Baha'is believe that all of the world's major religions are progressive revelations from God, each designed for its particular historical era. The Baha'i religion teaches that Krishna, Zoroaster, Moses, Buddha, Confucius, Jesus, Muhammad, and the Bab (the Persian founder of a nineteenth-century religious movement which laid the foundation for Baha'ism) were all prophets or manifestations of God for their time.² However, Baha'u'llah, the founder of the Baha'i religion, the successor of the Bab, and the most recent manifestation, is the one who should now be revered and obeyed.

Baha'u'llah's greatest teaching was the oneness and unity of mankind. According to Baha'u'llah, every race, both sexes, and the great religious truths all come from one God. While Christians may appreciate some of the humanitarian and peace doctrines of the Baha'is, they take issue with the Baha'i claim to compatibility with their faith; for Baha'ism denies several essential Christian doctrines.

Since the publication of my Christian response to the Baha'i World Faith, Baha'i (Bethany House, 1985), I have had several encounters with both Baha'is and non-Baha'is who have questioned my position on a number of key issues regarding the relationship between Baha'ism and Christianity. For example, in a detailed critique of my book, Steve McConnell, a non-Baha'i from Bellevue, Washington, asked me, "Could Christianity's conception of God withstand the cursory logical tests to which you subject the Baha'i's God?"³ McConnell contends that it is unfair for me to argue that because the Baha'i manifestations of God give us contradictory concepts of God (monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, etc.), the Baha'i view of God must be false. After all, he insists, the Christian conception of God has its own logical problems.

In February 1988 on a Boston radio program I had the opportunity to dialogue with Robert Stockman, a Baha'i leader and doctoral candidate at Harvard Divinity School. Stockman argued that just as the Jewish leaders were mistaken about Jesus' fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, so also the Christian church has failed to see how Baha'u'llah fulfilled a number of biblical prophecies. In his view, Jesus was rejected because the Jews interpreted the Old Testament prophecies literally, and in the same manner, Christians do not see Baha'u'llah as the Second Coming of Jesus because they interpret the New Testament prophecies literally.

Another interesting response came from a Baha'i in southern Nevada, Bill Garbett, who told me that Baha'ism has suffered no divisions as has Christianity in its many schisms. He concluded from this that the Baha'i World Faith must be God's religion.

In this article I will respond to these arguments as they relate to the different views held by Baha'is and Christians on (1) the nature of God, (2) biblical prophecy, and (3) religious unity.

BAHA'IS AND THE NATURE OF GOD

Although Baha'is teach that God is unknowable in his essence, they believe that God does reveal something of himself to man, especially through his "manifestations" (i.e., Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, Baha'u'llah, et. al.).⁴ For those familiar with the conflicting doctrines of the major world religions associated with these "manifestations," however, it is rather apparent that they cannot all be true (see Table). Yet this is exactly what the Baha'is maintain, namely, that each of these religious leaders was a manifestation of God for his own era and therefore spoke some truth about God's nature.

The Doctrine of God Taught by the Alleged Manifestations5
MANIFESTATION	IMPORTANT ELEMENTS IN HIS DOCTRINE OF GOD
Moses	One personal God. The universe is not eternal, but was created by God (Gen. 1-3; Deut. 6:4; etc.).
Krishna	Mix of polytheism and impersonal pantheism. The universe is eternal.
Zoroaster	One good god and one evil god (religious dualism).
Buddha	God not relevant; essentially agnostic.
Confucius	Polytheistic.
Muhammad	One personal God who cannot have a Son.
Jesus Christ	One personal God who does have a Son (Mark 12:29; John 4:24; 5:18-19;etc.)
Baha'u'llah	God and the universe, which is an emanation of God, are co-eternal.6

The fact that the various alleged manifestations of God represented God in contradictory ways implies either that manifestations of God can contradict one another or that God's own nature is contradictory. If the manifestations are allowed to contradict one another, then there is no way to separate false manifestations from true ones or to discover if any of them really speaks for the true and living God. Yet the Baha'is obviously do not accept every person who claims to be a manifestation of God (e.g., Jim Jones, founder of Jonestown). If, on the other hand, God's own nature is said to be contradictory, that is, that God is both one God and many gods, that God is both able and not able to have a Son, both personal and impersonal, etc., then the Baha'i concept of God is reduced to meaninglessness.

Can Christian Doctrines Withstand Scrutiny?

As I noted earlier, Steven McConnell has asked whether the Christian concept of God could measure up to this sort of scrutiny. He asserts, "Subjected to the glossy examination you give the Baha'i God, the paradox of Jesus being fully human and fully divine as well as the paradox of the unity and individuality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit would be mere contradictions!" He then asks, "So why are Christianity's paradoxes (contradictions) more virtuous than Baha'i's?"⁷

Several comments are in order. First, Christian thinkers take an entirely different attitude toward their problematic doctrines than the Baha'is. For example, many Christian philosophers and theologians have spent much time trying to explain these doctrines in a way that is coherent and philosophically sound.⁸ Christians believe that these problematic doctrines are logically reconcilable because they are in fact ultimately noncontradictory. On the other hand, the Baha'is do not seem particularly concerned about whether their doctrine of God is internally consistent.

Second, the paradoxes inherent in the Christian doctrines of the Incarnation and the Trinity are not comparable to the contradictions inherent in the Baha'i concept of God. When the Bible asserts both the humanity and the deity of Jesus it is not asserting something that is self-contradictory by definition. Christians do not believe that Jesus was both God and not-God, but rather that Jesus was both God and man. In other words, when Christians assert that God became man they are not asserting that God became merely man (although He was fully man), but rather that the Son of God took on a human nature in addition to His divine nature. Although we may not fully comprehend how the divine and human natures interacted in the person of Jesus, this is not the same thing as saying that the concept of a God-man is self-contradictory.

Likewise, the doctrine of the Trinity, although paradoxical, is not self-contradictory. The doctrine of the Trinity asserts that three divine persons share the same substance or essence (i.e., the three persons are one and the same God). It does not assert that there are three individual substances which are one substance or that there are three gods which are also one god, either of which would be contradictory. That is, Christians are not saying that God is both one substance and not-one-substance, but rather that God is both one substance and three persons. Even if God's triunity cannot be fully comprehended by man, at least the Christian is not involved in a contradiction when he asserts that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God.

On the other hand, the Baha'i is required to accept that blatantly contradictory concepts of God were all infallibly revealed by God through his "manifestations." For instance, monotheism (what Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad taught) and polytheism (what Confucius and Zoroaster taught) cannot both be true, since it is contradictory to say both that there is only one god and that there is more than one god. Therefore, unlike the Christian doctrines of the Incarnation and the Trinity, the Baha'i view of God implies mutually exclusive concepts of God.

BAHA'IS AND BIBLICAL PROPHECY

The Baha'is claim that Baha'u'llah is the fulfillment of the biblical prophecies of the return of Christ.⁹ Taken literally, of course, the biblical prophecies of Christ's return do not fit Baha'u'llah. The Bible speaks of Jesus Himself returning in the skies before the entire world in a cataclysmic fashion to judge the living and the dead (e.g., Matt. 24). By contrast, Baha'is recognized as the "Christ" another person (Baha'u'llah) who came into the world in relative obscurity through natural means (i.e., conception and birth).¹⁰

How, then, can the Baha'is claim that Bah'u'llah fulfills the biblical prophecies of Christ's return? They can do this only by insisting that the literal meaning is to be ignored. According to Baha'i doctrine, Jesus' description of His second coming in the Bible should be understood spiritually rather than literally. That is, the text of the Bible is said to have some symbolic meaning which is contrary to the ordinary meaning of the words used.

Literal and Symbolic

The Baha'is do not, however, follow this line of interpretation consistently in their reading of the Bible. Whenever they find a biblical passage that clearly states that Jesus will return at the end of the world in a way contrary to Baha'u'llah's arrival, the Baha'is simply assert that we should not take that passage literally. No reason for this assertion is ever produced from the text of the Bible itself. However, on other occasions where a literal interpretation might seem to the Baha'is to support their views (e.g., Dan. 8:13-17),¹¹ they do not consider interpreting the passage nonliterally.

This sort of clip-and-paste view of biblical interpretation proves very little. After all, by the same rationale one could "prove" that any number of different individuals was Christ returned. Accepting as literal only those texts which seem to fit one's doctrinal views while pleading for a nonliteral interpretation for passages which contradict one's position is a favorite tactic of pseudo-Christian groups. For example, this interpretive technique is employed by the Unification Church to show that Sun Myung Moon is the Messiah.¹²

With this method of interpreting biblical prophecy Baha'is employ circular reasoning (in which the arguer assumes what he or she is trying to prove). Because the Baha'i accepts Baha'u'llah's claim to fulfill Christ's second coming, he (or she) thinks he is justified in interpreting biblical prophecies symbolically which, if taken literally, would disprove Baha'u'llah's claim, but if taken nonliterally can be used to prove it.¹³ Thus, probably without even realizing it, the Baha'i is assuming the very point that he is trying to prove in his citing of biblical prophecy.

Jews, Christians, and Baha'is

In this article's introductory comments I mentioned Robert Stockman's assertion that just as the Jews were mistaken about Jesus' fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy (that is, the Jews as a nation; many individual Jews accepted Jesus), the Christians of today are mistaken about Baha'u'llah's fulfillment of New Testament prophecy. There are two ways of understanding this argument. Perhaps it is meant to be a proof that Baha'u'llah fulfills biblical prophecy, in which case the argument might be stated more formally in the following manner:

1. The Jews thought that Jesus was not the Messiah, and they were wrong.

2. Christians today think that Baha'u'llah was not the Messiah (or Christ returned).

3. Therefore, Christians are wrong to reject Baha'u'llah.

Such an argument, if that is what Robert Stockman intended, would certainly be another case of faulty reasoning. By this reasoning Christians and Baha'is alike would be wrong to reject Jim Jones as a manifestation of God, or Sun Myung Moon as the second coming of Christ. Clearly, the mere fact that the Jewish rejection of Jesus was unjustified does not prove that the Christian rejection of Baha'u'llah is also unjustified.

There is another way of interpreting Robert Stockman's argument, however, that is not so obviously fallacious. Perhaps he is intending to argue only that the Christian rejection of Baha'u'llah is based on the same sort of error that led the Jews to reject Jesus. Baha'is generally argue that in both cases the error that led to the rejection of the "manifestation" was an overly literal interpretation of biblical prophecies. Such an argument would take the following form:

1. The Jews rejected Jesus because they interpreted the Bible too literally.

2. Christians today reject Baha'u'llah because they interpret the Bible too literally.

3. Therefore, Christians are wrong to reject Baha'u'llah on the basis of their literal interpretation of the Bible.

This argument, unlike the one discussed previously, has some logical value. If its premises go unchallenged, they lend strong support to its conclusion. However, both of the premises of this argument do invite challenge.

In the case of the second premise, for Baha'u'llah one could substitute any of the other modern religious leaders claiming to be a manifestation of God or a fulfillment of the Second Coming of Christ. A follower of Sun Myung Moon could argue with equal validity as follows:

1. The Jews rejected Jesus because they interpreted the Bible too literally.

2. Christians today reject Rev. Moon because they interpret the Bible too literally.

3. Therefore, Christians are wrong to reject Rev. Moon on the basis of their literal interpretation of the Bible.

In other words, the second premise is really immaterial. It amounts to saying that if the actual words of the Bible are ignored, anyone at all can be claimed to be a fulfillment of the Bible's "spiritual" or symbolic meaning.

As for the first premise, as a matter of historical fact it is simply false. The fact of the matter is that the Jews rejected Jesus as the fulfillment of biblical prophecy not because they interpreted it too literally, but because they did not interpret it literally enough. The Bible clearly predicted that the Messiah would be God (Ps. 45:6; Isa. 7:14; 9:6), but the Jews found Jesus' claim to be God scandalous and blasphemous in the extreme. The Bible also clearly announced that the Messiah would suffer and be killed as an atonement for Israel's sins (Isa. 53; Dan. 9:26), but the Jews regarded Jesus' crucifixion as proof that He was not the Messiah.

Not every Old Testament passage applied to Jesus in the New Testament was understood by first-century Jews as referring to the Messiah. However, there were a fair number of Old Testament prophecies which Jewish leaders and scholars in the first century did regard as literal predictions concerning the Messiah and which were fulfilled literally by Jesus.¹⁴ Since Jesus fulfilled these prophecies, what caused most of His contemporaries not to recognize this?

The answer is that the Jews allowed their assumptions about the Messiah to color and even distort their reading of the biblical text. Specifically, it was their expectation of a conquering political Messiah which led first-century Jews to reject the literal meaning of the text, which presents the Messiah as both suffering and conquering.¹⁵ Consequently, they had a concept of the Messiah which Jesus could not fit. Their desire for a political Messiah incited them to ignore or twist biblical passages predicting a suffering Messiah that were literally fulfilled in Jesus.

Similarly, the assumption made by the Baha'is that Baha'u'llah is God's manifestation for this age leads to distortions in their reading of the New Testament. (At least the Jews had some warrant in the biblical text for their view of the Messiah; the Baha'is have none.) They too are forced to ignore or twist biblical passages concerning Christ (in this case those concerning His return), which they do in order to apply them to Baha'u'llah. Ironically, then, it turns out that Robert Stockman's argument actually has things turned around. The truth is that the Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah for much the same sort of reason that Baha'is accept Baha'u'llah (which, in effect, is also rejecting Jesus): in both cases, religious assumptions about the Messiah interfered with a plain reading of the text. Like the Jews in Jesus' day, the Baha'is fail to interpret the Bible literally enough.

Also like the Jews, Baha'is are forced to explain why the Old Testament presents both a suffering and a conquering Messiah. The Baha'i answer is that the Old Testament really predicts two "Messiahs": Jesus was the suffering Messiah and Baha'u'llah the conquering one.¹⁶

This interpretation ignores the critical fact that both descriptions of the Messiah can be found within the same passages and are obviously referring to one person. For example, Daniel 9:25 calls the Messiah a "Prince" and 9:26 states that he will be "cut off," that is, killed.¹⁷ Jesus fulfilled in detail those prophecies referring to the Messiah's place of birth (Mic. 5:2), time of ministry (Dan. 9:24-27), death (Dan. 9:26; Isa. 53; Ps. 22), and resurrection (Ps. 16:10), as well as a number of others.¹⁸ Therefore, we should accept Jesus' claim (e.g., Matt. 24-25) and the teaching of the rest of the New Testament (e.g., Luke 1:33; Acts 1:9-11; 1 Thess. 4:14-17; Rev. 1:7; 22:16-21) that He will personally return to fulfill the remaining prophecies which describe a conquering Messiah.

Certainly there is no reason to accept Baha'u'llah's claim to be that Messiah. He failed to fulfill any of the biblical prophecies concerning Christ's second coming,¹⁹ and Baha'i's cannot produce a single text from the Bible that suggests that Jesus will not Himself fulfill those prophecies.

The preceding discussion of the interpretation of biblical prophecy should be understood in the light of a more general appreciation of proper biblical interpretation.²⁰ In contrasting "literal" with "symbolic" interpretations, I am not suggesting that biblical symbolism should not be interpreted as such. Rather, I am simply saying that what is understood as symbolic and what is taken more literally should be based on the text itself (as when Daniel interprets his visions as symbols, or when Jesus interprets His parables as earthly illustrations of spiritual truths). Where the Baha'is go wrong is in reading into the Bible doctrines that are totally foreign to its text and can only be justified by assuming their truth.

BAHA'IS AND RELIGIOUS UNITY

The third Baha'i argument against Christianity that I wish to address is the claim that Baha'ism must be God's true religion for this age because, unlike Christianity, it has not suffered any schisms. One Baha'i writer takes this so far as to proclaim boldly that "there are not Baha'i sects. There never can be."²¹

There are two problems with this argument: (1) It rests on a false premise — Baha'ism has in fact suffered divisions. (2) The conclusion does not follow — an undivided religion is not necessarily the true religion.

Division in Baha'ism

First, the fact is that Baha'ism has suffered several divisions, from its early days to the present. One group, known as the Free Baha'is, has published a book denouncing Shoghi Effendi (who took over leadership of the Baha'i World Faith after Baha'u'llah's son 'Abdu'l-Baha died).²² Another group, the Orthodox Baha'i Faith, was formed after Shoghi Effendi died, and recognizes Jason Remey as Effendi's successor.²³ Yet another group, Baha'is Under the Provision of the Covenant (BUPC), is led by Montana chiropractor Dr. Leland Jensen. Though it has "Baha'i" in its name, it is not endorsed or recognized by the main body "as a legitimate Baha'i organization."²⁴ As Vernon Elvin Johnson concludes in his Baylor University dissertation on the history of Baha'ism, "obvious schism has occurred in the Baha'i religion, for various factions each claiming to belong to the Baha'i religion have existed in the course of the faith's history."²⁵

Some Baha'is may be tempted to counter that anyone who breaks off from the Baha'i World Faith is automatically not a Baha'i and therefore no schism has really occurred. Such an argument is circular in nature and commits what Antony Flew calls the "no-true-Scotsman" fallacy ("No Scotsman would do such a thing....Well, no true Scotsman would").²⁶ As Johnson points out, the Catholic and Mormon churches have used similar reasoning to defend their claim to be the one true church²⁷ (although the Catholic church no longer tends to take such an exclusive stance).

Division and Truth

Second, it simply does not follow that a religion that is undivided must be the true religion, or that a religion that is divided cannot be the true religion. For the Baha'i argument to be persuasive it must be shown, and not simply assumed, that the true religion must be unified organizationally. This is not a biblical teaching: unity of the faith is presented in the Bible as a goal for the church to reach, not a prerequisite for the church to be God's people (Eph. 4:11-16).

Since on independent grounds we know that Christianity is true (for example, the evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus,²⁸ which Baha'is deny²⁹), we may justifiably conclude that organizational unity is not a requirement for a religion to be true. The argument can be stated more formally as follows:

1. Either the true religion is unified or it is not.

2. Christianity is the true religion and it is not unified.

3. Therefore, the true religion is not unified.

The truth of Christianity is independent of whether its adherents congregate under the same organizational banner. Its truth depends rather on the truth of the Bible's teachings concerning the person, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

This is not to deny that Christians have an obligation to exhibit unity and love as a testimony to the world of the truth of Jesus Christ (John 13:34-35; 17:21-23). To our shame we confess that although Christianity is true, Christians have not always been true to Christ. Nevertheless, this does not alter the fact that Jesus Christ is the only Savior from sin and God's last word to man prior to the consummation of history (John 14:6; Acts 4:12; Heb. 1:1-3; 13:8). On this basis Christianity stands vindicated as true and Baha'ism stands condemned as a rejection of God's truth as revealed in Jesus Christ.

NOTES

¹ The only book-length Christian critiques of Baha'ism in print are Francis J. Beckwith, Baha'i (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1985), which focuses on doctrine, and William McElwee Miller, The Baha'i Faith: Its History and Teachings (South Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library Publications, 1984), which focuses on history.
² This is the current list of the manifestations. The Baha'is have altered the list over the years. See Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan: The Book of Certitude, 2d ed., trans. Shoghi Effendi (Wilmette, IL: Baha'i Publishing Trust [hereafter "BPT"], 1950), 7-65; `Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, trans. Laura Clifford Barney (BPT. 1930), 189; and a current Baha'i tract, One Universal Faith (BPT, n.d.), 5.
<sup>3</sup> Personal letter from Steven McConnell, 1 June 1987.
<sup>4</sup> See Beckwith, 8, and works cited there.
<sup>5</sup> This table is based on Beckwith, 17.
<sup>6</sup> Concerning God's relation to the universe, Baha'i writer J. E. Esslemont writes, "Baha'u'llah teaches that the universe is without beginning in time. It is a perpetual emanation from the Great First Cause." J. E. Esslemont, Baha'u'llah and the New Era, 3d ed. (BPT, 1970), 204. It should be noted that it is untenable both philosophically and scientifically to maintain that the universe is without a beginning. See J. P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), 18-42, and works cited there; and Francis J. Beckwith, David Hume's Argument Against Miracles: A Critical Analysis (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1989), chapter 5.
<sup>7</sup> McConnell, 2.
<sup>8</sup> For example, Thomas V. Morris, The Logic of God Incarnate (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986).
<sup>9</sup> See `Abdu'l-Baha, 110-12.
¹⁰ Esslemont, 214.
¹¹ On this and other so-called Baha'i biblical prophecies, see Beckwith, Baha'i, 28-39.
¹² See James Bjornstad, Sun Myung Moon and the Unification Church, rev. ed. (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1984), 19-52.
¹³ See, for example, Esslemont, 222-26; `Abdu'l-Baha, 110-12.
¹⁴ See Norman L. Geisler, Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1976), 340-41; Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict, rev. ed. (San Bernardino, CA: Here's Life Publishers, 1979), 141-77.
¹⁵ See Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Jesus Was a Jew (San Antonio, TX: Ariel Ministries, 1981), 23-64.
¹⁶ For example, see Esslemont, 214-16; see also Beckwith, Baha'i, 35-37.
¹⁷ See for further reading, Fruchtenbaum, 23-24; Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971), 160-80.
¹⁸ See n. 14.
¹⁹ See Beckwith, Baha'i, 23-25.
²⁰ See especially James Sire, Scripture Twisting: 20 Ways the Cults Misread the Bible (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1980).
²¹ David Hofman, The Renewal of Civilization, Talisman Books (London: George Ronald, 1960), 110.
²² Hermann Zimmer, A Fraudulent Testament Devalues the Bahai Religion into Political Shoghism, trans. Jeannine Blackwell, rev. Karen Gasser and Gordon Campbell (Waiblingen/Stuttgart: World Union for Universal Religion and Universal Peace — Free Bahais, 1973).
²³ Vernon Elvin Johnson, An Historical Analysis of Critical Transformations in the Evolution of the Baha'i World Faith (Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms, 1974), 362-80.
²⁴ Joel Bjorling, "Leland Jensen: The Prophet Who Cried 'Wolf,'" Understanding Cults and Spiritual Movements 1, 3 (1985):6.
²⁵ Johnson, 410.
²⁶ Antony Flew, Thinking Straight (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1975), 47.
²⁷ Johnson, 412.
²⁸ On the evidence for the resurrection, see especially William Lane Craig, Knowing the Truth about the Resurrection (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Publications, 1988), and Gary Habermas, The Resurrection of Jesus: An Apologetic (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980).
²⁹ See Beckwith, Baha'i, 14, 25-26.

Sourced from: http://www.arabicbible.com/christian/bahai_faith.htm

Does Bahai faith accept other Religions? (Christianity)

Does Bahai faith accept other Religions? (Christianity)

How Bahai faith accepts other Religions when it is anti-chritian from numerous vantage points !

The Baha’i faith is anti-biblical from numerous vantage points :

1. Baha’ism denies the uniqueness of Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of God. The New Testament teaches that Christ is the Father’s “only begotten Son.” The Greek word for “only begotten” is monogenes, a term employed with reference to Christ to indicate that “He was the sole representative of the Being and character of the One who sent Him” (Vine, 1940, 3:40). Bah ’u’ll h, however, claimed that Christ was but one manifestation of God! He contended that he himself was “a later manifestation.”

2. Christ declared: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one comes unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6). The Lord shed His blood for one church (Acts 20:28; Ephesians 1:22-23; 4:4), and He is the Savior of that body exclusively (Ephesians 5:26). Yet devotees of the Baha’i philosophy seek to unify all religions upon the basis of doctrinal compromise, and at the expense of the plain teaching of Christ. Allegedly, advocates of this system revere the teaching of Jesus, Mohammed, Bah ’u’ll h, and all other great “prophets.”

3. The Son of God taught that only the truth can set you free from sin (John 8:32), and that truth is embodied in the words that came from God through Christ, and through His inspired spokesmen (John 17:8,17; Luke 10:16). The New Testament, sealed by the Savior’s blood (Matthew 26:28), contains that revelation, and was to be God’s final communication to humanity (Jude 3). Baha’ism advocates a subjectivism, asserting that “truth is continuous and relative, not final and absolute.” This system of confusion cannot be from God (1 Corinthians 14:33).

4. Baha’ism repudiates the New Testament doctrine of a visible, audible return of Christ to judge the world (Matthew 25:31ff.; 1 Thessalonians 4:16; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9). The doctrine of the Baha’i cult contends that the prophecies regarding the second coming of Christ were fulfilled with the arrival of Bah ’u’ll h. Such a theory, of course, is void of any evidence.

The Baha’i faith is greatly at variance with biblical revelation. The system must be opposed. Its sincere disciples should be exposed to the truth as it is in Christ Jesus, our Lord.

Jesus said : He alone is the Way the Truth and the Life. No man comes to the Father but through Him. Jesus was the one who was sacrificed and He alone, conquered death and He alone has the power to forgive sins and He alone has the keys to death and hades. There are not many ways to the Father yet Bahai says there is. I must be honest whether it be offensive or not because Jesus himself said these things and in the Gospel of Jesus Christ I am not ashamed.

Matthew 24:

11And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

23Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.

24For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

25Behold, I have told you before.

26Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.

Luke 21:

8And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.

Matthew 7

13Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

14Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

John 3:15
so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.

John 3:16
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

John 3:36
“He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

John 5:24
“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

John 6:40
“For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”

John 6:47
“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.

Acts 13:48
When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

1 Timothy 1:16
Yet for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life.

1 John 5:13
[ This Is Written That You May Know ] These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.

Sourced from: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2453

Does Bahai faith believe in “Oneness of Religions”? ( Islam )

Does Bahai faith believe in “Oneness of Religions”? ( Islam )

How Bahai faith believe in “Oneness of Religions” when His Holiness the Bab, And His Holiness Bahaullah annul Islam !

Sourced from: http://www.bahaiawareness.com/gpb_annul.html

“God Passes By”. Author: Shoghi Effendi , First Guardian of the faith

Annulment of Islam by Bab and Baha
Islam, the last religion from Allah was perfected by Allah (Surah Anam: 3). However the Bahai leaders thought that Islam was not in keeping with the times and contrary to the rulings of Allah went ahead and annulled it. (May Allah curse them). This point should be made clear to all Muslims that Bahais have made fun of Islam, have rejected it as per their whims and fancies.

The annulment of Islam by Bab
Bab initially claimed to be the deputy of Imam Mahdi. Later he claimed to be Imam Mahdi himself. Not only that he claimed to be a divine prophet with a shariat (law). Hence his only option was to annul Islam and to impose his views upon the people. Here are some excerpts.

§ Bab assumed the exclusive right of annulling the whole Quranic dispensation.
(page 7 God Passes By)

• Bab gave the injunction in Khasail-e-Sabih to alter the sacrosanct formula of the adhan (page 12 God Passes By)

Here again is the proof that Bab was a Muslim. Initially he introduced himself as the Bab of Baqiatullah (the gate of Imam Mahdi) in the adhan. But he did not annul the adhan nor the prayers until he brought his own so called shariat.

§ Bab cited certain passages of Quran when there was infraction of the rules of grammar i.e., when Quran was grammatically incorrect (page 18 God Passes By)

This is ridiculous. Among the miracles of Quran is its complete harmony with rules of Arabic grammar and prose. Arabic literatteurs till date are indeed amazed at how an Ummi prophet could bring such a brilliant piece of work. It is indeed laughable how an ignorant Persian like the Bab could point out mistakes in the Quran. Bab could not even the conjugate a simple word like 'kala' (Read the trial of Bab as reported in Traveller's Narrative), let alone point out mistakes in the Quran.

§ The book - Bayan at once abrogated the laws and ceremonials enjoined by the Quran regarding prayer, fasting, marriage, divorce and inheritance. (page 20 God Passes By)

§ Bayan interpreted in a masterly fashion (different than others), the meaning of certain terms frequently occuring in the sacred books of previous dispensations such as paradise, hell, resurrection, the return, the balance, the hour, the last judgement and the like (page 20 God Passes By)

§ The laws (of Bab) were designed to abolish at a stroke the priviledges and ceremonials, the ordinances, and institutions of a superannuated dispensation (page 41 God Passes By)

§ The conference at Badasht proclaimed the annulment of the old order. (page 16 God Passes By)

§ One day (at Badasht) in His (Baha's) presence, when illness had confined Him to bed, Tahirah regarded as the fair and spotless emblem of chastitiy and the incarnation of the daughter of the Holy Prophet, Holy Fatima (sa) appeared suddenly, adorned, yet unveiled, before the assembled companions, seated herself on the right hand of the affrightened and infuriated Quddus, and tearing through her fiery words the veils guarding the sanctity of the ordinances of Islam sounded the clarion-call and proclaimed the inauguration of the new dispensation (page 25 God Passes By)

§ On that day, the 'bugle' mentioned in the Quran was sounded , the 'stunning trumpet-blast' was loudly raised and the catastrophe came to pass... The trumpeteer was a lone woman (Tahirah), the noblest of her sex in that dispensation, whom even some of her co-religionists pronounced a heretic. The call she sounded was the death knell of the 1200 year old law of Islam (page 25-26 God Passes By)

§ His followers, under the actual leadership of Baha, their fellow disciples were themselves in the hamlet of Badasht, abrogating the Quranic law, repudiating both the divine ordained and the man-made precepts of the Faith of Mohammed and shaking off the antiquated system (page 26 God Passes By)

The annulment of all previous religions by Baha (including that of Bab)

§ Baha says :"If all who are in the heavens and the earth be invested on this day with the prowess and attributes destined for the Letters of the Bayan, whose station is ten thousand times more glorious than the Letters of the Quranic Dispensation and if they one and all should, swift as the twinkling of an eye, hesitate to recognise My revelation, they shall be accounted in the sight of God of those that have gone astray and regarded as 'Letters of Negation". (page 63 God Passes By)

§ The revelation identified with Baha, abrogates unconditionally all the dispensations before it (page 64 God Passes By)

§ A revelation (of Baha's) hailed... as the consummation of all dispensations within the Adamic cycle..., signalizing the end of the Prophetic Era and the beginning of the Era of Fulfillment (page 64 God Passes By)

Thus now Prophet Mohammed (saw) is not the last prophet, but it is Baha. This was the so-called annulment of the religion of Islam at the hands of the Bahais.

Sourced from: http://www.bahaiawareness.com/gpb_annul.html

“God Passes By”. Author: Shoghi Effendi , First Guardian of the faith

Is Bahai faith the Friend of other Religions? ( Islam )

Is Bahai faith the Friend of other Religions? ( Islam )

How Bahai faith is the Friend of other Religions when it manipulates the fundamental concepts of them !

It is in the nature of Bahais to manipulate the fundamental concepts of Islam by playing around with the verses of the Quran and traditions. To their detriment, they have attempted to do the same with the concept of the Day of Judgement. In doing so, they have gone so far away from the reality that it is difficult for any sane person to accept their concept of the subject.

The basic concept of the Day of Judgement is shared uniformly with divinely inspired religions - that after death, man with be questioned about his actions in this world and will be rewarded and punished accordingly. It is undeniable that this world does not offer opportunities for complete reward or punishment for man’s actions. For example, if we take the case of a person who serves society by building a university or a hospital, which will be used productively by generations much after, he has left this world. Can this world or its inhabitants reward such a person comprehensively - reward him the way he should be rewarded? Or alternatively, take the example of a dictator who has the blood of innocents on his hands. Will a single instance of taking his life by hanging him be sufficient for punishing him for his crimes in this world? Can taking a person life once compensate for the millions of lives lost in an instant through an atom bomb? Nay, this argument will not hold any water with any intelligent person.

It is clear from the verses of the Holy Quran and traditions that just as the concept of Unity of God (Tawheed) is found in the basic innate nature of man, in a similar fashion the concept of the Day of Judgement is ingrained in man’s psyche. In fact, at times, it is reported that both of these are available together in man. Pay attention to the following verses of the Holy Quran which talk about this subject -

"Do you consider that We have created you (man) in vain and that you will not be returned to Us?"
(Ref: Chapter of Mo’menoon, verse 115)

While the above verse empahsises the absolute Mastership of Allah, it reminds man that his creation is not in vain and that in his final journey, he will return to Allah. The style and the tone of the verse appears to be a question from Allah to the innate nature of man (fitrat). If any person puts this question to himself, he will get the answer that at the end of the day, he is answerable to the Almighty for his actions. This question and the subsequent answer will be a cause for his reformation in this world and the hereafter.

"And We created not the heaven and the earth and all that is between them in vain. That is the opinion of those who disbelieve. And woe unto those who disbelieve, from the Fire!"
(Ref: Chapter of Suad, verse 27)

In this verse, the Almighty reminds man of his creation and invites him to reflect upon it and accept its purpose. And if man does not do so, Allah not only is terms as one who is a denier (of reality), but also indicates his final destination - that the punishment of the fire of Hell awaits him.

Therefore it is clear that just as the concept of Tawheed is ingrained or rather "pre-programmed" into man’s innate nature, in the same manner, the concept of the Day if Judgement is embedded too. Consequently, it follows that if a person places his belief in Allah, then he must believe in the Day of Judgement as well. And if a person denies Allah, then the belief in the Day of Judgement or Retribution will not benefit him - he will reject it as well.

Reasons for denying the Day of Judgement

1. Probably, one the most compelling reasons for denying the Day of Judgement, ironically, is sins. A person who engulfed excessively in sins will find that his sins become a barrier between him and his innate nature. He denies the Day of Judgement and finds it difficult to accept that there will be such a day when he will he have to give an account of his deeds. He consequently leaves no stone unturned to spread corruption on the earth. The end result of this is that he stands in opposition to his true Creator, who will ultimately disgrace him in this world. Pay attention to these examples -

(a) Firaun: He claimed to be God and under the garb of Divinity, he spread oppression and corruption on the earth. He claimed that his reign extended to the seas. Allah humiliated him by drowning him in those very seas.

(b) Abraha: He intended to destroy the Holy Kaaba and brought with him an army of elephants. Allah foiled his plans by sending birds with stones in their beaks which annihilated his army. However an interesting point to note is that the elephants themselves were blessed with recognition of Allah - when Abdul Muttalib, the custodian of the Kaaba came to meet Abraha to release his camels which were confiscated, the elephants who were trained to stamp him with their feet, actually bent down to pay obeisance to him. Thus not only did the elephants not harm the Kaaba and the custodian of the Kaaba, but by laying down their lives, they turned the attention of the people to this verse -

"Who hath created life and death that He may try you which of you is best in conduct"
(Chapter of Mulk, verse 2)

Thus, when man’s innate nature is veiled on account of his sins, he openly opposes Allah and His messenger.

2. Oppression - of any kind is fuelled by pride and pride is nothing but a sense that I am superior to everything else. This sense overpowers his sense of reasoning. An example of this is that of a child who despite having witnessed with his own eyes and experienced the benevolence of his worldly parents, ignores everything and misbehaves with them. Allah is hidden from our eyes - how will such a person accept the bounties of his Creator and the fact that one day he will return to Him. The case of the Bahais is something like this only.

Human nature tends to remember and easily grasp those discussions which are presented in a question and answer format. And this pattern is seen in the Quran itself. I will therefore use the question and answer format to explain the beliefs of the Bahais regarding the Day of Judgement. My heart beats with the prayer that this effort may be worthy of the pleasure of Allah.

The verses and traditions which will be provided in this series are few amongst many which one can find about the Day of Judgement. Just as it is not necessary to check each grain of rice while it is being cooked, in the same manner, it is not necessary to reply to each and every question. Readers will appreciate that the objective is to present the nature of the arguments placed by the Bahais and a general response. Further discussions can be responded to in a similar fashion.

Also Read:

· A summary of differences on the Day of Qiyamat

· The Q & A series on Qiyamat - An introduction

· Question 1: Ambiguous Verses in the Holy Quran

· Question 2: The Advent of The Prophets

· Question 3: The Advent of The Mahdi is Qiyamat?

· Question 4: The Advent of Bab and Bahaullah is Qiyamat?

· Question 5: Interpretation of Chapter of Hajj

· Question 6: Interpretation of Chapter of Qiyamat

· Question 7: Another doubt raised by Bahais

· Question 8: Bahai Deception of Chapter of Rahman

Sourced from:

http://www.bahaiawareness.com/qiyamatintro.html

Trend of bahai community in exclusivism and sectarianism

Trend of bahai community in exclusivism and sectarianism

Religious Studies Review, Vol. 43, no. 3 (March, 2002):195-217

Fundamentalism in the Contemporary U.S. Baha'i Community*

Juan R. I. Cole

University of Michigan

ABSTRACT

This article considers the ways in which the Baha’i faith in the United States has become more fundamentalist in the past four decades. It looks at trends toward an increasing emphasis on doctrinal and behavioral conformity, resulting in greater exclusivism and sectarianism in what on the surface appears to be a liberal and universalistic tradition. Building on the Marty and Appleby Fundamentalism Project, it shows a trend in the community toward a strong reaction against the marginalization of religion, selectivity about the tradition and about modernity, moral dualism, absolutism and inerrancy, millennialism, an elect membership, sharp boundaries, authoritarian organization, and strict behavioral requirements. It also demonstrates that Baha’i fundamentalists see the civil state and academic scholarship on religion as their “negative counterparts.” It considers the impact on the community of the big wave of conversions of the 1970s and the influx of immigrant Iranian Baha’is fleeing the Khomeinist regime. It further notes that fundamentalist Baha’is have became in some key sectors of the Baha’i administration and employ their authority to exclude Baha’i liberals. In some recent instances, Baha’i liberals have simply been dropped from the membership rolls with no formal procedure.

Most researchers involved in the Fundamentalism Project concluded that fundamentalist movements as they defined them can be found in each of the contemporary Abrahamic traditions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam (Marty and Appleby 1991-1995). A fourth, small, Abrahamic tradition that the project did not treat is the Baha'i faith. Originating in Iran and claiming to fulfill apocalyptic expectations in Islam, the Baha'i faith has some ritual and doctrinal similarities to Islam. Its central tenets, however, are generally quite liberal. Baha’is believe that all the major religions are one. They employ a figurative approach to the interpretation of past scriptures. They believe in the need for a strong United Nations, in improving the status of women, in the unity of science and religion, and in fighting racial, ethnic and nationalist prejudices. On the surface, these principles make them sound close ideologically to the Unitarian-Universalists. But given that they also have a global hierarchy headed up by an “infallible” institution, the “Universal House of Justice,” (UHJ) it is more accurate to compare the liberals among them to liberal Roman Catholics. Social scientists have published on left-of-center Baha’i communities like that of Denmark, finding a “liberal and international” outlook compatible with globalization (Warburg 1999).

I will argue here, however, that there is also a significant fundamentalist tendency in the contemporary Baha'i faith in the U.S. and at the Baha’i World Center in Haifa, Israel of which social scientists have taken less account. Scholars who have examined fundamentalisms have identified nine major motifs in such movements, including a reaction against the marginalization of religion, selectivity about the tradition and about modernity, moral dualism, absolutism and inerrancy, millennialism, an elect membership, sharp boundaries, authoritarian organization, and strict behavioral requirements (Almond, Sivan and Appleby, 1995). Arjomand has also argued that fundamentalists see their utopia as having “negative counterparts,” in the form of the scientific worldview and the centralized, secular state (Arjomand in Martin and Appleby 1995, 5:182-185). All of these motifs are present in Baha'i fundamentalism, which falls into two broad types, world-denying and world-affirming. World-denying Baha’i fundamentalists can sometimes approach an Amish-like rejection of higher education and some forms of technology. World-affirming Baha’i fundamentalists are less extreme, and some are well-educated in the sciences or engineering, but they oppose key aspects of academic scholarship as applied to the Baha'i faith, as well as many democratic values.

Baha'i fundamentalists, who do not have a separate organization but are increasingly prominent in the Baha'i administration, have interpreted the liberal-sounding principles mentioned above in such a way as to be compatible in their eyes with an emphasis on strict obedience to religious authority, a literalist approach to the interpretation of scripture, and patriarchal values. They would reject the label of fundamentalism, claiming simply to be true Baha’is, and would deny that sub-groups such as liberals and fundamentalists exist in the Baha'i faith. Scholars within the movement, such as Moojan Momen, have nevertheless admitted the tension that exists between Baha’i liberals and fundamentalists (Momen 1992). Ex-Baha’i Denis MacEoin has also pointed to fundamentalist themes in Baha’i historiography (MacEoin 1986). Fundamentalists form a plurality among U.S. National Spiritual Assembly members, who meet in Wilmette, Ill., and among delegates to the annual National Convention. The Universal House of Justice, the nine-man collective Baha'i “papacy” in Haifa, Israel, has been increasingly dominated in the 1990s by fundamentalists, as indicated by the sentiments expressed in their public talks and in the encyclicals issued by that body. That is, I am reporting a major shift in the Baha'i faith similar to the take-over of the Southern Baptist convention by fundamentalists in the 1980s and 1990s (Ammerman 1990). Many sources are available for the study of Baha'i fundamentalism, including writings and audio tapes from prominent leaders, letters and directives from Baha'i institutions, and email and usenet discussion groups. For rank and file views I depend heavily on Soc.Religion.Bahai (SRB), a mainstream Baha’i usenet group. I have also used the more liberal list, talisman@indiana.edu (which has had a number of subsequent incarnations and is now talisman9@yahoogroups.com) and oral histories gathered from Baha’is and ex-Baha’is. The results of this study may therefore be skewed toward Baha’is who are internet users, and toward official pronouncements. These sources, despite their limitations, demonstrate the contours of a Baha'i fundamentalism. I will suggest some reasons for which this tendency, which has long been significant in the religion, has become increasingly hegemonic in the past two decades. I will also argue that in the Baha’i faith, fundamentalism as a set of motifs results in a more “sectarian” as opposed to church-like community, and that fundamentalist leaders are attempting to take the community in an exclusivist direction typical of the sect in its strict sociological sense. Although the treatment here is academic, I should alert readers that the author has been a Baha’i since 1972, and is involved on the liberal side in the lively culture wars now taking place in the community. . . . .

Full Text