Welcome to Adobe GoLive 5

Introduction:

"Independent investigation after truth". This is a popular and important Baha'i teaching for every believer. Likewise, Scripture (the Holy Bible) tells the Christian to "test the spirits for not every spirit is from God". And so, serious consideration of issues that deal with fundamental spiritual truth must be seriously studied and considered. This raises many issues by way of testing the spirits in that same independent investigation that was so commendable of the Bereans.

Baha'i beliefs make certain broad claims that bear directly upon Christian beliefs. But how do these beliefs line up with the Word of God, the Bible? For surely we can agree that if a belief can be seen to conflict with the Word, it must be false. God is not the author of confusion, neither is God a liar. Baha'i religion says it recognizes the Bible as the Word of God. The question then becomes one of considering how espoused beliefs agree, or disagree, with a reasonable interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. Thus, the Baha'i mandate for independent investigation, and the commendation given the Bereans who were counted as more noble for having searched the Scriptures ceaselessly to see if what the Apostle Paul said was true. We must do the same to see if what Baha'u'llah said is true.

The Baha'i religion came out of the Shiite sect of Islam in the mid nineteenth century. Its earliest historical exponent, the Bab, proclaimed that the greatest of prophets was to appear sometime after him. His spiritual ideas differed markedly from the Islamic line of belief and thus, he was martyred by the fundamentalist Islamic establishment. This, as is usually the case, only fanned the flames of dedication of his followers. Baha'u'llah then claimed to be the fulfillment of the Bab's prophecy, though the imminent timing of his claim seems to blatantly disagree with the Bab's own teaching concerning just when this subsequent great and pre-eminent manifestation was to arrive.¹At any rate, Baha'i religion went on, through the fire of great Islamic persecution, to establish itself under his authority. An analogous comparison is often made by modern Baha'is claiming that the Bab and Baha'u'llah were like John the Baptist and Jesus. ²

Baha'i doctrine tells us that all of the major religions are essentially the same, from the one true God. Baha'is, Muslims, Christians, and Buddhists all have a true religion that is fundamentally the same religion at its heart according to Baha'i theology. Christian belief disagrees with this outlook, claiming as it does from Scripture that genuine falsehood in religion abounds, and that any doctrines that conflict with the intended teachings of the Holy Bible are false. Especially any theology that distorts or rejects the Scriptural portrayal of God the Messiah, Jesus Christ of Nazareth, are to be considered definitively false. The Bible is not nearly so radically ecumenical as Baha'i theology at first seems to present itself. So just how does Scripture itself guide the believer who considers this difference?

Especially important where the New Testament is concerned, is just who this Jesus of Nazareth is, exactly? What does the New Testament intend us to believe about Him? Who was He and why did he come into the world, according to what the New Testament authors tell us? Was He, as a Baha'i "manifestation", only one among many "mirrors" sent to us by the grace of God? Or is there something utterly unique about Him that stands above all other religious leaders? Was he a teacher, first and foremost? Or did He have a more significant role and Mission than to teach us how to behave? Did Jesus try to teach us how to win our own justification before God through personal spiritual growth and enlightenment through education? What, if He did, is the meaning and significance of the term "Messiah"? How does symbolism play a role in our view of Scripture? Are Satan and sin not really true realities but only symbol? Baha'i religious belief says symbol. Was Christ's Resurrection only symbolic of a waning in the faith of His followers for three days after which, when they became "steadfast", that this was the only true meaning of Jesus' Resurrection as Baha'i's say? Has the end times spoken of so dramatically and terrifyingly in Scripture already come and gone, only missed by those whose literalism could not accept the true symbolism that would reveal Baha'u'llah as fulfiller of end times prophecy?

Beyond these considerations, just how dependable is the Bible, on ANY level, as a document that can be taken literally? Are there genuine and serious errors in the Bible? And when one discovers that irrational internal contradictions exist within the Baha'i writings, one must ask if these are comparable to problematic biblical passages? Just what is the proper balance of symbolic and literal interpretation of Scripture? There are certainly some areas where controversy is allowable, but others where it is heresy to redefine with symbolic license the clear and unmistakable literal intention of the Gospel.

And who are we? Is our basic nature that of sinners as Christianity espouses? Or is human nature neutral as Baha'is believe? If it is neutral, then we may hope to gain enlightenment that leads us to Salvation by way of education alone. But if it isn't, and we are fundamentally flawed by sin, then we concede a basic need for Salvation that we cannot hope to provide for ourselves.

As these issues and others unfold in the topical essays, let the reader recall the words of Augustine who wisely observed that on essentials we must have unity, on non-essentials we may grant liberty, but in all things we should have charity.

God does his best work in the secret place of the individual heart. Seeds are planted in this discussion, and watered too. But God's Spirit at long last yielded to is the only thing that allows the seed to grow, if grow it will. No debate or logic or eloquently effective argumentation can do it.

Comparing the world religions:

Sophie's World is a novel about the history of philosophy written by Jostein Gaarder. Gaarder is a Norwegian professor of philosophy and his book has been a best seller in Europe. The English translation is published by Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Beginning at page 116 he discusses the stark and fundamental differences between the Indo-European (Eastern) religions and the Semitic ones. When discussing the Semitic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) he makes the following observations,

"...(Hinduism and Buddhism) believed in many Gods (polytheism). It was just as characteristic for the Semites that FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES (emphasis my own) they were united in their belief in one God (monotheism). ...

...In contrast to the great religions of the Orient, the three Western religions emphasize that there is a distance between God and His creation. The purpose is not to be released from the cycle of rebirth, but to be redeemed from sin and blame. Moreover, religious life is characterized more by prayer, sermons, and the study of the Scriptures than by self communion and meditation."

We see that Gaardrer recognizes vast, not trivial, differences in basic and ORIGINAL spiritual tenets across major world religions. Either God can "beget" a human Son (Bible), or He cannot (Koran), and the Spiritual implications are not trivial. Either there is a creator God to whom we are accountable (Bible), or there is not, and we "grow" spiritually by our own efforts without "inspiration" or "grace" from such a God (Buddha). We are talking here about mutually contradictory spiritual foundations upon which rest the various world religions.

Baha'i religion often makes an attempt to "minimize" legitimate differences between the world's religions. Baha'i teaching says that what we perceive as the world religions today are really only aberrations of the original teachings of the founders of those religions. It has been proposed by Baha'i adherents that we do not have the original writings of either Krishna or Buddha, for example, and that the present teachings and stories in today's religions were added to in the countless retellings even before they were transferred to a written form.

But we can certainly know the original teachings of Muhammad, and, as previously discussed, there seems to be no doubt about just what the original Buddha taught, in contrast to subsequent outgrowths from his teachings. Both religions, in their root original teachings, contradict one another on major spiritual themes, not trivialities. And both of those belief systems have basic beliefs in contradiction to the Messianic message of the New Testament, (the single most historically reliable ancient document in history). Root sources are not always so illusive as Baha'i theology invariably would have us assume.

Baha'i writer George Townshend tells us in his Promise pp 51-52 that , "The high prophet himself, though he endorses all the spiritual teachings of the last Revelation, does not hesitate to modify or repeal..."

But Jesus too would have known about these eastern religious leaders. He not only does not make any attempt to "endorse" their theologies, on the contrary, He promotes doctrines that are, for example, mutually contradictory with the agnosticism of Buddhism. He makes no attempt to draw these past religions into a religious melting pot while it must be recognized that the opportunity was already there for Him to espouse Baha'u'llah's view of a common basis for those religions if it had been His belief. We can see that Jesus had no problem uncompromisingly professing the truth, even to the point of death. If Baha'u'llah's theology was true, Jesus had the knowledge and ability to preach that "gospel" and die for that "gospel" then, as He did for the true Gospel. He did not support Baha'u'llah's synchronistic Spiritual world view. In the utterly exclusive manner He presented His spiritual paradigm as a singular path to God, Jesus tacitly rejects conflicting spiritual theologies He certainly was aware of, and did not "endorse".

Though His uncompromising courage in presenting the truth would testify against the Baha'i outlook, one might wish to argue that perhaps Jesus did not have the opportunity to preach the common basis for world religions or other Baha'i doctrines (like all the manifestation's sinlessness) from within the Judaic circles in which He moved. Still one would have to observe that even from within the extended history of Judaism he had the opportunity to preach these doctrines and did not. His spiritual message was always one that quoted the Old Testament for justification of authority for a conservative stance, that always conservatively, not progressively, hearkened back to things "as they were from the beginning" and saw any deviation from God's eternal truths as being "because of the hardness of men's hearts". His was a call to reform, not a preaching of truth as a mutable and progressively changing spiritual reality. Not only does he not endorse other religious founders as "sinless" manifestations, but even from within Judaism He, (and as He is the "Word made flesh", all of Scripture), recognizes the sinful frailty of Jewish forefathers as significant as Moses.

Mark.10:5,

"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied."

At Deuteronomy 32:50 God says to Moses,

"There on the mountain that you have climbed you will die and be gathered to your people, just as your brother Aaron died on Mount Hor and was gathered to his people. This is because both of you broke faith with me in the presence of the Israelites at the waters of Meribah Kadesh in the Desert of Zin and because you did not uphold my holiness among the Israelites."

Numbers 20:12,

"But the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "Because you did not trust in me enough to honor me as holy in the sight of the Israelites, you will not bring this community into the land I give them."

Contrary to the Baha'i idea that Moses was a "sinless" manifestation, God Himself tells us that Moses was a sinner, God specifically held Moses responsible for his own personal sin of faithlessness and punished him. Jesus definitively tells us that MEN change God's ETERNAL AND UNCHANGING truths because their hearts are hard, but that they are, and always have been, responsible for knowing better, truth having been established "from the beginning".

Thus we see that from any legitimate Christian perspective, not just the "fundamentalist" viewpoint, Baha'i doctrines that promote the "sinlessness" of manifestations other than Jesus (Moses, for example) are wrong. Baha'i doctrines that promote relative and progressive truth are contrary to Scripture. Baha'i theology that promotes the idea that manifestations "endorse" the teachings of subsequent religious leaders according to Baha'i theological ideas, are simply not true.

Baha'i teaching says that the "messengers" of God are never in conflict and none is inherently greater than the others, although the message given might be much greater.³ I observe however that to Buddha the topic of God was irrelevant. Scripture, on the other hand, says that, "It is a fool who says there is no God." Muhammad says in the Koran that the idea that God could beget a human "Son" is an abomination. In Scripture the angel Gabriel disagrees when he tells Mary that she will conceive a son as a virgin by the power of God whose name shall be "Emmanuel" (God with us).

It is not the similarities in truth across world religions that should concern us. God has built into the very fabric of His creation the ability to discover His invisible spiritual truths. It is the infusion of untruth that, when grafted to the tree of truth, creates a hybrid that is false and that must inevitably lead the believer away from God. For God ALSO tells us throughout Scripture that mankind is "stiff necked" and often rebels against God's truth, even though he is responsible for being able to find it out and yield to it. Mankind is basically sinful. Therefore it is easy to see how truth is often used by Satan, through mankind, to candy coat other ideas that are lies. An effective lie is made up mostly of truth. Therefore, though it is good to see the knowledge of some of God's invisible qualities spanning the world religions, it is NO license for us to EVER accept lies and false doctrines that presume themselves true only by association, hiding as they do amidst genuine truths. What is contrary to Scripture is false. Common truths discovered across world religions do not legitimize them all as true and valid overall systems of belief. Scripture fully recognizes that certain truths can be expected to cut across religious boundaries and be found in religions that are otherwise riddled with falsehood. One of these is Romans 1:20 which tells us why some of God's truths cross the boundaries of otherwise genuinely opposing world religions.

"... what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities- His eternal power and divine nature- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

Likewise we find Roman's 2:13 telling us

"...for not the hearers of the Law are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus."

God has interwoven the knowledge of His invisible qualities into all creation. All men, for all time, have been able to discover what is good and true. Thus, as Paul tells us, ALL mere mortal men are accountable for, responsible for, sin, the "wages" of which are, according to Scripture, "death".

And so we expect to find observed truths discovered from within God's creation by any religion that in any fashion seeks truth. We ALSO would expect to find common truths used as spiritual camouflage even within a system of belief that was intentionally set against God. Satan, we are told, comes as an, "angel of light", so cleverly deceptive that he might even, "deceive the elect if that were possible." But it is NOT possible. For common truths observed never validate that a belief system's overall dogma is a true or complete one. False chaff amongst the wheat still reveals itself as worthy only for the fire. A person who seeks the truth must never accept one false doctrine only because it resides with ten true ones. It's the destructive differences that matter, not the constructive samenesses.

If we notice commonalities with which to build a false unity by way of having ignored fundamental and irreconcilable differences, we discard spiritual honesty and cling to a man made lie. Christ did NOT "endorse" the theologies of most of those who Baha'i doctrine would say have been his predecessors. He is silent concerning those others who were surely known of in his day and part of the world. He endorses only those Jewish prophets who represented the true Revelation of the One God, "I AM", represented and described in Holy Scripture, the Bible. He does NOT endorse the agnosticism of Buddha but speaks clearly of the Father in heaven. He does NOT endorse the pantheism or polytheism of Eastern mystical religions OR the "oneness" doctrines of those who deny the Trinitarian monotheism inherent in the Scriptural understanding of the Godhead.

Even if you went out on a limb to cling to the idea that Jesus "endorsed" former "manifestations" in that He endorsed Moses, you would still have to concede that the overall Baha'i theory of progression revelation would still fail completely. We observe that Christ laid much weight upon His "endorsement" of this "manifestation", Moses. Yet, according to the Baha'i theory of progressive revelation, Moses would have to be seen as having had a very primitive "dispensation" for a primitive age compared to all of the later "manifestations" who followed him along mankind's supposedly progressive history, yet who Jesus utterly ignored any mention of. The whole theory of manifestations endorsing one another's theologies along some continuum of spiritual progression is one of human invention.

Dr. Francis Beckwith observes in his book on the Baha'i religion, Baha'i, a Christian Response, that Jesus, Confucius, Buddha, Zoroaster, and Krishna all fail the Baha'i test wherein they supposedly "endorse" the teachings of their predecessor manifestation. I have noted that, not only do none of them ever mention or endorse one another, as Baha'i doctrine contends, but within their various theologies they even have many mutually contradictory spiritual concepts. (monotheism vs polytheism etc)

Baha'is have responded by suggesting that there would have been no reason for Jesus to mention Confucius, Buddha or Zoroaster et al. The people Jesus spoke to were Jews, Romans, Greeks, and others of that general area. Baha'is contend that since they probably had little knowledge of manifestations like Buddha it would only have stood to confuse them for Jesus to have mentioned them in His own ministry.

However it is revealing to notice how the same Baha'i adherents respond differently elsewhere in discussion to the observation that Jesus lived in a place and time that was ANYTHING but isolated, being, as it was, not only within the bustle of the Roman empire, but also at that world crossroads that has always connected the East with the West, the Middle East. Jesus would surely have known of those other "manifestations", yet He never mentions them and proposes spiritual truths that often contradict their various theologies.

Baha'is respond at this point by conceding that He was aware of them, and even that He did refer to them. I have often been encouraged in discussion to read the parable of the Lord of the vineyard. "I have many sheep who are not of this flock."

Now all of this raises some serious problems. First of all Baha'is in the broad course of discussion can't seem to decide whether the Eastern prophets were known of or not in the Middle East of Jesus' time. They first argue that they were not, and that this is why Jesus would have had no reason to mention them. Then they say that it is certain that He did know of them and that he includes illusively veiled mention of them in his ministry to the Jews (a Baha'i interpretation of the parable of the Lord of the vineyard).

This is, in and of itself, illogically contradictory. However, it is when we notice that Jesus speaks specifically and literally of those whom he truly recognizes, (the true prophets), that we can really see the rationalizing in Baha'i use of only vague and symbolic reference from within a parable to have Christ supposedly endorsing other eastern religious leaders. Such subjective interpretation of, "sheep who are not of this flock", from the parable of the vineyard as meaning the eastern prophets stands in starkly revealing contrast to the specific, literal and true recognitions Christ gave to those whom he really did recognize. Let us recognize that this kind of poor exegesis is typical of the kind of interpretation proposed by Baha'i theology. It consists of attributing meaning to a scripture by reading into the text Baha'i theological concepts that in no way can be definitively associated with the passage.

This would not absolutely prove that the Baha'i interpretation was wrong. What it does reveal, however, is a poor, weak, and generally unreliable method of interpretation of Scripture. Such a totally subjective style of interpretation could symbolically redefine prophecy so that even an Panda bear could be the styled into a, "fulfiller of prophecy." IE: Scripture says the great messiah would, "come from the East." Pandas come from the East. Therefore the messiah is a Panda. As ridiculous and extreme a case as that admittedly is, it is, nonetheless, no less the line of utterly uncritical reasoning Baha'is use in their hermeneutics with which to attribute prophetic fulfillment to Baha'u'llah. Totally subjective.

What is far more convicting in this instance however, is that the passage is also taken completely out of the obvious biblical context it was intended. Within that New Testament context the meaning of Christ's having, "sheep not of this fold", was clearly a statement directed to the Jewish "chosen" people whose self image of exclusiveness was to be broadened in terms of the intent of God's messianic intercession for all of humanity. It was not eastern prophets that Jesus spoke of. The "sheep not of this flock" were the Gentile nations as opposed to the Jewish people. Baha'is concede that Jesus was addressing His message to the Jewish people first (out of which He came and within the context of His immediate ministry). It is clearly logical that they had to be made to realize that God's Salvation was to be made available to all mankind, not just the Jews. Thus, given the true context of Christ's Mission and message to them, the "flock" Jesus spoke of could only be seen as meaning the Jewish nation. Those outside of that flock that He also came to redeem were the non Jewish Gentile nations. There is no endorsement or recognition of eastern prophets to be seen in the parable whatsoever. Christ never mentions any of them and certainly doesn't endorse their teachings. In fact, He opposed them spiritually by way of preaching other contradictory spiritual principles.

Also, if the Baha'i adherent wishes to create symbolic interpretations of Scripture, at the very least, the things within the symbolic interpretation must accurately represent what the symbol was intended to portray. For instance, reference to these eastern religious leaders from Christ's reference to, "sheep who are not of this flock", is distinctly out of character with ANY interpretation of the passage.This Baha'i interpretation of the parable of the Lord of the vineyard becomes impossibly incorrect as we realize the vast symbolic difference between the "sheep" and the "Shepherd" who leads and guides them. Whether in the Jewish flock or outside of it, there is no justification for using Christ's reference to "sheep", to mean "manifestations". According to the Baha'i viewpoint these eastern religious "manifestations" could only be seen in this symbolic context as "shepherds" (religious leaders). The sheep in Jesus parable could never be considered to mean manifestations as Baha'is suggest. Following the argument one step further, the subsequent suggestion that where there are "other sheep" there must be "other manifestations" from other religions besides Jesus and the Biblical worldview is a blatant non sequitur that grossly reads Baha'i assumptions into a text that does not support such eisegesis.

History certainly would tell us that Christ's was anything but a "primitive" dispensation. No theology has promoted love, brotherhood, honor of God, honesty, and every good thing more than Christ did. And so, if we are to believe that Manifestations only bring levels of revelation that the people are ready for, we would have to see Christ's message to the world as indicative of an advanced spiritual ministry, by extension given to an advanced people ready to hear it. Certainly ready enough to have the concept of progressive revelation demonstrated to them by way of past examples from within the context of world religions, IF it had been true. Understand, I myself am not saying that Jesus ministry was timed by God to come when mankind was "advanced" enough to hear it. I am just saying that, to be consistent, Baha'i theology would have to see it that way. Christian doctrine says that even yet while we were sinners and were STILL enemies of God He sent His Son to die for us because He loved us so much. Christianity is a display of God's compassion extended to us despite the fact that we are yet not "advanced" spiritually. It is a rescue and an imputed righteousness bought for us at the cross by Christ who at His death said, "Father forgive them".

In Christ's message there is no Buddha. No Krishna. No Zoroaster. No Confucius. No progressive revelation. Only two universal concepts instead. 1) That ALL men are sinful and deserving of Hell. 2) That God so loved the world that He sent His ONE AND ONLY Son to Redeem it, Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

We can thus observe that Jesus, could not have adhered to the concept of progressive revelation. We cannot say that Jesus failed to mention former non Judaic "manifestations" because the Jews in their self image of exclusiveness would have rejected Christ and killed Him for blasphemy. For you see, they did that anyway! They did it because, contrary to the concept that manifestations only bring messages that the people are spiritually "advanced" enough to hear, Jesus spoke a pure eternal and unchanging truth in power and uncompromised courage KNOWING that they would not hear it.

Thus, It is wrong to think that Jesus, knowing of the diversity of world religions as Baha'is concede, would have remained silent concerning the concept of progressive revelation. Here was a man who demonstrated His proclamation of truth despite predictable criticism even to death. If He had believed this Baha'i doctrine He would surely have as uncompromisingly brought these eastern religions fully into His ministry by specific example. He would have preached the ecumenical unity across world religions that Baha'i theology proposes. He lived, after all, within a religious culture that Baha'i doctrine would have to admit had already spanned enough eras and "dispensations" for the Jews to have perceived the concept of progressive revelation, even from within their own religion and culture if it were true. They would have to be seen in Baha'i terms as having long since become "advanced" and ready enough for it if it had been true. Jesus, who never compromised the truth no matter what the worldly cost was silent concerning these Eastern religions. In point of fact He preached spiritual concepts that are opposed to their theologies. He had every opportunity to present these Baha'i spiritual concepts at that time and place had they been true. In fact, the use by example of Buddha or Krishna, or Zoroaster would have been ESSENTIAL to His ministry if He had believed the concepts of Baha'i theology. As He preached what He did even to death, He would have preached <THAT> even to death, if it had been true. He did not.

Baha'is criticize my presentation of Christ and Christianity as the exclusive "true" religion. They ask,

"Just what do you (theologically speaking) do with the Muslims, the Buddhists, the non Christians that lived for centuries between 33 AD and 1995? Are they all to burn for eternity? The main determinant of religion is where you are born. You are Christian most likely because your parents were Christian and you were born into a Christian country. Do you truly imagine yourself the recipient of God's grace while He would ignore the others in the world? You may find your views less accepted in a room where those around you are non Christian."

Certainly it would be presumptuous to assume that God ignores, or worse yet condemns all of humanity save those who have experienced historic Christianity. But Baha'is often make some false assumptions about what represents mainstream Christian thought. I too have had run ins with fundamentalist "Christians" who read little or no compassion from Scripture. They seem to be on the opposite side of the theological coin as Baha'is. For they, rather than symbolize with radical abandon, won't allow for any. Neither viewpoint seems to represent Scripture well.

Two verses immediately come to mind in response to this question. One is Romans 1:20 where Paul tells us that from the inception of Creation, God made His invisible spiritual qualities observable from the very fabric of His Creation, for all to be able to perceive if they would. The other is Romans 2:14 where Paul tells us that those who haven't been given the law formally, but do the things of God from their hearts, become a Law unto themselves. I believe scriptures like this give great hope to all men of all ages and show God's genuine concern for all men. All men get the opportunity to perceive universal Truths that God has interwoven into the very nature of the Creation. All men are responsible for that inherent ability. AND, signifigantly, ALL men fall short of fully honoring the responsibility, and need Salvation. Thus, I feel we must discern the difference between condemning "people" (which is wrong since, in reality, no one is really worthy and only God can read the inner heart), and condemning false "doctrine", which we are commanded and able to do.

From Baha'u'llah's work "The Seven Valleys and the Four Valleys" we can see an analogy that is a very popular one with Baha'is. This analogy is used to show us that all the world's religions, though they may appear different, can be seen as emanating from the same holy source. Baha'u'llah tells us,

"Consider the visible sun; although it shineth with one radiance upon all things, and at the behest of the King of Manifestation bestoweth light on all creation, yet in each place it becometh manifest and sheddeth its bounty according to the potentialities of that place. For instance, in a mirror it reflecteth its own disk and shape, and this is due to the sensitivity of the mirror; in a crystal it maketh fire to appear, and in other things it showeth only the effect of its shining, but not its full disk. ... And if a place be shut away from the light, as by walls or a roof, it will be entirely bereft of the splendor of the light, nor will the sun shine thereon."

To simplify the ornate literary style we can paraphrase,

"The sun, though it shines down upon all things at God's command, is perceived differently according to the potential of the receiver. A mirror reflects its exact disk and shape due to its sensitivity. But through a crystal the same light is perceived with the brilliance of fire. Other objects will receive the light with varying degrees of clarity somewhat less than the mirror. And if a place is shut up where the sun cannot shine its light at all, there will be darkness."

This analogy serves to instruct us in how to view the diversity in world religion. It says that all religion has as its source the same inspiration. It tells us that there is only one potential source of light and that, no matter what may appear to be troublesome, there can be no real genuine problem discovered in apparent differences, for there simply is no other, false, source of "light" that could possibly be the source of the light perceived. All "light" comes from the one true God according to this analogy. The light that shines with the fire of the crystal could be interpreted as the blazing Gihad of Islam. The mirror is obviously intended to represent Baha'u'llah whose "perfected" revelation presumably sees God's intention in purity. Other religions see varying degrees of the light as best they can given their "potentialities". But the light itself is only one. And in this analogy it is presented as being utterly true of spiritual reality.

Now let us consider a Scriptural analogy to see how much validity the Baha'i analogy really has. We are told in Scripture that Satan comes, "as an angel of light to deceive even the elect if it were possible." We are told that what appears deceptively like truth on the surface, will be the lie that Satan tries to trick us with. We are told that darkness will not come as a room shut up away from the light but that it will come "performing many signs and miracles", brilliantly lit, as it were, with counterfeit light. This should make one shudder in reconsideration of the Baha'i analogy that is blind to the very means of deception that is the chief weapon of evil. False light. There is, in fact, a competing "light" that we must be aware of and wary of. There is not just one source of "light" to consider that shines down from lofty spiritual realms. There are two. Admittedly one is genuine and the other a fake. But the fake shines with a brilliance that is dangerously deceptive. To view all the differences across the world's "religions" as necessarily emanating from the same singular source of light, denies the universal scriptural warnings of that other false source of radiant deception. To use another analogy it dismisses the shepherd's protecting wariness. For wariness is no longer needed when the wolf in sheep's clothing is seen only as just another sheep in the flock. Even worse, the shepherd has no means of ever seeing the wolf if he believes that there is no wolf, only sheep. No false light to be watched out for, only the one true source of light, despite any "apparent" warning signs.

And so the Baha'i analogy falls short of depicting a true model of spiritual "light" for it only represents an assertion of a universally "true" light, and leaves out the Scriptural portrayal of the false. Unfortunately, the Baha'i analogy, which comes from the material world, has the added pretext of correctness simply because spiritual truth is often associated with "light" and spiritual untruth "darkness". These simple models can make it easy to jump to false conclusions about what Scripture tells us about the true realities of spiritual truth, in spiritual realms.

Scripture is clear in telling us that we fight against enemies that are within the spiritual realm and not the physical. So we have to be careful in just how far we go when drawing analogies from the material world. In the physical world Baha'u'llah's model is true. For the sun is a singular source of light that manifests itself according to the various physical "potentialities" it falls upon. But in the physical world there is no analogous "false ", "counterfeit" light that competes with the sunlight. There is no "other" source of "dark" light, like there is in the spiritual realm. And so the analogy leads us to a false, incomplete vision of spiritual truth, and thus false conclusions about the assumed unity in truth of all the world's religions. There is great deception that abounds. Mankind is very vulnerable to it in his fallen state of sin. One must expect the promotion of many truly false religions by leaders whose charisma and "light" comes from another source than that of Christ. Whether these other "manifestations" themselves are the victims of their own deception or willful agents consciously perverting Scriptural truth should make no difference to the seeker. For though we are not to judge men, we are certainly to discern doctrine, and if it is false by comparison to the spiritual principles of Scripture, it must be rejected. If it is not, then Christ stands rejected. For he honored those principles as the one and only truth.

In place of the Baha'i analogy, the Christian might offer this one. In the world of economics a nation has only one minted currency that is genuine. However there are always those who try to counterfeit it. Though the fake looks the same, and for a time may even spend the same, it is false and unquestionably destructive to the economy. But a counterfeiter does not try to improve the design of the original. He does not try to make it more appealing with newer, brighter colors. He tries his hardest to copy the outward appearance of the original. His success depends upon his ability to steal the authenticity of the genuine original and lend it to something he knows is not really the same; a fake. It is as close to the real thing as possible, but still 100% false. If he has done his job well he may even himself at times be fooled by the illusion of his own handiwork. But the original is, by design, unfakeable. The counterfeit's falseness can always be revealed. The counterfeiter is patient. He is subtle and often seems unambitious. He does not boast with $1,000 bills. He makes $20's or $50's and now and again $100's. In numbers, and well hidden in a sea of true currency, the counterfeiter does his work, and spreads his bankrupt falseness.

Even so, we can say that Satan is the master counterfeiter. Exactly who his mortal apprentices are only God can judge, and will. The genuine original is Christ. The fake always comes in some way to accept Christ, but in some "other" way than He is presented in the Scriptures. Always surrounded by endless praises of God, and wise and true philosophies, the counterfeiter delicately sprinkles the seeds of lies only now and then. That is enough. His theology accepts "Christ" (but says there are others who can have the "Christ consciousness" too). He tells us that we must strive for peace and love (but ignores the true implications of our sinful nature and thus ignores the basic truth about why Jesus came as Messiah). He tells us there is only God, the one source of light. There is no being "Satan". All is symbol. (and would have us believe that the one "who comes as an angel of light", is just that, an angel).

There are two lights. Religions that move away from Christ's truth do so toward the false light and away from the true light. There are many of these and they are not from the source that is God's true light.

In terms of having a decidedly Christian perspective, I have often been criticized by Baha'is within the context of controversial discussion in the following way.

"Do you really think that with your attitude of superiority and firm confidence in your interpretation of the Word of God that you would have been able to have believed in Christ yourself? You would have viewed Him the same as a Pharisee. You reject Baha'u'llah in the same way you would have rejected Jesus in His day because you are so confident in telling Baha'is they are "wrong" based on your personal outlook. You reveal in this attitude the narrow mindedness of a Pharisee."

But I must respond that the Baha'i religion proclaims no less an attitude of confidence in its specific and singular interpretation than the Christian? Surely a religion that claims that their "advanced" and "ultimate" revelation whose newly unsealed truth supersedes the lesser revelations of past prophets as well as any to come (who will remain, as Abdul Baha says, "under" Baha'u'llah's "shadow"⁴) is as dogmatic in its attitude as any. Thus, the Baha'i outlook presumes to criticize the Christian for being narrow in telling Baha'is that their spiritual outlook is wrong, while it ignores the fact that in its own Baha'i stance it assumes its particular outlook to be as singularly exclusive as anyone's. The Baha'is are, in fact, as guilty as anyone as far as telling those of a divergent outlook that they are "wrong".

The telling difference for any rational thinker is that within Baha'i religion can be found mutually contradictory doctrinal teachings on fundamental doctrines of spirituality. That is where the "independent search for truth" that uses rational logic will discover where the real Truth lies. The stakes are high. There is no higher quest than to find the truth, and cling to it, and share it. Thus the Fireside Letters is my attempt to share the fruits of my own "independent search for Truth" and in so doing "search the Scriptures ceaselessly" to see if what Baha'u'llah said is true.

	Comparing World Religions
Table of Contents