Rebuttal to Daniel Grolin's Critique
Table of Contents

A Rebuttal to Daniel Grolin’s paper,
"In answer to "The Baha'i Christian Fireside Letters"

By Dale Grider, howdybud@insightbb.com

I would like to respond to Daniel Grolin’s "In answer to "The Baha'i Christian Fireside Letters". Daniel, as a Baha’i, attempts to give an apologetic response to my Christian perspective as shared on the Fireside Letters website, http://personal.sdf.bellsouth.net/sdf/h/o/howdybud

This kind of response is very important because through it communication can begin and misunderstanding may be averted. As far as I know, Daniel’s response is the most in depth attempt to respond to the Fireside Letters to date. Though I only discovered it inadvertently on the Australian discussion group website, Bahá'í - Christian Dialogue Interest Group, www.ozemail.com.au/~cdibdin , it’s discovery lends me a greater opportunity to refine my perspective and share with greater clarity, not only objective problems within Baha’i religion, but more significantly what is true and right about the historic Christian Faith of Scripture by comparison. The goal, I’m sure we all agree, is to find "Truth", not just be right or win arguments .

As we will discover however, apologetics is wrestling. It is confrontational by nature and anyone who wishes to engage in meaningful discussion in terms of comparative world religion is going to have to come to grips with the factual reality that diversity means just exactly that. It is diverse (ie different). And it is different over meaningful, fundamental, and highly significant points of belief, not just trivialities. Buddhists come out of a basically agnostic perspective. Indo European religions are polytheistic or pantheistic. We, as Semetic based peoples of faith, are monotheistic. According to the Aristotelian law of non contradiction only one way of approaching our understanding of the Creator is right. They can’t all be. This, of course, is only one of many such possible observations that define the diversity across the world’s religions. We have to approach our discussion from a perspective based upon rational reality or there is no point discussing at all.

Thus, it is crucial to respect other people’s right to believe as they choose. And we must pray in love for all people. But it is distinctly not bigotry to express the distinct and singular doctrines of one’s faith as being the "Truth", fully realizing that that necessarily means you assume and believe by way of your own distinct beliefs that those with divergent beliefs are "wrong" by definition. Now some of what diverse belief systems might disagree over could be seen as not being critical to "Salvation" (a term in and of itself over which diverse definitions abound). Yet, far beneath the threshold point of spiritual survival, the validity of a discussion group involving comparative world religion, to be worthy of its very existence, needs to investigate and consider openly ALL of the diverse assertions concerning the truth about God and humanity, not just the minimums of survival. We are presumably gathered to delve deeply and thoroughly into who God is, who we are, and what our relationship to Him, and to one another should be like. Thus, while respect and love must temper all, it is delusional in the extreme to approach our discussion as if the differences that separate us in belief were simply illusory smoke. Where there is smoke there is fire, as they say, and our differences reflect real, true, and meaningful friction concerning important spiritual matters. I think a fundamental aspect of respecting other’s "diverse" beliefs lies simply in acknowledging that those differences are true, legitimate, and distinct points of difference that need to be taken seriously and approached with such a respectful recognition. The idea of defining the respecting of diversity as a whitewash job that proclaims., "I’m OK your OK", really respects no one’s diverse beliefs, but denies the very existence of the definitive points of difference that DEFINE the diversity. We cannot assume an a priori presupposition that in our religious diversity, "I’m OK your OK", is necessarily true. The whole point of our discussion is to find out through openly comparing our differences, just what being "OK" with God means, not downplaying or even denying the objective basis of the differences at the outset!

This seems to be a bad problem with Baha’is whose basic worldview simply doesn’t respect the original, legitimate, true, and definitive reality of the diverse beliefs across the world’s religions. As a fundamental part of the Baha’i world view, anyone’s beliefs that differ from Baha’i teachings get the Baha’i spin put on them that assumes,

"Oh, Your "true" religion doesn’t really teach that, your beliefs are only a later "aberration" that has distorted your religious founder’s original intentions."

Thus Buddhism is consistently denied its truly agnostic basis. And Christians are forever told that their doctrines don’t really represent the original teachings of the Apostles or Jesus, that they are only latter corruptions. It becomes hard even to "agree to disagree" with someone who won’t acknowledge the originally grounded, concrete legitimacy of the diversity itself. Ironically, Baha’i teaching which proclaims an all embracing love and respect for the fundamental truth of all the World’s religions, preaching "unity" as its hallmark, does so at the expense of really not at all respecting the true reality of the objective diversity that actually defines those religions! With respect to comparative world religion, "diversity", in Baha’i meaning, is thus really defined as simply meaning "corruption" away from the Baha’i oriented intent of some manifestation. It is rooted in the presumption that all religion is "really" Baha’i religion at its heart and according to the original teachings of its founders (manifestations). The followers of other religions whose beliefs diverge from the Baha’i teachings are told that they just don’t realize how what they believe is merely the result of corruption away from originally intended Baha’i concepts by way of men’s bad teaching over time.

I submit that this is anything but a respect for diversity across the world’s religions. It is a convenient way of rationalizing away the diversity and redefining other people’s belief systems to conform to the Baha’i outlook. That is a hard enough pill for Semetic based religions to swallow (Islam, Judaism, Christianity) where there is indeed still some common ground. But it becomes hard to imagine how presumptuous such rationalizing must seem to someone whose Indo European beliefs (polytheistic or pantheistic or agnostic foundations) are so far removed from the Semetic, monotheistic based Baha’i outlook as to exaggerate for them the Baha’i religiocentricity that presumes to superimpose a Semetic outlook over an Indo European one, amazingly telling them that their "true" religion too is "really" Semetic (Baha’i) in its "original" fundamentals, if the truth be known!

Much as we need to concede the genuine reality of other people’s diverse beliefs, respecting the original and intentional reality of that diversity all the way back without denying by redefining the original roots of that diversity, we must be certain that we debate only doctrines, not the fate of men’s souls which rests in God’s hands alone. I have often had to correct those in discussion who attempted to set up a straw man against me, presuming to have me condemning Baha’is to Hell. I have never presumed to judge men’s souls. We do, on the other hand, have a mandate from Scripture concerning men’s beliefs professed. We are commanded to "test all things, Keep what is good and reject the rest". We are warned that false teachers and false prophets will abound. Therefore let us understand at the outset that any discussion that would be valid from a biblical perspective, assumes the right (the duty) to be candid concerning doctrines, while always hoping in love and prayer on the behalf of those souls with whom we speak, even in the heat of controversy. Anything less, I think, is hypocrisy and a waste of time.

Having said that, I am prepared to address the response Daniel has offered to the Fireside Letters. I hope that I (and we all) can benefit from discussing the issues frankly and honestly, and in hope and love toward one another as we face the exciting prospect of spiritual growth through prayerful interaction. Daniel has conveniently broken up his response into topical sections and I will retain that structure as I respond to each of his sections.

 

Top of Page 

 The Essence of God in the World Religions

Daniel begins with consideration of the diversity of the world religions. He says,

"Most of the world religions have disparate views of God, even amongst the monotheistic religions one finds widely different views. So far this disparity has induced many to reject the essential unity of religions. For Bahá'ís the principle

of progressive revelation explains this relation."

As is clearly brought out in the Fireside letters, Daniel brings up an issue that carries an inherently problematic Baha’i doctrinal contradiction. He invokes the doctrine of progressive revelation as an explanation for the mutually contradictory beliefs evident in today’s world religions. In the sense that the Baha’i teaching on progressive revelation says that people are only given "doses" of revelation in accord with their level of "advancement", I can understand what Daniel’s statement seems to assume. In that interpretation of progressive revelation one would view the diversity as reflective of the varying levels of advancement of diverse people. One should note however, that the diversity observable in the world’s religions is not along any consistent progression of belief that leads in any one direction, much less the Baha’i direction. The diversity amongst the world religions simply exists in doctrinal systems filled with absolutely mutually contradictory concepts whose other mutual commonalities do not rescue their absolute clashes on major points of belief (the nature of God for instance), and whose clashes reveal a genuine diversity that would never rationally "progress" in any unified fashion toward a Baha’i worldview (ie. the duality of Zoroasterianism).

More significantly with respect to Baha’i theology however, it is not chiefly by way of progressive revelation that either Abdul Baha or Baha’u’llah explain the apparent diversity across the world religions. Progressive revelation is developed by them far more significantly as an apologetic argument to certify the ultimate "advanced" dispensation of Baha’u’llah who specifically tells us according to that concept that despite everything that he has said about the unity of all the world’s major religions, that we must ignore the teachings of any past manifestations’ dispensations if and when they seem to conflict with his own allegedly "ultimate" one in which as he says things like,

"Whenever My laws appear like the sun in the heaven of Mine utterance, they must be faithfully obeyed by all, though My decree be such as to cause the heaven of every religion to be cleft asunder." Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah, pg 333.

The main point with respect to progressive revelation seems to be that mankind has not, until the mid 19th century, been "advanced" enough to grasp the mighty revelation of Baha’u’llah. I have observed that such a doctrine, in its specific Baha’i application for Baha’u’llah, wrongly presumes that mankind’s progress has evidently reached its apex. This is evident in the writings.

"...other Manifestations will arise under his (Baha’u’llah’s) shadow...while remaining under His shadow. Abdul Baha Some Answered Questions pg 161.

"The promises of God, as recorded in the holy Scriptures, have all been fulfilled. (in Baha’u’llah)" Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah pg 12.

The "progressive revelation" tool needed to pool all under the authority of Baha’u’llah, afterward becomes a stumbling block for Baha’i religion that must screechingly slam on the breaks of progressive revelation lest Baha’u’llah too should become as trodden underfoot by his own subjectivizing religious doctrine as all those which he has dismissed as "primitive" in relation to his. But even as the Baha’i brakes of progressive revelation come to a screeching halt with the arrival of Baha’u’llah, the world begs to differ. The observant person who looks out into the world should easily recognize that Baha’i teaching is wrong in that mankind’s observable spiritual state, even at present and over 100 years after Baha’u’llah’s dispensation, does not exist in anything even approaching an apex of spiritual ascendancy worthy of the level of Revelation he claims for himself. This is especially evident as we recall that according to the idea of progressive revelation, revelation is only supposed to come in doses relative to the peoples state of advancement. There seems quite obviously in today’s world, including all the terrible actions of mankind in history since Baha’u’llah, no valid reason to presumptuously proclaim that all the promises of Scripture have been fulfilled in Baha’u’llah according to the dynamics of progressive revelation. This is a false statement. The degree of Revelation Baha’u’llah claims for himself stands in contradiction to the underlying dynamic preached of how and why progressive revelation would necessarily operate in human history.

 

However, as we notice this irrational inconsistency within the doctrine of progressive revelation itself, we are lead to an even deeper inconsistency within Baha’i theology wherein it DOES try to specifically address why it says the world’s religions are "diverse". This is in its doctrine of the universal spiritual degenerateness of mankind. Even the mention of such a universal regressive doctrine within the context of having just considered how Baha’i theology also separately asserts mankind’s universal "progressive" spirituality, highlights a basic irrational clash on two major points of fundamental doctrine. For example, how can there even be varied levels of progress amongst various peoples at various times for which there need to be compatibly varied levels of revelation, when the Baha’i principle of man’s regressive spirituality asserts clearly that mankind has always and in every era and religion, completely debased truth to the very bottom of the barrel? In other words, even beyond the fact that Baha’i doctrine of progressive revelation is not rationally expressed with even consistency when it is being promoted, there is yet another layer of Baha’i teaching that runs parallel to it within Baha’i theology which outright contradicts the whole concept of progressive revelation wholesale!

Abdul Baha’s explanation states quite clearly that the diversity across the world’s religions is anything but the result of "progressive" spirituality. Let’s see what Abdul Baha and Baha’u’llah say about the roots of religious diversity,

Abdul Baha, in Some Answered Questions, pg165,

"... It is, therefore, clear and evident that the Religion of God does not maintain its original principles among the people, but that it has gradually changed and altered until it has been entirely destroyed and annihilated...

...So it is with religions; through the passing of time they change from their original foundation, the truth of the Religion of God entirely departs, and the spirit of it does not stay; heresies appear, and it becomes a body without a soul."

And Baha'u'llah says from the Kitab al Iquan,

"Not one single Manifestation of Holiness hath appeared but He was afflicted by the denials, the repudiation, and the vehement opposition of the people around Him."

He then goes exhaustively through virtually every religious founder from every time and culture showing that mankind universally and with consistency behaves the same, and it isn't good. Mankind, he says, universally rejects the prophet, always has, always will.

In the Fireside Letters I observed,

"Abdul Baha, and Baha'u'llah, both observe that mankind universally degenerates the truth in every "dispensation" to the "utmost degradation", "lost in the blindest fanaticism", "decayed, ruined and upset", truth being "entirely destroyed and annihilated", all religions becoming "a body without a soul". Thus is explained the "apparent" differences amongst the world religions, and the hidden unity amongst their various founders. Spiritual regression. ...

...Either mankind progresses spiritually, or he degenerates from truth. It cannot be both. Both sides of this Baha'i doctrinal contradiction simultaneously define the basic nature of the human spirit with doctrinal principles for basic human behavior that are opposite. Doctrine A says mankind always corrupts the truth and thus is allegedly seen the "seeming" differences amongst religions. Doctrine B contradictorily says that mankind evolves by nature to ever higher levels of spiritual enlightenment and thus is supposedly explained the higher and superseding revelation of Baha'u'llah."

The four Baha’i analogies chapter from the Fireside Letters essays reveals very well the ingenious attempts to get around this logical observation about Baha’i theology, and in their utter failure to surmount the clash, underscores, I think, a fatally insoluble contradiction at the heart of the Baha’i doctrinal system of thought.

And this is not even to mention a third model of mankind’s spirituality presented by Abdul Baha in Some Answered Questions which presents a cyclical model incompatible with either of the other two! The Baha’i analogy revolving around the use of a helix as a model for his cycle (Fireside Letters four Baha’i Analogies) clearly considers the implications of how this cyclical view clashes with the other two, their being progressive and regressive continuums.

The bottom line Scripturally is to simply observe that mankind is fallen and sinful. From this starting point the Christian faith unfolds and develops with inevitable reason and lucidity. God is righteous, perfectly compassionate and forgiving, yet ALSO perfectly "just". We are not, and we are responsible for our sins before a perfect God who must demand the balance of justice. The wages of sin is eternal death, eternal separation from a Righteous God with whom we, as sinners, cannot have eternal fellowship. If we are unable to pay the debt of Justice (That is, when we realize our tendency toward rebellion as an observable dynamic of our carnal spiritual nature), then we realize that we have no hope without direct intercession on our behalf by someone who can pay our debt to Justice; God Himself alone. God, in order to define the justification to stand as Messiah, Savior, comes as a man to suffer "every temptation just as we have, yet was without sin." By putting Himself in our place, yet not falling, He certified the authority to carry the burden of responsibility that we owe. He who is wealthy can pay the debts of those who are destitute. He gained everything for us who had nothing. In this unique and singular way God revealed His most important spiritual characteristic, true Agape Love, demonstrated perfect compassion, forgiveness without cheating eternal Justice. It was a singular path, an only way, a dying "Once for all". If one is willing to follow the reasonable flow of this progression, one that begins in the honest self assessment of our falleness, one is able to realize the singularity of Jesus as our Savior. At this point the scales must fall from the eyes of those who have followed other teachers who tickled their ears with clashing and contradictory doctrines of falsehood. The Jesus way is ONE single way, a final and ultimate Revelation. And it is not the way of Baha’u’llah. For eternal Salvation bought at so great a price could never be seen as Baha’u’llah describes it, existing in a past dispensation of a Jesus whose Message was only for a primitive time and a primitive people. Such a Messianic Salvation could never be supplanted, even though "the heaven of every religion...be cleft asunder." If "the promises of Scripture have all been fulfilled", they were fulfilled for mankind’s eternal hope of Salvation by the Cross and Resurrection of Jesus. After and beyond that all else is passe’. There can be no higher revelation. No greater revelation of God’s Spiritual qualities exists than Jesus, God who gave Himself for us. The Christian experience is a uniquely distinct one with an independent legitimacy and singular authenticity very different than the Baha’i portrayal of it as some "corruption" of Jesus’ original intentions.

Daniel goes on to describe aspects of what he feels represent a biblical progression or layers of diverse belief in the Bible concerning deity. He says,

"In the most primitive sections of the Bible we find practical monotheism, which is to say the belief in the existence of other deities, which, however, are not to be worshiped. An example of this is to be found in Exodus:

Exodus 34:14 "for thou shalt worship no other god: for Jehovah, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:"

But he badly misinterprets the true belief intended by the Israelite writers of the even the earliest Old Testament writings. The Bible is the story of one and only one God who is constantly troubled by creatures He has made in His own Image (given creative free will to) and who have abused their freedom to worship "God’s of their own making", false gods, in reality nonexistent gods. Thus God merely recognizes in Exodus 34:14 men’s perverse insistence to set up, create, and worship false gods of human design, not real god beings that actually exist, but that He does not want men to worship. That would be a polytheistic pantheon in which God Almighty was just the head God, the "Zeus" if you will, of the pantheon. Daniel is in left field suggesting that the God of the Bible OR its inspired authors ever present such a view in Scripture. The logic Daniel applies to support his assertion fails when he assumes a polytheistic belief from the Bible writers perspective since, "Jealousy (KNA) presupposes that there is something to be jealous of." God is jealous of men’s fickleness in abandoning Him for "gods" they have made up, not for "Gods" that really exist in some heavenly pantheon. God is jealous of men’s faithfulness toward Him apart from turning to imaginary gods. Grolin seems to be confusing Greek mythology for Judaic monotheism and reading nonexistent polytheistic belief into the text of Exodus 34:14. His motive is clear. He is attempting to "create" a Baha’i style progressive revelation by reading it into the text of Scripture. It is relatively easy however to demonstrate why that spin is impossibly wrong.

In absolute terms, Daniel can read the Bible writer’s (and God’s) own defining statement in the Pentateuch from Deuteronomy 32:39 establishing the background context confirming the interpretation I have just presented for passages like Exodus 34:14. This, by definition, would have been the Israelite’s understanding amongst those who kept the Word of the Lord,

"See now that I myself am He! There is no god besides me. I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal, and no one can deliver out of my hand."

Now it is critical in revealing the invalidity of Daniel’s assertion that we recognize the exact view of the Bible author later at Isaiah 44:6,

"This is what the LORD says-- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God."

In comparing these two passages it is important to observe that we do not see a "primitive" outlook in the Pentateuch that develops later in Isaiah in the way Daniel asserts. It is the same outlook; pure monotheism. Thus Daniel is wrong when he suggests that the writers of the Pentateuch held a , "practical monotheism, which is to say the belief in the existence of other deities." They believed in and reported ONE "real" God’s anger over the fickleness of men’s hearts who manufactured imaginary gods and yielded in evil to Satan (a created being not a god) by way of their idols.The Bible often observes and relays the deeds of men and their beliefs. We must be careful not to confuse the report of Scripture concerning men’s actions or beliefs with the teaching intention of Scripture itself. Scripture itself is consistently a book of pure monotheism, though it recognizes and reports the false polytheism of men (and always defines it as an "abomination").

 

 Top of Page

 The relation of Jesus to other founders of religions

Daniel considers Jesus silence concerning Eastern religious traditions. Daniel muses, " Why did Jesus never mention them? Let us consider that Jesus knew about Buddha, why should he not mention him? The answer lies in another question. What would the followers of Jesus make out of some comment made by Jesus about a person of whom they had never heard of, living in a land they did not know existed?

The answer: nothing. Even if He had said something about Buddha it would not have survived transmission. This all relates back to the principle that God does not speak according to His station, but according to the state of men."

Now this is an interesting assertion considering the particulars of Jesus’ earthly Mission. He specifically established that God’s Salvation and Love were for the

"gentile" as well as the Jew, embracing a universal inclusion of all humanity. This consistent theme militates against Daniel’s assertion that inclusion of the Baha’i concept of the true unity of world religions (if it were true) would have been completely outside the realm of effective revelation for Jesus immediate audience. Jesus was, in a very true sense, preaching the common unity of mankind. But He specifically placed this universal concept exclusively within the context of the Judeo God of Scripture. Not an all inclusive view of religion but one all inclusive of mankind under One Religion. This is not compatible with the Baha’i view that Jesus would have vouched for Buddha as a true "manifestation" but didn’t mention him because he would have had no effective relevance to His ministry or Message. If Buddha, for example, were a true manifestation in Jesus’ estimation, Buddha would have provided a crucial example of the embracing aspect Jesus preached concerning the inclusion of the "gentile" (non Jewish) nations. Jesus’ world was not as blind to other Eastern influences as Daniel claims. It was a crossroads set in the middle of the civilized world. Yet Jesus tacitly rejects the validity of such an agnostic worldview as that of Buddha, preaching instead concepts that are mutually contradictory to it. It is assumed that if what He says is true, things contrary to that preaching need not be taken seriously enough to mention (Buddhist agnosticism). On the other hand, if Jesus’ universal embracing of mankind under the banner of God’s Salvation had included the Baha’i concept of unity in truth amongst the world religions, some specific inclusion of it would have formed an essential aspect of the Gospel of the universal inclusion of all humanity that He instead preached under One singular religious perspective. He did, in fact, preach a Message "unpopular" to the Jewish establishment. One we observe that got Him executed. So Daniel’s argument that Jesus wouldn’t have included mention of concepts hard for the Jews to accept simply fails to meet the facts that defined Jesus teaching. Jesus did not preach a message tailored for acceptance of the people He addressed. He just preached the singular Truth. Had Buddha been valid it would have also been, more than simply relevant, essential to His Message of the all inclusiveness of mankind beyond the 12 tribes.

Daniel says, "Jesus related to past prophets. He related to those who were known to His audience, Moses and the prophets. This was logical in a community of Jews."

But Jesus’ Message to mankind was that God loved all men, not just the Jews, His first "chosen" people. For they were "chosen" to be the gateway through which God would formally reveal Himself to all men. Jesus adhered to the Biblical outlook because it was the only one truly "Revealed" from God, spiritually inerrant. He ignored other theologies, not embraced them, in his call for all men of the world to come to God. His "audience" was, quite specifically, not limited to "a community of Jews", as is observable by way of the universal appeal of the Christian Message across all cultural boundaries.

In the Fireside Letters I had said,

"Still one would have to observe that even from within the extended history of Judaism he (Jesus) had the opportunity to preach these doctrines (progressive revelation) 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'."

Daniel comments,

"This is an interesting observation, which I believe suits my argument much better than it does Mr. Grider's. Surely "the hardness of men hearts" was a condition in humanity, which at the time of Jesus was no longer the case. Jesus also abolished the Sabbath (at least in the Jewish sense) which was one of the most central Mosaic laws."

What seems even more interesting to me is that Daniel can make such an assumption, ("Surely "the hardness of men hearts" was a condition in humanity, which at the time of Jesus was no longer the case") in the face of Jesus having been tortured to death by an establishment governed by men as hard of heart as is imaginable! In every age there are those whose receptivity is of the sort, if not degree, of Abraham. But the hardness of men’s hearts is also an observable reality in every age that certifies the sinful rebelliousness of man that Jesus referred to. He knew that that hardness, still very much alive amongst the mankind of His day, would ultimately cost Him His life for the Truth He uncompromisingly preached that revealed it’s darkness.

Jesus did not "abolish" the Sabbath. He did demonstrate spiritual precedents that condemned legalistic misrepresentation of the Sabbath, and all of the Law. But let us recall His own clear teaching that refutes Daniel’s assertion that Jesus "abolished" what God had taught men and still held them responsible for.

Matthew 5:17,

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Daniel tells us that,

"To say that Jesus never "progressed teachings" is certainly to ignore a substantial part of the Sermon on the Mount"

But let us stop short here for a moment before we let assumptions slide by without scrutiny. The Baha’i meaning implicit in Daniel’s definition of "progressed" intends to mean far more than the valid recognition that Jesus certainly was "progressing" the Jews misrepresentation of what the Old Testament God had always taught. Jesus’ sermon on the mount expresses a perfect interpretation of the Law and the prophets, not a changing of it. There is a monumental distinction between the two. It is not "progressive Revelation". It is Revelation clarification, reform, and fulfillment. It is rebuke for misrepresentative, pharisaical legalism. We simply cannot compare Jesus perfect understanding of Old Testament Scripture, as opposed to the Jews contemporary misrepresentation of it, and automatically assume that Jesus was fundamentally changing the original spiritual intention of God’s Old Testament Word. He fulfilled, not changed.

Even in His teaching concerning mercy over "an eye for an eye" Jesus was still teaching a truth that God had already expressed clearly in the Old Testament. At Matthew 9:13, for example, Jesus tells us,

"But go and learn what this means: `I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

Jesus’ hearkening back to Hosea 6:6 demonstrates for us that He was not "changing" God’s truth established in the Old Testament. He was reaffirming God’s highest and true desire there, there already to be found in the Old Testament. God had always desired and favored mercy as a higher truth, a deeper righteousness. God had always taught that Justice would kill us, and only mercy could save us. The New Testament consensus even goes so far as to say that God gave the "Law" specifically to reveal to us our utter debasement and desperate need for God’s Mercy.

We must not look at the things men did, as reported in Scripture, (Moses gave you that...) and equate them with what God truly sought to teach even the people of that day as His perfect will in those Old Testament writings. Jesus points this out specifically in the case of Moses allowance for divorce. It was not God’s will even then but was given by Moses because men’s hearts were hard. And Jesus uses Genesis as the basis of His apologetic.

Many other evil actions are reported in the Old Testament, even ones presented as having been done by men who falsely assumed they were doing right. They are not put there to teach those things as God’s precedent, either for the people of that day or ours. Similar in principle to Daniel’s outlook on the Old Testament as a "primitive" religion whose polytheistic worldview needed upgrading, I have even heard it said, for example, that Jeptha’s murder of his daughter revealed a primitive "Old Testament" understanding in the writer’s beliefs that accepted human sacrifice! Such interpretation relates to the same kind of principle that Daniel appeals to in his suggestion that Old Testament writer’s had a "primitive" outlook revealed by a polytheistic, "functional monotheism", that assumed the writers’ belief in many God’s, with one main one who jealously wanted the people’s allegiance. Such a view of Scripture renders it’s true "inspiration" value as null and void and exists in a blatant blindness to context, and reading of Scripture devoid of the guidance of God’s Spirit. Inspired writers don’t teach belief in either human sacrifice or polytheism at ANY time. (what Daniel calls a "functional Monotheism", his definition of which ultimately renders the term as an oxymoron).

 

 Top of Page

 Manifestations and sins

The next section of Daniel’s response deals with the Baha’i doctrine of Moses as a "sinless" manifestation. He observes that in the Fireside Letters,

"Mr. Grider provides quotes from Numbers and Deuteronomy to provide proof that Bahá'u'lláh mistakenly identifies Moses as sinless person."

Daniel then responds, citing Abdul Baha’s teaching on the subject,

In "Some Answered Questions"... 'Abdu'l-Bahá presents an interpretation of the passages in question as follows: "All the divine discourses containing reproof, though apparently addressed to the Prophets, in reality are directed to the people, through a wisdom which is absolute mercy, in order that the people may not be discouraged and disheartened." (Some Answered Questions, p. 167)"

Daniel then comments,

"This is a very interesting interpretation of the tradition of the Mosaic falling. It is in fact a rather plausible interpretation when one considers theories of tradition transmission. Often stories transmitted in a community reflect community life more than the historical situation."

However I must submit that Abdul Baha’s and Daniel’s assessment is extremely implausible for a number of reasons. The key word that we need to look more deeply into from Abdul Baha’s quote cited is the word "apparently". For indeed even Abdul Baha concedes that the Scriptural references make it "apparent" that Moses was a sinner? Beyond that then, does he, or Daniel, give reasonable cause to go distinctly against what is "apparent" in the text? The following points are covered in the Fireside Letters. They demonstrate, I think rather clearly, that the hermeneutic used by Abdul Baha is one of forcing the text’s meaning to fit the presupposition, "all the manifestations of God are sinless and Moses is a manifestation. Thus Moses must besinless" . The Baha’i interpretation is thus arbitrarily set in advance against any evidence that could possibly be given by the context of Scripture, no matter how compelling. That context, when looked at objectively, establishes that the true meaning is also the "apparent" meaning and one which militates against the Baha’i position.

I think one of the most revealing observations that support this point is found in the observable fact that virtually all of the texts that establish the context of intended meaning inseparably couple Aaron and Moses together, both equally, in terms of God’s accusation of sin against them, and the punishment which He sentences them both equally with. It is not Moses alone who "apparently" has sinned, but Moses and Aaron both who are equally implicated by God, and equally punished. Keep in mind that we are trying to establish one consistently coherent interpretative meaning for these texts in terms of God’s accusation of responsibility for sin and His sentencing of punishment. And the texts have a single unified "apparent" meaning that Daniel is arguing against. Yet Daniel (Baha’i doctrine) arbitrarily establishes an interpretation of sinless intercession on behalf of the people, completely external to the text, only for the one (Moses) which, if it were true, would also have to be equally true of the other (Aaron) who is inseparably coupled contextually in God’s accusation of personal sin and punishment with Moses in all of the passages. Of course Aaron is not considered a sinless manifestation. And so the Baha’i interpretation with respect to Moses is one that lifts him unreasonably out of the context where he exists accused of specific personal sin and punishment, together with Aaron, granting Moses an interpretation for the text, against the apparent meaning, and that then also creates a definitive double standard in interpretation when we consider Aaron within the same passages.

It is beyond unresonable to suggest that the passages are "community statements" with respect to Moses, while observing that they definitively are not such such kinds of statements when Aaron in considered, Aaron who is an inseperable part of the context of those passages.

Beyond that we have very objective evidence from outside the immediate context of these passages in Deuteronomy and Numbers that reflect back upon them in a way that refutes Daniel’s concept of "tradition transmission" being able to explain the breech in the Baha’i meaning and the "apparent" Scriptural one. Daniel suggests that,

"Often stories transmitted in a community reflect community life more than the historical situation."

 

My appeal is to what I would call a broad based biblical context that supports the immediate Biblical one on this issue, one which we all seem to agree is "apparently" historical and literal and against the not at all apparent Baha’i position.

At Psalm 106:32 we see this broader context established.The Psalmist reflects back upon and reestablishes the plain meaning of the text of those previous passages from Deuteronomy and Numbers. The Psalmist tells us that,

"By the waters of Meribah they angered the LORD, and trouble came to Moses because of them; for they rebelled against the Spirit of God, <<<AND RASH WORDS CAME FROM MOSES' LIPS>>>.

The critical point to be gained from this passage is in the fact that the only sense in which the people could be seen as "causing" Moses to come into trouble was in the fact that they most certainly were the source of his temptation. It is absolutely against the text, as seen from a fuller biblical context, to say that he was punished in some substitutionary sense for sins he himself had not committed. Such exegesis and interpretation is awful and impossible as doubly reinforced in the Psalm. To speak "rashly" in the position Moses was in, and in regards to the command of God before the people, is SIN Daniel, personal sin. Moses' sin. Such a specific passage reflecting upon the incident as Psalm 106 reinforces the plain and obvious meaning of the text in Numbers and Deuteronomy and completely breaks the already unreasonably strained Baha'i substitutionary interpretation, one we notice which is entirely subjective anyway and utterly unrepresented by the text itself. The Baha’i interpretation is read into the text with no support from the text, and it is even set against what Abdul Baha himself concedes is the "apparent" meaning. I submit that it is not only apparent on the surface, but inarguable by deeper investigation. God Himself tells Moses that he will not see the holy land because HE HIMSELF (and Aaron) "broke faith" before the people. And God’s Word forever certifies through the Psalmist that the sin under consideration unquestionably included Moses personal action. He himself is forever personally identified in sin by the "rash words" of his own mouth.

There is more of this sort of revealing Scriptural evidence fatal to the Baha’i view of Moses as a sinless manifestation within the chapter devoted to that issue in the Fireside Letters. Daniel has failed to address some of those key considerations. For instance, Daniel has chosen not to respond to my observation of Old Testament passages that tell us that God’s anger "burned" against Moses at times (ie. Exodus 4:14), or how such references could be made compatible with the Baha’i view of Moses as a "sinless", "perfect mirror" of God. God’s anger would never burn against a perfect mirror of Himself. Such observations reveal a contradiction in terms between the biblical Moses and the Baha’i one.

Also let us keep in mind that God’s anger did not "burn" against Jesus. This also helps to begin to distinguish a universal difference in station between Moses and Jesus in Scripture that is in bold contradiction to the Baha’i view of their mutual relationship in station. That, incidentally, is the reason the false Baha’i Moses needs to be brought out in the open and exposed. The ultimate truth that Scripture proclaims, and that Baha’i theology tries at every turn to alter, is the universal and eternally exclusive singularity of Jesus as God the Son incarnate amongst mankind, not a "manifestation" amongst many.

 


Top of Page 

 Sonship and adoption

Daniel makes some comments about Jesus as Messiah and Son of God and presumes some assumptions that bear scrutiny. For example, he says that,

"Jesus was, it is agreed, the Messiah (or from the Greek "Christ") which means that he was anointed. As such it was a given that he would be a son of God."

But, without having gone any further here in detail, Daniel needs to be careful that he observes that "Messiah" means a whole lot more than just "anointed". Many were "anointed" in Scripture with varied meaning intended for the term’s usage. One person only was (and is) "Messiah". There are additional biblical criterion necessary for identifying the Messiah. If we aren’t careful in defining terms accurately and thoroughly we may end up with such a subjective definition of Messiah that we could falsely interpret a host of "messiahs" from our weakly inaccurate definition. I say this with wariness that recognizes that Daniel is misdefining (under defining) the term in just that Baha’i way that would allow him license to elsewhere misuse the term as allowing for many "manifestations" to fulfill a singularly intended identity. We notice that Daniel has just spent considerable effortattempting to portray Moses as a type of substitutionary "Messiah" to get around his demonstrated sinfulness, and the same is observably true within Baha’i theology with respect to the Baha’i interpretation of Adam.

Mr. Grolin goes on to say,

"The Jewish-Christian gospels identified the moment of adoption with Jesus' baptism by having the divine voice using the words of the Psalm and the Codex Bezae has a similar gloss in Luke's account of the baptism."

This, I think, is a misstatement of what the Gospels clearly say. In the first place, Jesus is never portrayed as a Son by adoption. This distinction is critical with respect to defining His station. If we must find a Gospel passage that identifies the earliest moment of His identity within the mortal world as God’s "Son" we need to look at John1 which tells us that the Word was God, and that the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. And let us keep fully in mind that even Jesus’ incarnation by way of a mortal birth does NOT mark the inception of His being God’s "only begotten Son". Scripture may refer at times to Jesus incarnation as the point at which the mortal actualization of His sonship appeared within the temporal world, but it is a sonship otherwise proclaimed as eternal from the larger picture of Jesus’ identity. He was already the only begotten Son of God when He was born of the virgin Mary into a world He Himself had created long before any people had existed there. Scripture tells us clearly that Jesus’ being the only begotten Son of the Father is an eternal reality, not a temporal one. He is eternally begotten in person. He is "begotten", not created, and beyond that, an "only" begotten Son of God. That definitive starting point of utter exclusivity needs to lead us in our search for understanding just who the true Jesus really is, especially in relation to all other people who are only adopted by comparison. A truly "begotten" Son shares, by definition, the very essence and nature of His Father. Adopted sons (us) don’t. Scripture distinguishes Jesus as the only one of the former type.

Thus, it is invalid for Daniel to assert,

"In a very similar manner the followers of Jesus could be adopted:"

No, it is not "in similar manner" that we are "adopted" sons. He is the "One and only begotten Son", singularly begotten directly of the Father, in distinction from all other sons, not by adoption, but a true Son of the Essence of His true Father; God the Son. We are granted a gracious adoption, and only by way of that "ONE and ONLY" truly begotten Son, Jesus.

 

Top of Page 

A note of hermeneutics

Daniel makes what he feels is a parallel observation between Baha’i and Christian apologetics. But he goes much further than he had intended. He first concedes that Baha’is often erroneously exercise in eisegesis (isolating of a Scripture passage out of context so as to pour new meaning into the text unintended by the original author, and that the original context would prevent). He then defends his own efforts in response to the Fireside Letters as hopefully not engaging in this invalid and dishonest approach. And, I note, he does not accuse me in these present comments of the practice either. He says,

"Mr. Grider charges, and it must be admitted with some justification, that Bahá'ís are responsible for a great deal of eisegetics. It is my hope that with this response I have avoided this trend."

Now continuing to follow his line of argument carefully here, Daniel next makes an astonishing statement. Rather than accusing me or other Christian apologists of such uninspired and dishonest practice in our interpretation of the Bible in a "tit for tat" counter argument, Daniel goes right ahead and actually accuses the New Testament authors themselves of eisegesis! He says,

"It should be noted, however, that Christians can be charged likewise. Certainly the Old Testament quotes in the NT more often than not are highly acontextual.

Eisegesis has a long and significant religious history, however, for the purpose of dialogue we should certainly refrain from this practice."

In other words, not just "Christians" in their interpretation of Scripture are guilty of eisegesis, but Daniel accuses the writers OF Scripture themselves of the sinfully dishonest error. We see this again and again amongst those Baha’i apologists who only wish to render Scripture subjective enough to downgrade its objective basis so as to gain license to reinvent its meaning, but who inadvertently end up attacking the very basis of its inspiration in the process. If what Daniel says is true, then the New Testament is not God’s Word at all. Not just because it might or might not be utterly "in errant". But because it would then consist of the sinful and erroneous human efforts of men exercising dishonest means apart from any possibility of God’s inspiration being the source. One notes in reflection that Baha’is are, in fact, supposed to respect the New Testament as being God’s Word. I submit that Daniel’s assessment denies this by definition. But he is not at all alone in this hopefully unintentional blasphemy against the very basis of inspiration of God’s Holy Word. He is set upon a goal in defense of the Baha’i viewpoint which observably requires an overkill job with respect to (or lack of respect for) Scripture to make its point. He is in plentiful company. A Baha’i apologist as significant as George Townshend, who clearly represents the Baha’i outlook in his book Christ and Baha’u’llah, brazenly claims that all those surrounding Jesus during His ministry, and who wrote the New Testament, were completely deluded as to His intentions and evidently saw Him do and say things He did not do or say. Not the least of which was His literal Resurrection. Townsend tells us On page 29 of his book;

"Christ’s spiritual mission was, at an early date, materialized, specifically in regard to such things as miracles, curing the blind and deaf, raising the dead. Even His own resurrection was made physical, missing the point entirely."

Thus Townshend makes the same inconscienable mistake that Daniel has made. He does not only accuse the Christian interpretation of the Scripture of subterfuge and deceit. He accuses the Scriptures themselves! According to Townshend, Scripture passages like Luke 24 must be themselves inaccurate and misleading perversions.

"Touch me and see. For a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see I have."

Certainly if we do not at least share the common ground of assuming the basic inspiration of Scripture (which would necessarily assume valid writing in terms of intention and the basic honesty of its writers) we have not enough common ground to discuss much. I must note once again however, that Baha’i authority concludes the Old and New Testaments to be God’s inspired Word on some level and that comments like those just seen of Daniel Grolin or George Townshend would deny that assumption, by definition, in their careless arguments.

 

Top of Page 

 Religion, exaltation and degradation

In this section Daniel offers the sketchiest of responses to what I had observed and thoroughly developed as a major doctrinal problem within Baha’i religion. Earlier in this rebuttal some of that development has already been shared in response to Daniel’s argument that progressive revelation can explain the diversity across the world religions. What we will find next is that Daniel’s present argument will either attempt to straddle the contradiction by generalizing apart from the specifics given in what the Baha’i authorities explicitly say in the writings, or he will evade the issue by appealing to biblical models without any consideration of the Baha’i texts where the problems actually exist.

Daniel sums up the relationship of the two doctrines, regress and progress, as follows;

"(1) Humanity develops spiritually and (2) the followers of past dispensation degrade themselves and reject the new spiritual message."

However, unlike my thorough comparative look in the Fireside Letters at the authoritative writings on these issues, Daniel draws conclusions that are not compatible with what Abdul Baha or Baha’u’llah actually say in the writings. Like what most Baha’is that I speak with demand of me, I believe that Daniel needs to bring the Baha’i writings themselves to the fore instead of making generalizations. When we really look at the actual writings concerning regressive and progressive revelation we will find that the problems I have discovered remain unresolved by Daniel’s surfacy response.

Daniel is hasty to try to make his point from a biblical perspective, apart from the Baha’i writings themselves where the problems actually reside. He says,

"Now let us consider the relation of these two propositions in context of Judeo-Christian history."

But this is not at all where consideration of the problem needs to be investigated. My assertion is that there exists a fundamental internal doctrinal contradiction within the authoritative Baha’i writings themselves. So the place we need to first go is to those writings, not the Judeo-Christian ones, and see if my contention holds water.

In the Fireside Letters essay concerning mankind’s spiritual nature I cite extensive quotes from the writings of Abdul Baha and Baha’u’llah that describe and define the Baha’i doctrine of mankind’s spiritual nature as universally corrupt. Since the doctrine exists to explain what is called the "apparent" diversity amongst the world’s religions, and since that observable diversity is so pervasive across all the eras, cultures and places of human history, the doctrine must be defined in terms of a universal constant at the root of human spirituality. Also, since the observable differences across the world religions are so gargantuan, even mutually contradictory on major points of belief, the Baha’i doctrine of regression, to remain valid in support of its immediate proposition, must be defined as an utter loss of truth, a complete and total rejection of spiritual enlightenment across the span of human history. Without reciting all of those quotations, it is enough to restate my summing up reflection on them, effectively focusing upon the specific terminology used by Abdul Baha and Baha’u’llah which so clearly and definitively defines regression in the universal and utter manner that I describe,

Fireside Letters, ch. 2,

"Abdul Baha, Baha'u'llah,...all observe that mankind universally degenerates the truth in every "dispensation" to the "utmost degradation", "lost in the blindest fanaticism", "decayed, ruined and upset", truth being "entirely destroyed and annihilated", all religions becoming "a body without a soul". Thus is explained the "apparent" differences amongst the world religions, and the hidden unity amongst their various founders. Spiritual regression."

Now such a thoroughly developed doctrine as this indeed has tried to effectively offer a reasoned rationale to explain why the world’s religions are, in fact, so drastically different today. Mankind has universally, in every era, against every "manifestation", in each and every culture and place throughout human history, utterly rejected the truth of God’s Messenger, and all religions have become "a body without a soul" according to this Baha’i doctrine. It must be, as I say, a doctrine of universal extremes because the state of things as they observably exist across the diverse world religions of history demands that they be stated in such terms to address the point they want to make.

Now if the reader has followed me so far, it goes without saying that we have a doctrine here that simply precludes the possibility of progressive revelation. One cannot pass on to the second grade (to cite the popular Baha’i grade school analogy) when one ALWAYS flunks the first grade "to the utter depths of degradation". One can never achieve a vantage point for ongoing progress like a child does, who may fall "all the way down", but goes on to learn to walk distinctly because the child retains internalized lessons from the fall that would make his progress impossible if in his fall his ability to retain learning was "entirely destroyed and annihilated". The doctrine of regression then, as exhaustively described and defined in the writings, does not allow for Daniel’s terse rectifying of it with progressive revelation. Daniel fails to recognize or concede the necessarily universal, and utter degree of debasement that defines the doctrine of spiritual regression for mankind’s basic spiritual nature as developed in the writings. The fact of the matter is that the doctrine of regression is so defined because it must be to cover the territory it presumes to explain.

Likewise, the doctrine of progressive revelation is also necessarily defined in the way that it is because Baha’u’llah’s theology needs a rationale by which it may explain its assertion of an "advanced" revelation that allegedly supersedes all those of the past. In this doctrine mankind is seen as having evolved spiritually until he was finally ready to receive Baha’u’llah’s mighty revelation. That the two doctrines incoherently clash with one another seems to escape Baha’i adherents who will argue mankind’s universal regression to explain "seeming" differences in religious diversity on the one hand, and will argue a universal concept of progressive revelation to justify Baha’u’llah’s self proclaimed ascendancy on the other.

However,if we look more deeply into the application of these doctrines within Baha’i theology we are lead to the discovery of worse problems that spin off inexorably from the basic dichotomy itself. For when we scrutinize the actual application (or lack of it) of the regressive doctrine with respect to Baha’i religion itself, we find that Baha’u’llah simply does not allow the theory of regression, so universally established before, to disturb his own theology. We notice that Baha’i religion is not said to be subject to these hitherto universal regressive laws of man’s spirituality. Baha’u’llah arbitrarily promises (against the pervasive theory of regression he has established for all others) that his own dispensation will not pass into the "Winter State" described by Abdul Baha in Some Answered questions (He says that, "this Day will not be followed by Night", from the Covenant I believe). And Abdul Baha goes on to assert that any to follow Baha’u’llah in the future will yet "remain under his shadow" (Some Answered Questions pg 161).

Notice too that these claims not only contradict the dynamic of spiritual regression, but in a forward looking sense they also contradict the concept of progressive revelation as well. Baha’i theology arbitrarily freezes both regress and any substantial progress, concepts that were formerly asserted as universal dynamics of human spiritual behavior. Mankind suddenly no longer "in every dispensation" degenerates the truth to the "utmost degradation", "lost in the blindest fanaticism", "decayed, ruined and upset", truth being "entirely destroyed and annihilated", all religions becoming "a body without a soul". And now, mankind will no longer need ongoing more "advanced" revelations beyond Baha’u’llah’s. Progress, in contradiction to the operating principle of progressive revelation, is suddenly arbitrarily frozen as all future manifestations are said to remain under Baha’u’llah’s shadow and the promises of Scripture are all said to be fulfilled. No more regression, and evidently no more substantial progress either. On the one hand Baha’i religion fails to really accept for itself about mankind’s "regressive" nature what it has preached as being true of mankind for all other religions and "dispensations". However, it also wishes for all intents and purposes to basically freeze this suddenly contradictory "progressive" mankind at the point of Baha’u’llah, (having all to follow remain under his shadow) which contradicts even the theory of progressive revelation! Even though the two doctrines irrationally clash in and of themselves, careful scrutiny observes that Baha’i theology doesn’t even apply them with respect to itself, and thus creates an additional double standard negating any possibility of a coherent Baha’i view concerning mankind’s spiritual behavioral nature.

The truth, observable in light of the sad historical facts of its own persecution at the hands of Islam, is that Baha’i religion actually fits far more rationally into its doctrine of universal rejection of religions than it does in either its promises of no Winter State (No regress OR further meaningful progress), or its fully blown concept of progressive revelation (universal and constant progressive spiritual dynamic ongoing for mankind). Ultimately all three doctrinal outlooks are observably distinct concepts that mutually contradict one another.

As an aside on this topic, I have always found another tangentially contradictory comment of Abdul Baha’s fascinating in terms of any rational argument in defense of the Baha’i theory of progressive revelation. I submit this for Mr. Grolin to meditate upon and then to rationally explain how the Baha’i "Great Peace" shall come about if it is true???

Abdul Baha’, pages 109-110, Promulgation of Universal Peace,

"Evil always keeps pace with good along the continuum of mankind’s material progress."

In any event, the few biblical points that Daniel attempted to make to resolve the clash were completely irrelevant. As anyone should be able at this point to see, the problem exists wholly within the Baha’i teachings themselves. That was my point and I think Daniel utterly failed to address it. He does make one statement though that I think helps underscore the objective nature of the clash I have described. Daniel says,

"Mr. Grider misunderstands the connection that the Bahá'í Faith sees between spiritual and material progress. Material progression does not in at by itself cause spiritual progress. It does, however, create the circumstances for spiritual progression."

And so Daniel asserts that there is an inherent "potential" that is afforded by material progress, a hitherto unavailable opportunity by way of it (telecommunications, transportation, etc). Certainly no one would argue with that. Material progress affords all sorts of "potential" opportunities. But it is irrelevant for two reasons in terms of the Baha’i writings. 1) As just cited, Abdul Baha tells us that evil ALWAYS "keeps pace" with good in the face of the potential to be found in such material advance. and 2) Beyond that, the Baha’i doctrine of man’s degenerate spirituality simply tells us that mankind NEVER takes positive advantage of the potential. Potential available, Mr. Grolin, does not equal potential realized. The regressive model as developed by Abdul Baha and Baha’u’llah describe a universally pervasive evil penchant that runs throughout the history of mankind’s spiritual legacy that ALWAYS rejects the opportunity, in every dispensation and era. Thus, once again, the citings of material progress, (which are observably the only examples ever offered as supportive evidence for progressive revelation in the Baha’i writings) are irrelevant as well as invalid. They are not examples of "spiritual" progress. They lend themselves to evil spiritual opportunity as much as good. Abdul Baha himself says that evil keeps pace with good along that materially progressive continuum. And the writings on regressive humanity flatly assert that mankind always rejects the spiritual opportunity to the "utter depths of degradation" that might be afforded across all the eras of mankind’s history of material progress (suspiciously, that is, until the mid 19th century!).

 

Top of Page 

 Sin and the human soul

Daniel criticizes my belief in "original sin" as if it were my own invention. He says,

"A central question for Mr. Grider remains the nature of sin and it is not surprising that he considers the doctrine of "original sin" to be a Biblical doctrine. But even Leslie C. Allen wrote in her commentary on Romans (to be found in the conservative F. F. Bruce's "The International Bible Commentary"):

"One must therefore not expect to find in these verses a clear-cut comprehensive doctrine of original sin." (p. 1326)"

 

Rather than defer to Daniel’s use of a short quote by Ms. Allen to have her seem to be generally denying that original sin is a valid concept, let us look at Romans, and more significantly to the Old Testament to see if the concept of "original sin" (mankind’s sinful fallen nature), is in line with what God says about humanity. And if there is no validity to mankind’s universally sinful falleness, then what relevance is there to be found in the concept of "Messiah" as expressed and fulfilled by Jesus?

As we look at the first chapter of Romans we see already some of the nuts and bolts that are part of a biblical context that inarguably proclaims our hopelessness in sin, and Jesus singular Salvation from that state offered through His death and Resurrection. Now notice I said "some" of the nuts and bolts. For, whatever Ms. Allen’s true and full perspective might be on the subject , anyone assessing such a doctrine with validity would not require that only one book of the Scriptures should need, in and of itself, to give, "a clear-cut comprehensive doctrine of original sin" for such a doctrine still to be recognizable as an otherwise still biblically sound concept. Eisegesis could be exercised at anytime the entire context of a matter is not considered. I am not accusing Ms. Allen of such eisegesis, only Daniel’s spin on what she evidently said about only Romans, his assuming that she means to deny the concept of original sin outright.

So Romans begins with the formal recognition that all men for all time are responsible for their sin. This is a sound logical beginning point. For sin without responsibility would still not necessitate judgment. We are told that our sin carries no innocence about it.

Romans 1:20

" 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."

How much more "clear cut" Daniel would like Romans to be than the next quote I can’t imagine.

Romans 3:9

"We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one." Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit." "The poison of vipers is on their lips." Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness." Their feet are swift to shed blood; ruin and misery mark their ways, and the way of peace they do not know." There is no fear of God before their eyes." Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. ...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. "

Thus Daniel, however you want to define the term "original sin", three critical points dealing with sin and mankind are already solidly established within even just the first 3 chapters of Romans. 1) mankind is utterly responsible. 2) mankind is universally fallen and cannot functionally make himself pleasing or acceptable to God by ever hoping to do enough "good deeds". 3) The singular rescue offered is found in the mystery of Jesus’ death and Resurrection on our behalf. These points are enough to establish the fact of, consequences of, and hope we might have surrounding our sinfulness. Notice Daniel from the passage at Romans 3:9 that multiple references are drawn upon from the Old Testament in support of the concept being exhaustively emphasized there of our universal sinfulness. I submit that this is a solid indicator that should help us realize the truth of my former point that one need not find the full development of the doctrine of mankind’s sinful nature within only a study of Romans. Even the writer of Romans does not do so as he appeals beyond that present text to a broader biblical context of support.

Daniel creates a distinction that holds a separate meaningful difference than the one he assumes,

"Paul says that all sin (pantes hmarton) not that all are sinners (which would be pantes esmen amartooloi). The difference is significant, it is the difference of being or doing, of the freedom to commit sin and being from birth a sinner. Paul goes on to explain that as long as there was no Law one was not accountable for ones sins after all one

can not be blamed for missing a target that one can not see."

But the fact of the matter is that Paul says "all" people sin, all choose the "doing" of the sin, universally. Thus Daniel’s distinction is specifically "significant" only in the fact that by way of that "freedom to commit sin" that Daniel recognizes, our sin is distinctly sin of our "choosing", and thus, of utter personal responsibility. We are distinctly responsible for our sin for the very reason Daniel observes. The concept of original sin does not mean to assert that man is born an automaton who MUST sin without choice. It says that he is born with a nature whose tendency is to knowingly CHOOSE sin, and thus bear responsibility.

And Paul certainly does not say that there was a time or place without the "Law" when men could sin with impunity through ignorance. What Paul says in Romans is;

A) that "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."

That’s all inclusive Daniel.

And;

B) "Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them."

Thus Paul clearly asserts that the "target" has always been there for men to see, even those not formally given the Law.

 

Yet Daniel insists upon subtle linguistic nuances with which to alter these clear cut and solidly established concepts. He says,

"Romans 5:19 "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." [ASV] Not all (panta) but many (polloi) were sinners. The ASV here translated katestathhsan as "made" which poorly reflects the sense of the word. The word means "appointed" (and appears only 22 places in the NT). Again this does not point to having anything to do with the nature as much as it points to circumstances."

I can only submit to you Daniel that in the context of Romans 3:9 just cited, your interpretation creates an unreasonable, and unnecessary contradiction on the part of Paul. "All" men are indeed "many" men Daniel, as compared relative to the one Adam. Thus, the spin you put on the text by way of your linguistic distinction, even in your isolation of the one passage, is not the only manner it might be reasonably interpreted there. However, when we look beyond your isolated interpretation to consider what else Paul has said in Romans, you stand objectively guilty of blatant eisegesis in your interpretation. According to the full context of Romans the "many" as contrasted by the "one" (Adam) in this instance MUST more specifically mean "all". Circumstances obviously vary with time place and person. But Paul says in Romans 3:9 that ALL men sin. That sounds like a universal aspect of basic human nature to me Daniel, and one that exists regardless of the particulars of circumstances.

 

Top of Page 

 Poverty in spirit and in matter

Daniel next quotes a passage from the Fireside Letters wherein I had said,

"Baha'u'llah tells us we are destined to 'eliminate extremes of wealth and poverty' in the world. Christ tells us that in this world the 'poor will be with us always'. They are certainly both telling us what we will find, but it's not the same thing. Baha'i religion would like us to believe that Christ's words refer to the 'spiritually poor'. But that interpretation distorts the necessarily primary intention of the verse in its proper context. Given that context, the only way Christ could have had the SOLE meaning Baha'i interpretation wants to attach to it, is if He had purposefully deceived those He was speaking to."

Daniel comments,

Certainly, it would be misrepresenting the text to say that the remark in question could, in context, be understood as referring to the "spiritually poor". But to use the text to disprove Bahá'u'lláh's lofty principle is to misrepresent something that lies at the core of the Gospel of Jesus of Nazareth."

My use of the text and interpretation of it within its proper context was in rebuttal to the common Baha’i abuse of that text that Daniel seems to concede does indeed misrepresent Jesus’ words.

I suppose one could say that the "poor" might be forever with us, yet perhaps not the "extremely" poor. This could reconcile the two statements, at least on the surface. Certainly it is indeed a lofty goal to try to help the poor. No one argues that. Yet I sense that while Jesus is telling us that the mortal world we know and live in is sinful and corrupt and always will be, Baha’u’llah seems to presume that we might actually "fix" the world and make it truly holy. And this Jesus does not say. Daniel agrees that Jesus speaks literally of the fact that the materially poor will always be present in our carnal world. But he doesn’t seem to recognize just how that observation reveals a fundamental difference in the outlooks that Jesus and Baha’u’llah preach. Jesus certaily preaches that the poor must be supported in mercy by those more well off. But He distinctly preaches that such an effort is an internal war that the individual must wage against a basically sinful, selfishly fallen human nature. Beyond that, he teaches us that we can never hope to win that battle by human effort "unto Salvation". We will fall short. We need Salvation. We need a Messiah. We need God to directly intervene on our behalf to have a chance. And we must recognize the deperate state of our spiritual reality before we can appreciate with urgency the depth of that rescue. Baha’i religion distinctly downplays this first critical step and thus is busy with a works oriented plan for justification before God. But if we presume to carry our good deeds to the judgement seat of Christ, will not the weight of our unaccounted for evil deeds condemn us? Baha’i religion really has no reasonable rationale for dealing with the eternal consequences of sin.

Also, as long as the "poor", to any degree, are still with us, as "evil always keeps pace with good", how then should we view the "Most Great Peace" Baha’u’llah ultimately promises?

Daniel closes his consideration of the issue saying,

"I find it disconcerting that Mr. Grider on a point where Christianity and Bahá'í Faith share such unified vision, wants to make division where dialogue should create co-operation."

Perhaps I can alleviate some portion of Daniel’s distress if I agree with him openly again that the elimination of extremes of poverty would be a wonderful direction to move in. Our work, according to Jesus teaching, will never be finished in that regard, at least not in our present worldly realm. But it is a genuinely lofty striving to move in that direction with all our hearts. As long as we realize that a true society defined in purest heavenly treasure will ultimately only fully be enjoyed in heaven, we can find strength and endurance to carry on toward that ultimate goal. As long as we are forever in this world willing to suffer setbacks guided by the perseverance that comes by defining the reality of our present world according to Jesus own outlook, we can keep faith. But we may indeed become discouraged if we establish as an ultimate goal to truly accomplish something here that Jesus has told us in advance can never truly be a reality in the carnal world. Unrealistic goals, if clung to in naivete’, invite a weary heart and an ultimate defeat in spirit. So let us agree then, that though we will never utterly defeat sin in this present carnal world (the poor will always be with you), perhaps we can eliminate "extremes" of suffering as often and wherever opportunity affords us a chance. I join you in proclaiming the uplifting of the poor.

 

Top of Page 

 The human nature and condition

Daniel at this point proceeds to build his case upon the faulty foundation revealed earlier by his not really looking at what Romans has to say about sin. Nevertheless he confidently continues,

"Mr. Grider concentrates, in the second chapter, on what he proposes to be a major difference between the teachings of Christ and those of Bahá'u'lláh. I have previously pointed out that the fallacy of this proposition lies in not distinguishing
between nature and condition."

Considering what was just pointed out in Romans 3:9 and how the context established by this lengthy previous passage must define the interpretation of "many" at Roman’s 5:19, Daniel has distinctly not revealed a fallacy on my part through his acontextual eisegesis. Rather it reveals his own reading into the text rather than letting the context guide the interpretation. Daniel insists upon rendering meaning by way of an isolated linguistic defining of terms apart from context, making translational decisions for them based only upon his Baha’i presuppositions.

Daniel comments,

"Mr. Grider cites Bahá'u'lláh: "His (God's) purpose, however, is to enable the pure in spirit and the detached in heart to ascend, by virtue of their own innate powers, unto the shores of the Most Great Ocean (heaven)." (Gleanings p. 71)

Mr. Grider interprets the term "Most Great Ocean" as a reference to heaven. This is not a very accurate interpretation rather the term should be interpreted as a reference to the Manifestation."

 

But this is not so. What Daniel fails to recognize is that the reference exists in typical Baha’i parlance with a double spiritualized meaning. Mr. Grolin needs to read back a bit in that section where Baha’u’llah asserts,

"Whoso hath recognized the Day Spring of Divine guidance and entered

His holy court hath drawn nigh unto God and attained His Presence, a Presence which is the real Paradise, and of which the loftiest mansions of heaven are but a symbol."

And so is Daniel right or wrong? Are we speaking of only the manifestation and not of "heaven"? According to the muddying waters of the ever present Baha’i penchant to symbolize everything, my interpretation is as correct as his. More so as we consider that Baha’i teaching always tries to downplay the literal and uplift the symbolic. I assert that the passage does, in fact, intend to mean ascending to "heaven", as Baha’u’llah asserts by way of Baha’i symbolic license.

In any event Daniel still evades the point evident in Romans as he continues to deny the real implications of Baha’u’llah’s assertion that we may ascend to the Most Great Ocean by way of our own innate powers. Daniel asserts,

"... there are two aspects to deal with when considering this passage and like passages in, for example, Romans. One is the human condition which blinds man from his true spiritual station."

But the whole point of Romans 3:9 is to define what Daniel calls "the human condition" as a perpetually evil rebellion in sin, and one for which we are all responsible. Shall we quibble over terminology here? A dead fish by any other name would smell as foul. As Scripture says that man is "saved" by Faith, apart from works, and that the good deeds of men (in terms of justification toward Salvation) are "as filthy rags", then what does Daniel mean by mankind’s "true spiritual station" as opposed to his sinful "human condition"? Does Daniel not assert a salvation by works, a justification before God by mankind’s "own innate powers"? I submit this kind of thinking presumes to put Jesus out of the Messiah business, and reviles the whole biblical concept of Salvation by Grace. Free will gives us but two choices. We may yield to God’s Spirit who then works God’s good through us, or we may yield to the evil that even Daniel seems to concede defines our normal "human condition". Beyond a wise decision to let God come in, the good we actually may do is God’s good, not our own. For every good thing comes from God. And the moment a man looks upon his good deeds as his own, the fatal sin of pride destroys the good his soul might have gained from it.

Daniel says that I assert a "stagnant" nature for the human soul,

"To bolster his proposition that the Bible teaches that the nature of the soul is stagnant he cites Romans 3:10ff, but fails to explain how these verse deal with the nature of man."

But neither Paul nor I argue that man’s soul is "stagnant". Read from Romans 3:9 again Daniel. Man’s soul is extremely active. And that activity is given as a universally sinful constant, by definition an aspect of a fallen "nature".

 

Top of Page 

The day that shall not be followed by night

Daniel next addresses my observation of Baha’u’llah’s "promise" that his own dispensation will suddenly revoke the principle of regressive spirituality formerly asserted universally for man’s nature. I recognized that such an arbitrary promise stands in contradiction to the developed dynamic of that former doctrine.

Daniel quotes me from the Fireside Letters;

"Though Baha'u'llah has certainly made this promise, it flies in the face of Abdul Baha's universal model of cyclical spiritual regression and progression (Answered Questions pg 74). It contradicts the established principle by which ALL of religion is supposed to operate."

Then Daniel comments and quotes Abdul Baha,

"This is an example of a rather unfortunate hermeneutic practice. If an author makes a general statement, that same author is of course able to qualify his statement without contradicting himself.

"As to the most great characteristic of the revelation of Baha'u'llah, a specific teaching not given by any of the Prophets of the past: It is the ordination and appointment of the Center of the Covenant. By this appointment and provision He has safeguarded and protected the religion of God against differences and schisms, making it impossible

for anyone to create a new sect or faction of belief."

(Promulgation of Universal Peace, pages 455-456)

But let’s look at this assertion from several perspectives. 1) Baha’u’llah’s "promise" is not only an arbitrary one (a promise without a rationale), it is also one that irrationally demands that the regressive doctrine formerly established as a universal dynamic for all of mankind and all of human history suddenly vanish into thin air. It is suspiciously convenient that mankind stayed "regressive" just long enough to eliminate all the past religions and their teachings out of Baha’u’llah’s way don’t you think? And then suddenly mankind stopped being that way, in the mid nineteenth century, allowing Baha’u’llah to survive the implications of his own regressive doctrine indefinitely. A healthy (not cynical) skepticism should kick in at this juncture, to say the least. However, Daniel can’t seem to distinguish between a general assertion qualified, and a general assertion contradicted. Baha’u’llah’s promise arbitrarily contradicts a whole running dynamic for mankind’s spiritual behavior that has been, up to that point, universally used to render all former religious doctrinal competition with his theology as passe’. I submit that his promise amounts to brazenly and irrationally dismissing the regressive doctrine when its task is complete, and before it should paint him with the same brush.

This is doubly evident when we see that Baha’u’llah does the same thing with respect to the doctrine of progressive revelation. It’s dynamic too works fine for Baha’i teaching up to the point of Baha’u’llah. Mankind is said to progress by stages, only receiving doses of truth relative to his "advancement". But then, again with no rationale but only the brazen assertion, progress must evidently stop after Baha’u’llah according to the clear statements in the writings? His dispensation will not only not suffer a "nightfall after the day", but any to follow him will "remain under his shadow", and "all the promises of Scripture have been fulfilled." And this is despite a humanity evident in his day, and since, that is grossly unprepared by any standard of measure (according to the dynamic of progressive revelation) for anything nearly amounting to such an ultimate revelation as he claims for himself. And so, like with the regressive doctrine, the progressive one too is arbitrarily and irrationally nullified at the point it might interfere with future Baha’i theological authority, and that, in bold contradiction to the observable reality of even today’s general human spiritual condition. Read the newspapers Mr. Grolin!

 

Of those risen Daniel next takes exception to my interpretation of Matthew 11:11. He opens saying,

"Mr. Grider continues in his third chapter to deny progressive revelation, but presents little new material. However, he does present a Matthean (Q) verse regarding John the Baptist which he employs thus:

"Jesus said that NO (mortal) MAN BORN OF WOMAN was holier than John. YET, even though this was true in the world, John was said by Jesus to be "less than the least in the Kingdom of heaven." You can't get "holy" enough to make it without faith in Jesus' Salvation, faith in the cross and Resurrection." "

Then Daniel comments,

"I am puzzled by Mr. Grider's use of the word "holy" which is no where to be found in the text. The word "mazoon" is rather consistently rendered as "greater" in most common translation. The Greek word for "holy" is "agioon"...

...Let us consider this verse in more detail. "[T]hem that are born of women", this would exempt all in the strictest sense except Adam. What does it mean to "arise" (egegertai)? ...The translators of ASV understand John as being part of the kingdom, but this is not necessarily how the text is to be understood. In this instance "en" should be understood as "amongst"...

...Matthew 11:11 "Verily I say to you, there hath not risen, among those born of women, a greater than John the Baptist, but he who is least in the reign of the heavens is greater than he." [YLT]

This is not about holiness or salvation, it is about the greatness of being part of the kingdom of God."

I quote only select statements from his comments to focus emphasis upon a point regarding an aspect of Daniel’s style. He rather likes to exercise linguistic arguments that don’t really change anything ("greater" as opposed to "holier"), but have a scholarly ring about them. I notice that he has offered original Greek words with the intent to show that they change the inherent meaning away from my interpretation. Like before however, Daniel uses linguistics to veil his own eisegesis. That is where the problem in his interpretation is to be found. For, like that former instance wherein context dictated that "many" specifically intended to mean "all" in the context of Romans, we will discover that context here dictates that "greater" must mean "greater in holiness" in the New Testament context. Daniel accuses me of linguistic naivete’ while the real problem here, once again, is his eisegetical disregard for context.

In fact, the context I appeal to is established by the same verses that John failed earlier to grasp the implications of in Romans 3:9. What is said there, whose very appeal pulls together many biblical passages and establishes a broad biblical context, is that literally every mortal person in the world (even Moses and John the Baptist) are sinners who must somehow be saved from their mortal condition. Of course Romans goes on to assert that Jesus is that singular solution to the pervasive human problem. But given such an overriding biblical context concerning the all encompassing invasiveness of sin throughout humanity, it is inarguable and much to the point, that Jesus would openly point out that even John the Baptist (who was still in the world at that time) would compare as less than least in the kingdom of heaven without Salvation. One should notice that "less than least" equates with not making it.

 

Top of Page 

 Resurrection

Daniel asserts here that,

"Though the issue of the resurrection has little direct significance on the question of "the station of Jesus", it is nonetheless the first subject of the fourth chapter. Let us, however, deal with it here anyway."

But I disagree with Daniel here. Who else, raised from the dead in Scripture, ever prophesied their own Resurrection back into the mortal world? Who else in Scripture is said to be raised "eternally"? Presumably Lazarus went on to die as did the little girl Jesus raised. But Jesus is raised eternally. Jesus is also in Resurrection said to be "the first fruits" of everyone else who will ultimately be raised into such a state, having himself provided our ability to be adopted, adopted by He who was not adopted (the One and Only Son of God). I submit that the particulars of Jesus’ Resurrection do indeed bear upon a proper understanding of His station, and one which is infinitely above the Baha’i interpretation.

Yet Daniel will next attempt to relegate much of the Gospel (like Luke 24) to the level of what would have to be viewed as a purposefully deceptive fairy tale, given in absolute and exhaustive emphasis of literal intent, yet said by Mr Grolin to only be symbolic of some "community" message. He is here specifically trying to get around such passages as Luke 24 which are either true, or lies, when honestly assessing their actual development and emphasis. Daniel begins by falsely assuming that Paul’s vision experience at 2Corinthians 12:22 must relate to the Apostles’ literal post Resurrection experiences. He says,

"This (the apparent meaning in passages like Luke 24) takes its substance from the two latest gospels John and Luke. Before we deal with these let us look at our earliest sources to give us the benefit of hindsight.

2 Corinthians 12:2 "I know a man in Christ, fourteen years ago (whether in the body, I know not; or whether out of the body, I know not; God knoweth), such a one caught up even to the third heaven. And I know such a man (whether in the body, or apart from the body, I know not; God knoweth)," how that he was caught up into Paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter." [ASV]

Whether Jesus was physical or not after the resurrection was not known to Paul (though the story in Acts certainly does not suggest so), but obviously was not a cardinal issue to his doctrine regarding the crucifixion. Paul knew stories of the

resurrection appearances to James, Peter and the twelve, five hundred others (1 Corinthians 15). Yet with so many witnesses Paul is still not certain."

Yet once again Daniel has perverted the proper context of this vision of Paul’s given at 2Corinthinas 12:2, ignoring what Acts’ comments concerning the incident would lead us to believe. When we do investigate the matter thoroughly we discover that Paul is speaking distinctly of a trance like vision he had had, utterly different than the literal appearances of Jesus relayed in passages like Luke 24. At 2Corinthians 12:1 Paul precedes the passage Daniel has isolated saying, "I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord." Not, "I will now relay a waking historical experience I had of the risen Jesus." Thompson’s Marginal Notes refer us at 2Corinthians 12:2 to Acts 22:17 where Paul tells us, "When I returned to Jerusalem and was praying at the temple, I fell into a trance." Thus Daniel insists upon invalidly comparing passages openly described as "visions" with those exhaustively proclaimed as literal, historical realities. Paul may not have experienced in his trance like vision the same details that doubting Thomas undoubtedly knew very well from first hand and literal experience.

Daniel goes on to suggest an overall view of the New Testament similar to that of the Jesus Seminar radicalism of Dominic Crossan. It fails for all of the reasons clearly given by Dr. William Lane Craig in the book Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up, Baker books1998, http://bakerbooks.com. Basically Daniel observes that Mark is the earliest Gospel and thus asserts that it is the only one that is relatively free of what he considers mythic additions. In this way he would like to simply dismiss Luke 24 as a fable, regardless of how exhaustively the writer emphasizes an absolutely literal intent. Daniel says,

"Mark, our earliest gospel, does not give us any appearance stories. In Matthew the appearance story seem to suggest a non-physical appearance too. The body of Christ disappears without the opening the tomb. The story in Luke has a very specific purpose. Christians had heard stories not unlike those of Paul and Matthew, and some were starting to think that Jesus was a ghost. This would have been a very common thing. People regularly feel like a loved person comes back to them and this was generally assumed to be the spirit of the person who had returned to solace those who had been deprived of his company. Luke was, with this story, setting the record straight, the resurrection of Jesus was a non-trivial event...

... Jesus' act was not an individual act it was a communal act. When Jesus died, Christians died to their sins. When Jesus resurrected, Christians came to a new life."

In other words, Daniel asserts that the post resurrection appearances were not historical events involving the literal and singular person "Jesus". They were myths to help the early church understand His teachings. Daniel creates a false distinction between the Jesus of history, as relayed in Scripture, and some created concept that there is a "Jesus of Faith" that goes beyond the Jesus of history in the mythic development of Scriptural fairy tales by the early Christian community.

I submit to Daniel the same four Scriptural/historical facts concerning Jesus Resurrection that Dr. Craig did in his debate with Dr. Crossan (and that Crossan was unable to deal with). Dr. Craig’s argument demonstrates that his 4 facts are historical and supported from earliest sources. 1. Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimethia 2. His tomb was found empty that Sunday 3. There were multiple instances of His appearing before many witnesses after that , alive from the dead 4. The original disciples believed He had risen from the dead despite their having had every reason not to.

One of the most revealing of these 4 facts is the last one. For if Daniel were correct in that the New Testament passages that emphasize Jesus’ literal Resurrection were mythic "communal" statements, these stories would not even have been expressed in terms of an "apparent" literal personal Resurrection as they are. Dr Craig points out three observations that support this observation,

"a. Their leader was dead. And Jews had no background of belief in a dying, much less rising Messiah.

b. According to Jewish Law, Jesus’ execution as a criminal showed Him to be a heretic, a man literally under the curse of God.

c. Jewish beliefs about the afterlife precluded anyone’s rising from the dead before the general Resurrection at the end of the world.

Nevertheless the original disciples believed in and were prepared to go to their deaths for the fact of Jesus’ Resurrection. C.F.D. Moule of Cambridge University concludes that we have here a belief for which no prior historical influence can account; the only plausible explanation is Jesus actual Resurrection."

Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up, pgs 28-29

Dr Craig continues this compelling line of argumentation in his rebuttal. I quote him at length beginning on page 42 where he says,

"When the New Testament writers speak of the Resurrection, are they speaking metaphorically? Well, I think this is very clearly not their intention; they intend the resurrection to be taken as a literal event. Raymond Brown, a great contemporary New Testament scholar, writes, ‘It is not really accurate to claim that the NT references to the Resurrection of Jesus are ambiguous as to whether they mean bodily resurrection-there was no other kind of resurrection.’ The Jews believed in a bodily, physical resurrection from the grave. And thus you find, for example, the apostle Paul in 1Corinthians 15 discoursing at length in answer to the question, ‘How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?’ (v35 RSV). The sermons in the book of Acts similarly present the resurrection as a literal event in history, just like the crucifixion and burial of Jesus -events verified by witnesses. And the whole empty tomb tradition shows that the resurrection was not thought of as a mere metaphor but as a literal event.

...the early Christians could have expressed the continuing presence of Jesus without recourse to a misleading metaphor like the resurrection. For example, in 1 Corinthians 5:3 Paul says, ‘Though absent in body I am present in spirit’ (RSV). Now they could have said exactly the same thing about the deceased Jesus, that He was still present in spirit among them. In fact, in the doctrine of the Holy Spirit of Christ they had a theologically rich and profound way of talking about Christ’s continuing presence without all this misleading terminology of resurrection from the dead. But they weren’t content to assert merely that Christ’s spiritual presence with them; they believed that Christ was literally, bodily, physically, raised from the dead. In any case, all of this is somewhat academic because we saw in my first contention that the majority of scholars do agree that the burial by Joseph of Arimathea, the discovery of the empty tomb, the appearances of Jesus, and the origin of the disciples’ belief are historical facts. Responsible historians must explain these facts. The best explanation, I think, is that Jesus rose from the dead."

Thus, from a sound historical or scholarly perspective, the invalid rationale behind Daniel’s redefining of Scriptural intention reveals a bad lack of genuine, unbiased scholarship driven by the ulterior motive of retrofitting Scripture’s intention to unbiblical Baha’i doctrines. Luke 24 intends to mean exactly what it says, and, opposite Daniel’s inventive rationalization, very much is intended as an "individual act" of history. The post Resurrection appearances are not suddenly intrusive mythic "community statements" (which would have had no time to develop), deceptively presented as historical narrative by first generation witnesses.



Top of Page 

 The authority of Scripture

Daniel quotes me from the Fireside Letters where I had commented,

"Baha'is...will often reassert that they definitely believe that any words uttered directly by Jesus are inspired to the highest degree. But, they will add, in all Baha'i Scriptures (and by extension all Scriptures) it is only the direct writing of the person or an approved transcript that are considered 'perfect' texts while unapproved (by the actual manifestation personally) texts are considered 'hearsay' and less reliable. Clearly, Baha'is hasten to add, all of the words in the Gospels were written after the death of Jesus so none was ever approved by Him and none are ascribed to Him directly either. In fact, say Baha'i adherents along this line of reasoning, the Gospels seem to have been written decades after the fact as attested to by almost every biblical scholar (Christians, not Baha'is). Thus, Baha'is conclude flatly, none are of the highest Baha'i authenticity. Additionally, this Baha'i line of thought further denigrates the reliability of Scripture saying that there have been language and culture changes including the Hebrew Midrash traditions (symbolic writing style) before we ever see the 'original Greek' of 300 AD. At this point Baha'is will explain that this gives them license to consider Scripture as merely 'hearsay accounts', considered valuable ONLY if interpreted in a Baha'i way (reshaped in meaning with symbolism that disregards, in many instances, the original intent of the passages)."

Interestingly Daniel comments that,

"The use of symbology in Scripture has nothing to do with the fact that they went through an oral stage. Or rather it is certainly not a line of reasoning that I find common amongst Bahá'ís, and most certainly not in the Bahá'í Writings. There is no doubt that by Baha'i standards the words of Jesus in the NT are "hearsay" as are the stories. But their value has nothing to do with their historicity, it has to do with its spiritual value."

I say this is interesting since Daniel himself, as we just saw, has spent a considerable effort proposing exactly what I observed of other Baha’is. Daniel, recall, believes and asserts that,

"Mark, our earliest gospel, does not give us any appearance stories. In Matthew the appearance story seem to suggest a non-physical appearance too. The body of Christ disappears without the opening the tomb.

...The story in Luke has a very specific purpose. Christians had heard stories not unlike those of Paul and Matthew, and some were starting to think that Jesus was a ghost. This would have been a very common thing. People regularly feel like a loved person comes back to them and this was generally assumed to be the spirit of the person who had returned to solace those who had been deprived of his company. Luke was, with this story, setting the record straight, the resurrection of Jesus was a non-trivial event.

... Jesus' act was not an individual act it was a communal act. When Jesus died, Christians died to their sins. When Jesus resurrected, Christians came to a new life."

So we see that Daniel himself is presently guilty of the very thing he asserts "is certainly not a line of reasoning that I find common amongst Bahá'ís." He is ascribing to Scripture that through some "oral stage" of development, mythological stories in the latter Gospels only "seem" to be historical narrative, but were really the creative mythical and symbolic development of the latter Christian community. I have already pointed out, much through Dr. Craig’s argumentation, why that is a bogus excuse for eliminating the genuine literal-historical intentions and implications of passages like Luke 24. Daniel uses the excuse of some theory of historical perversion based upon the "oral tradition" just as Dominic Crossan does. Basically the whole line of argument, as I formerly observed, relegates the Scriptures not only to hearsay, but to false hearsay that allegedly presents what for all intents and purposes would have to be taken as a misleading, deceptively erroneous historical presentation. If this is true, then Scripture would not be inspired at all. Not just uninspired by being "errant", but even by also being observably deceptive in its presentation as fact, what was only supposed to be a symbolic "communal" statement. I submit that Daniel is thus explicitly himself guilty of exactly what he denied as a basic Baha’i tactic. "...Baha'is will explain that this gives them license to consider Scripture as merely 'hearsay accounts', considered valuable ONLY if interpreted in a Baha'i way (reshaped in meaning with symbolism that disregards the original intent of the passages)." Daniel seeks a pseudo scholarly tool with which he might render the Scriptural passages relaying Jesus literal post Resurrection appearances subjective enough to alter their true, "apparent" and intended literal/historic meaning.

Daniel continues this manner of denigrating Scripture, while somehow attempting to retain it’s being "inspired". He says,

"It is certainly not meaningless to say that the words were inspired but they were not reliably recorded. Though Mr. Grider may not like this statement, there is no breach of logic."

But of course there is and for a number of reasons. False statements and transmission of information that is less than "reliable" is the antithesis of inspiration Daniel. Keep in mind here that we are not speaking of scribal errors in genealogies that have no effect on the Message of Scripture. And we are not considering here the divergent reports of detail by witnesses that might be varied because of the varied perspectives of individual observation (like any reporter or criminal investigator would expect), butwhose stories otherwise corroborate an intended core historical and factual reality (the literal, physical and personal Resurrection of Jesus). We are speaking here of a theory presented by Daniel that calls the basic intent of the story itself "unreliable". Daniel renders the intended Scriptural meaning as presented itself as being "unreliably" suspect. I submit that such a level of denigration of the basic reliability of Scripture castes the writers of Scripture as either misguided fools or dishonest men and Jesus as far less than an enlightened "manifestation" for allowing that this should become the only extant record of His Mission and teaching. Such a poor appraisal of Scripture’s "reliability" seems necessary in order for Daniel to remove the obstacles Scripture’s Message presents against his Baha’i presuppositions. But such a theory must ruin Scripture outright to do so, defeating any point he might have made and revealing the impossibility of reconciling the presuppositions with which he approaches Scripture, to the Scriptures themselves.

Let’s keep in mind that the New Testament writers were either contemporary wittnesses themselves of the events leading up to and following the death and Resurrection of Jesus (ie Peter, James or John). Or, they were writers in direct personal contact with them (like Paul, who also otherwise had his own supernatural experience with the personally risen "Jesus"). What is written is from direct first hand experience of events that they relay absolutely as historical facts, not mythic development, that one observes would have had no time to "develop" before these living witnesses had already chronicled what they had personally experienced.

 

Also, as far as denigrating the accurate transmition of their report is concerned, let us keep in mind that we have more manuscript documentation for comparative Scriptural analysis than any other ancient historical document in human history (see Josh McDowell’s Evidence That Demands a Verdict Vol. 1 & 2). Knowing the original writers’ intentions accurately is simply not as obscured as Daniel asserts.

I had made a logical observation in the Fireside Letters about this Baha’i style of Scripture bashing saying,

"That reasoning is indefensible even from within Baha'i doctrine that constantly uses direct quotes from the New Testament as an authoritative source to promote its own ideas through what Jesus 'said' in the New Testament. If what Baha'is say is true about the NT when they argue that Scripture is less than reliable in the validity of its intended Message, then Baha'u'llah and Abdul Baha would have to be seen as depending, themselves, on faulty material as being authoritatively correct in terms of what Jesus said."

Daniel retorts,

"This proposition falsely assumes that when Bahá'u'lláh cites something it because He relies on its authority. Mr. Grider doesn't realize that Bahá'u'lláh claims for Himself the ultimate authority to pronounce on truth. However, when He cites other sources be they Scripture or secular, it is because His ears trust them."

But listen to what you are saying Daniel. If I may paraphrase, coupling two contentions you have made here;

"Bahá'u'lláh claims for Himself the ultimate authority to pronounce on truth. However, when He cites other sources be they ("unreliable") Scripture or secular, it is because His ears trust them."

If Daniel feels that Baha’u’llah then "trusts" what is "unreliable" material, perhaps Baha’u’llah is then a bit presumptuous to "claim for Himself the ultimate authority to pronounce on truth"?

Either the Scriptures are reliable in inspiration of their basic intended Message or they are not. You can’t have it both ways Daniel.

Daniel says,

"According to the gospels not only Scriptures were quoted by Jesus, but also contemporary authorities:

Matthew 7:12 "All things therefore whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, even so do ye also unto them: for this is the law and the prophets.""

Certainly his proof text does not confirm his assertion concerning Jesus having quoted "contemporary" non Scriptural sources. We know that Jesus dealt with the Law (Old Testament), and the recognition of the Old Testament prophet’s prophesies were critical to His claims of fulfillment of those prophesies. How Daniel intends such a reference as Matthew 7:12 to indicate extra biblical sources is his own arbitrary assumption utterly unrepresented by the passage he cites. We also notice now that Daniel suddenly wishes to consider Matthew as a "reliable" source in making the point he wishes to assert. Nevertheless he continues,

"In the Talmud we may read a tradition about Rabbi Hillel, Jesus' senior contemporary:

"... a certain heathen came ... before Hillel, he said to him, 'what is hateful to you do not to your neighbor : that is the whole Torah, ...'."

(Shabbath 31a)

I wonder if Mr. Grider believes that Jesus endorsed all of what was said by Hillel."

My comment would be to observe that even Jewish scholars as significant as Bernard J. Bamberger still only consider the Talmud as a "sequel" to the Hebrew Scriptures and not part of the Scriptures themselves (Grolier 98 Multimedia Encyclopedia). Even though this non -Christian Jewish assessment goes further in labeling the Talmud even as a "sequel" than the Christian perspective might allow, it is enough said that it is only supplementary, not an actual part of the canon of Scripture. Similarly, the deudocanonical books of the Bible, though not unanimously accepted as canonical Scripture, certainly contain useful material. The main point is that all of these sources are useful ONLY when and if they do agree with the canon of Scripture itself. Thus Daniel makes little or no point here. I would believe Hillel in as much as what he says agrees with the teachings of Scripture. Daniel is very presumptuous at any rate to assume that Jesus "endorsed" everything said by Hillel? Certainly Daniel’s present argument from Matthew 7:12 is completely invalid and insufficient as a proof text for such an assertion.

 

Top of Page 

 The Station of Jesus

Daniel quotes me from the Fireside Letters saying,

"Yet Scripture says of Jesus Christ at John 1:3 that, "Through Him (Jesus) all things were made, without Him nothing was made that has been made." "

Then Daniel Comments,

"Mr. Grider helpfully supplies "Jesus" in parenthesis, it is, however, not Jesus that "autou" refers to, but the "logos" which is also masculine. Jesus was a historical incarnation of the Word, as John explains that the word was made (egeneto)

flesh (John 1:14). As is often the case throughout this debate Mr. Grider appears to be making a point, but fails to make it. He quotes Scripture and presumes that anyone can see how it supports his point of view."

Several things need to be pointed out in this paragraph filled with errors and assumptions. Any parenthetical "help" I have offered John by inserting Jesus is far beyond implicit in the text Daniel. We know that John is, in fact, introducing the story of Jesus. That is what a "Gospel" in the Bible is and his opening remarks are specifically defining Jesus’ station. Next, it is entirely irrelevant to make a distinction between the "Word" and Jesus. Daniel unwittingly points this out himself as he concedes that John is presenting a portrayal of "incarnation", not just manifestation. It does not say that the "Word", which is God, was just "reflected" in Jesus. It says that the "Word" was "made flesh" (Incarnation). It distinctly says God became man. The syntax here is inarguable Daniel.

I also think we need to bring out an invalid ad hominem at this point that intermittently is sprinkled throughout Daniel’s argument. His argumentation assumes that my perspective represents my singular opinion and presents that assumption in a way that would caste me as a somewhat eccentric, fringe, loner. He says things like, "He (Dale) quotes Scripture and presumes that anyone can see how it supports his point of view."

However, the perspective I defend is anything but odd and outlandish personal belief Daniel, as you should well know. I represent a longstanding theological perspective defended down through a history of thousands of years, and by many brilliant theologians and philosophers far more able than myself, then and today. Such a realization reveals a rather cheap ad hominem on Daniel’s part that attempts to set up a straw man that portrays me as a somewhat deluded loner without a legitimate perspective. I don’t represent a singular half baked personal opinion and Daniel knows it very well. I represent a historic Christian Faith, based upon the truths from Scripture that have long since been ironed out in the face of thousands of years of heresies, like those Mr. Grolin brings to the Gospel.

Also interesting to note at this point (and as an ongoing double standard throughout Daniel’s paper) is the fact that once again, Daniel now suddenly finds John’s Gospel quite a "reliable" source to quote for his own argument. When speaking of the post Resurrection appearances it was evidently "not reliable" and definitively false "hearsay". Now Daniel seems to think John can be cited as reliable, definitive support for his own arguments? If John consists of either unreliably dishonest or deluded material, whose "apparent" literal meaning includes historically errant myths on major doctrine, then why would John appeal to such a source at all?

Daniel continues,

"This quote is followed by a long list of quotes from Isaiah, which Mr. Grider seems to presume refer to Jesus, but he shows no evidence in favor of this point of view, since I don't share Mr. Grider's conviction it makes no sense for me to discuss them."

But I think we do need to discuss them. Particularly since Daniel gave such a poor definition of "Messiah" earlier, and now presumes to dismiss out of hand, without discussion, my assertion that Jesus fulfills prophecy concerning that identity. The passages I cited from Isaiah have God observing that no mere mortal is worthy to be Savior ("Messiah" significantly means "Savior". Jesus presumed it to mean as much in His personal claims of fulfilling that role). At Isaiah 59:15 God says,"The Lord looked and was displeased that there was no justice. He saw that there was no one, he was appalled that there was no one to intervene;"

In His observation that no one could fulfill the mis