“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter” (Isaiah 5:20). After an extensive study, the above words of Isaiah the prophet seem to me a most appropriate description of Baha’i religion.
This may seem a most harsh way to begin a treatment of a faith that prides itself on its commitment to peace, unity, and the love of God. It is certainly true that many of the goals and principles of Bahaism are noble, and that its adherents are sincere people.
Nonetheless, the overall teachings of Bahaism are antithetical to biblical Christianity. Virtually every important teaching of Christianity is denied by Bahaism. Therefore, Christians need to be aware of this growing threat to the souls of mankind, and how to defend the truth against deceptions of the Baha’i religion.
The Baha’i faith publishes an introductory magazine which provides much helpful background information including the following:
“The Baha’i Faith is today among the fastest-growing religions. With more than five million followers, who reside in virtually every nation on earth, it is the second-most widespread faith, surpassing every religion but Christianity in its geographic reach.” (The Baha’is: A Profile of the Baha’i Faith and its Worldwide Community [magazine format]. Baha’I International Community, Baha’i World Centre, Haifa, Israel, 2005, p. 5, hereafter:Profile).
Some basic Baha’i principles:
- The Oneness of humankind
- The equality of women and men
- Full racial integration
- Economic justice
- Universal education
- The harmony of science and religion
- The adoption of a universal auxiliary Language
- The creation of a world commonwealth of nations that will keep peace through collective security
Other important beliefs are:
- That there is only one God
- That all of the world’s religions represent one changeless,neternal faith
- That the purpose of life on earth is to develop ourselves spiritually, in preparation for an everlasting existence; hereafter:Profile, (Back cover).
The foregoing information is from “The Baha’is: A Profile of the Baha’i Faith and its Worldwide Community”[magazine format]. Baha’i International Community, Baha’i World Centre, Haifa, Israel, 2005.
Historical Roots of Bahaism
John Boykin gives a good summary of the beginnings of Bahaism:
“The Baha’i Faith developed in the nineteenth century in Iran, then known as Persia. It is named after its prophet, Baha’u’llah, whose title in Arabic means ‘Glory of God.’ Like most Iranians for the past 1300 years, its founders and early converts were all Shi’ite Muslims. Of the twelve men Shi’ites recognize as legitimate successors to Muhammad, the last was Imam Mahdi. A recluse, Imam Mahdi communicated with his followers through spokesman called Babs (‘gates”). Ever since communication from him ceased in A.D. 941, devout Shi’ites have awaited his return as a conquering messiah.
In 1844 a twenty-four-year-old Persian wool merchant took the title Bab [Mirza’ Ali Muhammad 1819-1850] and began to preach . . . [and] claimed to be a prophet greater than Muhammad. . . Muslim leaders. . . soon locked him in jail, where he spent most of his six-year ministry. The Bab’s followers, called Babis, staged several insurrections, mainly in 1848-50. The Persian government suppressed the Babi uprisings with unbridled cruelty. Finally, in an effort to kill the movement at its source, they executed the Bab in 1850.
After his death the Babi community turned for spiritual leadership to twenty-year-old Subh-i-Ezel [Mirza Yahya], whom the Bab had named as his successor. Subh-i-Ezel was poorly suited for leadership, so practical administrative responsibilities fell to his older half-brother, Baha’u’llah [Mirza Husayn ‘Ali 1817-1892]. . . The Bab had taught that a prophet even greater than himself would one day appear. In 1863 Baha’u’llah declared that he was that prophet. Most Babis accepted Baha’u’llah’s claim and shifted their devotion from the Bab to him. They became known as Baha’is. The rest, unable to reconcile Baha’u’llah’s claim with the Bab’s appointment of Subh-i-Ezel as his successor, remained loyal to Subh-i-Ezel. The two factions clashed violently in 1868, the civil authorities intervened. They sent Subh-i-Ezel to a prison in Cyprus and Baha’u’llah to a prison at Akka, now in Israel. Every word Baha’u’llah uttered was scrupulously recorded. He dictated over one hundred books and tablets. His book of laws, the Kitab-I-Aqdas (‘Most Holy Book’), is considered his ‘most weighty and sacred’ work. . . Baha’u’llah had appointed his eldest son, Abdu’l Baha [Abbass Effendi 1844-1921], to succeed him. Though he did not claim to be a manifestation of God like his father, he did assume sole authority to interpret Baha’u’llah’s teachings. He claimed infallibility for his interpretations. . . Abdu’l- Baha was primarily responsible for spreading the Baha’i faith outside the Middle East. He died in 1921, leaving his Oxford-educated grandson, Shoghi Effendi [1897-1957], as Guardian of the Faith. Shoghi Effendi died in 1957 and, in violation of Baha’i law, left no will. He had no appointed successor. Six years later the first Baha’i universal House of Justice was elected. Among Baha’is this nine-person board is held to be infallible and governs Baha’i affairs today from their world headquarters in Haifa, Israel” (John Boykin, The Baha’i Faith in A Guide to Cults & New Religions (Ronald Enroth Ed.). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1983, pp. 26-27, hereafter:“Boykin”).
Will the real manifestation please stand up!
Boykin correctly pointed out that the Bab had appointed Mirza Yahya as his successor. Baha’u’llah essentially stole control of the movement from his brother, despite the fact that the Bab, the very manifestation of God (in their view) had appointed Mirza Yahya. The Baha’i explanation of this is as ingenious as it is sinister. They claim that the Bab only appointed Mirza Yahya publicly as a rouse or cover for Baha’u’llah. That is, the Bab actually appointed Baha’u’llah as his successor, but publicly put forward Mirza Yahya in the event of persecution.Wilson states it thus:
“We have seen that Subh-i-Azal, the half-brother of Baha’u’llah, was appointed by the Bab as his successor. According to Abdul Baha, this appointment was a dishonest subterfuge on the part of Baha, arranged by him through secret correspondence with the Bab, in order that Baha might be relieved of danger and persecution and be protected from interference. . . This account shows the low ideas of honour and truthfulness in the minds of Baha and Abdul Baha” (Wilson, p. 204).
Wilson (Wilson, p. 204) also quoted from Abul Fazl’s account of the same event in his book ‘Baha’i Proofs,’ p. 52, in which Fazl “states the position of the ‘Traveler’s Narrative”:
“The Bab and Baha Ullah, after consulting together, made Azal appear as the Bab’s successor. In this manner they preserved Baha Ullah from interference.”
Fazl’s testimony is important because he is quoted as an authority in Baha’i literature. For example, see J.E. Esslemont, Baha’u’llah and the New Era.Wilmette, IL: Baha’i Books, 1923, Revised edition 1970, 1976, 1978 edition, p. 113, hereafter:Esslemont).
Another authority that Wilson quotes (Wilson, p. 204-205) is Professor Edward G. Browne who is frequently quoted in Baha’i literature, particularly because of his description of a meeting he had with Baha’u’llah, and his friendship with Abdul-Baha. For example, see ‘The Baha’is: A Profile of the Baha’i Faith and its Worldwide Community”[magazine format]. Baha’i International Community, Baha’i World Centre; Haifa, Israel, 2005, pp. 21, 57.
Wilson’s note quoting Professor Browne is thus: “The Baha’is are impaled on the other horn of the dilemma also, for, as Professor Browne says (‘Mirza Jani [‘s History]’, p. xxxiii.) ‘The difficulty lies in the fact that Subh-i-Azal consistently refused to recognize Baha’s claim, so that the Baha’i is driven to make the assumption that the Bab, who is acknowledged to be divinely inspired and gifted with divine knowledge and prescience, deliberately chose to succeed him one who was destined to be the ‘point of darkness,’ or chief opponent, of ‘Him whom God should manifest’” (Wilson, 204).
There are problems as a result of the foregoing. First, it shows that Baha’u’llah’s half-brother, Mirza Yahya rather than Baha’u’llah was the one chosen by the Bab to be his successor. Also, it shows that Baha’u’llah was dishonest, a strange activity for a manifestation of God. Finally, whenever, we read Baha’i literature that quotes the Bab as speaking of “Him who God will manifest,” it is not Baha’u’llah whom he had in mind. Incidentally, the same Professor Browne that is regularly appealed to as a source by Baha’is, reported about the regular use of opium by the early Baha’is: “All present were Babis (Baha’is) and we sat sipping our tea and whiffing opium.We sat talking late and smoking opium. The wildest ascriptions of deity to Baha were made when intoxicated with wine and opium” (Wilson, p. 215).
What do Baha’is believe?
At this point, we will do well to compare the beliefs of the Baha’i religion with those of biblical Christianity.We begin by looking at the doctrine of Scripture and authority.
Scripture and Authority
For the Christian, the Bible (Old and New Testament) is the only authoritative Scripture. Christians do not recognize the holy books of other religions, and reject the idea that they are inspired of God.
Baha’is claim to accept the holy books of all the major religions of the world. They assert that each book was the authoritative Scripture for its era, but that all of them are superceded by the Scriptures of the Baha’is. These Scriptures are most fully seen in the writings of Baha’u’llah. Further, Abdul-Baha is believed to be the inspired interpreter of the works of Baha’u’llah. Finally, the authority for Baha’is moved from Abdul-Baha to his grandson Shoghi Effendi, who had the title of the “Guardian of the Faith.” After the death of Shoghi Effendi in 1957, it would be six years until the Universal House of Justice was established. Baha’is believe the Universal House of Justice is infallible in its official pronouncements.
Immediately, three major problems strike the mind of a Christian. One, we cannot accept the untenable notion that God would inspire such divergent ideas in different holy books (Monotheism/polytheism). Two, we cannot accept any ideas that contradicts what God has already revealed in the Bible (Jesus is Almighty God in the Bible/ Jesus is not Almighty God for Baha’is). Third, we cannot believe that Baha’is prophets are inspired of God when they contradict each other (Polygamy accepted and practiced by Baha’u’llah/ Polygamy condemned by Abdul-Baha). Let us look at each of these a bit closer. How can we believe the Baha’i claim that the Scriptures and beliefs of all the major religions of the world are in essential agreement? I reproduce a chart from Francis Beckwith to illustrate this:
“God and the Major World Religious Leaders
Moses ………….God is personal, .strict, uncompromising monotheism
Krishna ……….Polytheistic, but ultimately pantheistic and impersonal.
Zoroaster……..Two Supreme Beings; philosophical dualism
Buddha………..God is not relevant; essentially agnostic.
Jesus Christ…God is personal, able to beget a Son; strict, uncompromising monotheism.”
(Francis Beckwith, Baha’i. Minneapolis, MN. Bethany House Publishers, 1985, p. 17, hereafter:Beckwith).
Beckwith summed up the chart by saying: “Though Shoghi Effendi has said that the manifestations disagree on ‘non-essential aspects of their doctrine,’ it would stretch credibility to the limit to suppose that the nature of God is one of these non-essential aspects. God cannot be impersonal, personal; transcendent, polytheistic; pantheistic. monotheistic; able to beget, not able to beget; relevant, and irrelevant all at the same time” (Beckwith, p. 18).
Shoghi Effendi represents the idea that all religions are essentially the same:
“The fundamental principle enunciated by Bahá’u’lláh, the followers of His Faith firmly believe, is that religious truth is not absolute but relative, that Divine Revelation is a continuous and progressive process, that all the great religions of the world are divine in origin, that their basic principles are in complete harmony, that their aims and purposes are one and the same, that their teachings are but facets of one truth, that their functions are complementary, that they differ only in the nonessential aspects of their doctrines, and that their missions represent successive stages in the spiritual evolution of human society” (Shoghi Effendi, “The Faith of Bahá’u’lláh” in World Order, Vol. 7, No. 2 1972-73, p. 7).
Beckwith’s chart shows the impossibility that “all the great religions of the world are divine in origin, that their basic principles are in complete harmony.” It is grossly unfair for Baha’i apologists to reinterpret the world’s religions in such a way as to make it appear there is basic agreement among them. This is done by denying the essential teachings that are unique to each faith. This is clearly done with Christianity, in that all its most important teachings are denied by Baha’is. It is sheer dishonesty to say that the world’s religions “differ only in the nonessential aspects of their doctrines.” How can what a religion teaches about God or salvation be rendered “a nonessential aspect”?
The Baha’i Faith and other religions
While on the surface Baha’is are open and accepting of other religion, in reality, and ultimately, they are the very opposite. Baha’is believe that Baha’u’llah is the only messenger for today, and that all other religions have been superceded by Bahaism.
“In order to find truth . . . an open mind is essential . . . that we imagine ourselves to be right and everybody else wrong is the greatest obstacle in the path to unity” (Universal Peace: More than an End to War).
It is difficult to understand how Baha’is can make the above statement when they believe they are the only true religion on the face of the planet!
In Theology proper, for the Christian, there is only one God asserting a strong monotheism. The Baha’i faith also asserts monotheism. It strongly denies the existence of more than one God. Yet, this God is not well defined.Wilson’s description is to the point: “The teaching of Bahaism regarding God is hard to grasp, because it oscillates between Theism and Pantheism” (Wilson, 88).
Wilson’s charge seems well founded. Bahaism teaches that the Holy Spirit is a separate entity from God, yet is ‘itself” eternal. Further, it teaches that all of “creation,” the universe itself is eternal, in that it is forever proceeding from God.
“Baha’u’llah teaches that the universe is without beginning in time. It is a perpetual emanation from the Great First Cause. The Creator always had His creation and always will have . . . Abdul-Baha says . . . this endless universe, had no beginning” (Esslemont, 208-209).
Since Bahaism affirms the eternality of the universe, it is forced into two possible conclusions. One, that the universe is a part of God (pantheism). If the charge of pantheism is denied, then you are left with the idea that the universe is a separate entity from God that nonetheless is eternal (some sort of dualism). Similar to Islam, from which it sprang, Bahaism believes that God is unknowable, and can only be known indirectly through his manifestations.While Baha’is reverence Baha’u’llah as the manifestation of God for this age, they do not worship him. Worship belongs to God alone.
Christianity teaches that God can be known, and in fact, salvation depends upon knowing him. John 17: 3 says: “Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.”
Martin sums up the Baha’i attitude about God: “For the average Baha’i God is an impersonal force, a being devoid of personality” (Martin,Walter R. The Rise of the Cults. Grand Rapids, MI.: Zondervan, 1955, 1957 edition, p. 119, hereafter:Martin, Rise of Cults)
Christians believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. The Bible affirms that while there is only one God, he exists in a tri-personal way. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each distinct personalities in relation to each other, yet share the nature and essence of the one being of God. Baha’is reject the Trinity. In Walter Martin’s classic work “Kingdom of the Cults”, he relates an interview with a Baha’i teacher. I will quote the exchange relating to the Trinity:
“Question: Do you in Bahaism believe in the Holy Trinity?
Answer: If by the Trinity you mean the Christian concept that the three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are all the one God, the answer is no. . .We cannot accept the idea that God is both three and one and find this foreign to the Bible which Christianity claims as its source” (Martin, Walter R. The Kingdom of the Cults. Minneapolis, MN.: Bethany House Publishers, 1965, 1985 edition, p. 273-274, hereafter:Martin, Kingdom).
In a brochure called “Christianity and the Baha’i Faith”, we find the following:
“What about the Trinity? Baha’is believe that ‘the essential oneness of Father, Son and Spirit had many meanings and constitutes the foundation of Christianity . . . Here is one way to understand the Trinity: The Bible compares God to the astronomical sun, and Christ to its reflected image. The Holy Spirit, in this analogy, is the light shining in and through the mirror. Thus the Trinity means the Father is the Divine Essence, the Holy Spirit is the Divine Light, and Christ is the Divine Reflection. From one point of view, these three are the same; from another, they are distinct” (Christianity and the Baha’i Faith: Frequently Asked Questions. Knoxville, TN: Stonehaven Press, 1999, hereafter: Christianity).
For those who complain about the difficulty in understanding the Trinity, this explanation does not seem an improvement. Further, it is a complete redefinition which bears no resemblance to the biblical teaching concerning the nature of God. The very fact that Baha’is deny that Jesus is Almighty God illustrates their rejection of the Trinity.
In order to understand Baha’i teaching on the Godhead, it is necessary to understand their view of the ‘Manifestations,’ which they define as follows:
“The Manifestations represent a level of existence intermediate between God and humanity” (From “Baha’i Topics, ‘Who Are the Prophets?’ At http://info.bahai.org/article-1-4-0-3.html) “The great prophets of God are his chosen Messengers, who appear in every age. The Manifestations of God are not God descended to earth but are perfect reflections of his attributes, just as a mirror reflects the sun but is not the sun itself. All the Manifestations have the same spirit, although their outward forms are different, and they manifest different attributes of God relevant to the needs and circumstances of the age in which they appear. They differ only in the intensity of their revelation and the comparative potency of their light. The Baha’i writings identify several Manifestations, among them, Abraham, Noah, Buddha, Zoroaster, Moses, Christ, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha’u’llah” (Baha’u’llah. Mona Vale NSW, Australia.: Baha’i Publications Australia, 1991, p. 80, hereafter:Baha’u’llah).
Important in the above quote is that “All the Manifestations have the same spirit.” This raises the question; what is this spirit? Is it personal? If so, how could both Baha’u’llah and the Bab, who lived at the same time, both be this same person? If this “spirit” is impersonal, then how can it be maintained that Baha’u’llah is the same person or the return of Jesus Christ? In their tract, “The Glory of Christ,” Bahaism states:
“In terms of human identity, these mirrors are distinct, having different human bodies and souls. But they are the same divine spirit, for they manifest the one eternal Christ” (The Glory of Christ: A Baha’i Testimony. Knoxville, TN.: Stonehaven Press, 1997).
Again, if all the manifestations are “the same divine spirit.” how could both the Bab and Baha’u’llah, who were contemporaries both, be that one person? “The Manifestation then is not simply an ordinary person whom God chooses at some point in His natural lifetime to be His messenger. Rather, the Manifestation is a special Being, having a unique relationship to God and sent by Him from the spiritual world as an instrument of divine revelation. Even though the individual soul of the Manifestation had a phenomenal beginning, it nevertheless existed in the spiritual world prior to physical birth in this life. The immortal souls of ordinary men, on the other hand, have no such preexistence, but come into existence at the moment of human conception. Of the preexistence of the souls of the Manifestations, Shoghi Effendi said: ‘The Prophets, unlike us, are pre-existent. The soul of Christ existed in the spiritual world before His birth in this world.We cannot imagine what that world is like, so words are inadequate to picture His state of being.’” (“Baha’i Topics: Who Are the Prophets?”
At http://info.bahai.org/article-1-4-0-3.html). From this passage, we further see that the Baha’is teach that the manifestations pre-existed their life on earth. So we wonder; did this spirit leave Muhammad, dwell in “the spiritual world,” then enter into Baha’u’llah (who was born two years before the Bab), and then at the Bab’s birth split into two ‘persons’? The Baha’i view of the manifestations is simply incoherent.
As has already been alluded to, Bahaism rejects the biblical teaching that Jesus Christ is Almighty God. Instead Bahaism teaches that Jesus was a manifestation of God. These manifestations (Moses, Muhammad, Baha’u’llah) are not Almighty God, but rather are human beings in whom the Holy Spirit dwells in, in a unique way. Further, Bahaism teaches that Baha’u’llah is the return of Jesus Christ.
“Christ once more is knocking at the doors of our hearts . . . Baha’is believe the new name of Christ is Baha’u’llah . . . He fulfills Christ’s own promise to return . . . He is the return of the one spiritual Christ—that pre-existent Word or Logos who is the same ‘the same yesterday, and today, and forever . . . Baha’is are in reality Christians of the second coming” (Secret of the Second Coming: Christ’s Glorious Return, Knoxville, TN.: Stonehaven Press, 1998, hereafter:‘Secret’)
The Bible clearly refuted this notion. The book of Acts leaves us this record:
“After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight. They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. ‘Men of Galilee,’ they said, ‘why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven’” (Acts 1:9-11).
The prophet Zechariah gives more detail on Christ’s return: “Then the LORD will go out and fight against those nations, as he fights in the day of battle. On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, and the Mount of Olives will be split in two from east to west, forming a great valley, with half of the mountain moving north and half moving south” (Zechariah 14:3-4). Jesus ascended to heaven in the same physical body in which he walked the earth, and it is that resurrected body he now has in heaven, and is the one he will return in. The real Jesus will have the marks of the nail prints in his hands and feet.
Jesus himself said:
“Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me. In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me, that you also may be where I am” (John 14:1-3).
Jesus did not say, “I will return in the form of another,” or “I will send another in my name.” He said, “I will come back.” He warned that others would falsely claim to be him, but that we should not be tricked by them:
“At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible. See, I have told you ahead of time.
“So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the desert,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man” (Matthew 24:23-27).
In his Olivet Discourse, Jesus went on to outline the events of his coming which include the judgment of the nations and the setting up of his kingdom over the earth (Matthew 25:31-46). Why should I believe the blasphemous claim that Baha’u’llah is Christ? The real Jesus had a miraculous birth, healed the sick, walked on the water, and raised the dead. Baha’u’llah did none of these. Above all, Jesus predicted his own resurrection. Baha’u’llah is dead and buried; Jesus Christ rose from the dead and ever lives!
Not only does Bahaism reject the deity of Christ, but it also denies his bodily resurrection from the dead. Esslemont relates: “An important part of the Bab’s teaching is His explanation of the terms Resurrection . . . By the resurrection is meant, He said, the appearance of a new manifestation of the Sun of Truth. The raising of the dead means the spiritual awakening of those who are asleep in the graves of ignorance” (Esslemont, 34).
A recent tract addresses the resurrection of Christ: “Do Baha’is believe Christ rose from the dead? Yes, most definitely. Baha’i texts describe Jesus as ‘risen from the dead’ (SWA 162); as the ‘risen Christ’ (MA 255) whose disciples ‘saw Christ living, helping and protecting them’ (SAQ 1067) after His physical form ‘was crucified and vanished’ (TAB 193). Resurrection is thus ‘the consciousness that came to His disciples, grieving over His death, of His living reality; it was not a physical thing but a spiritual realization . . . This figurative language means that the Risen Christ, though not physical, is both more real and infinitely more powerful than any material entity . . . Many Bible verses show, however, that Christ relinquished His earthly body after the days of His flesh; (Heb. 5:7), and that-though able at will to resume one-He now customarily manifests Himself in other ways” (Christianity).
The foregoing makes clear the Baha’i rejection of the true and biblical resurrection of Christ. It also shows some dishonesty, in that they begin by claiming to affirm the resurrection of Jesus Christ, but then proceed to redefine the meaning of resurrection to a cultic understanding.
At this point it must be emphasized that this denial of the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ strikes at the heart of the Christian faith. Baha’is may claim that they support the essential teachings of the Christian faith, but its denial of the resurrection of Christ displays the hollowness of that claim.
It would be like a doctor saying to a patient, “I will not touch any essential part of your body, I am only going to remove your brain and heart!” Indeed, the resurrection from the dead of Jesus Christ is at the heart of Christianity. The apostle Paul put it this way: “And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins” (1 Corinthians 15:17).
For Christians, the Holy Spirit is Almighty God, the third person of the Trinity. But Bahaism defines the Holy Spirit as: “The Entity that acts as an intermediary between God and his manifestations. This link is similar to the rays of the sun by which energy is transmitted to the planets” (Baha’u’llah, 78).
So, for Bahaism, the Holy Spirit is some kind of “entity” between God and mankind that the manifestations of God possess rather than God himself. In the New Testament, the Holy Spirit is a separate person from the Word (Jesus). Baha’i writings seem to equate the two and deny their distinct personalities. For instance, Abdul Baha stated: “When Christ appeared, twenty centuries ago, although the Jews were eagerly awaiting his coming . . . yet when the Sun of Truth dawned, they denied Him . . . and eventually crucified that divine Spirit, the Word of God” (Esslemont, J. E. Baha’u’llah and the New Era.Wilmette, IL: Baha’i Books, 1923, Revised edition 1970, 1976, 1978 edition, p. 19). So Bahaism rejects the Biblical truth that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each distinct person within the Godhead, and replaces it with vague and confusing ideas.
Part II follows in next edition.
Steve Lagoon is Pastor of Faith Community Church of Independence, Minnesota. He is the director of Christian Apologetics Ministries. You can visit the Christian Apologetics Ministries’ website at: http://www.caministries.org.
- Ankerberg, John and Weldon, John, Baha’i, Encyclopedia of Cults And New Religions, Harvest House Publishers, Eugene Oregon, 1999
- Barrett, David V. The New Believers. London: Xassell & Co, 2001
- Beckwith, Francis. Baha’i. Minneapolis, MN.: Bethany House Publishers, 1985 (see also his web article, “BAHA’I CHRISTIAN DIALOGUE: Some Key Issues Considered” at the CRI website “http://www.equip.org/free/DB035.htm”
- Boykin, John. Boykin, John. The Baha’i Faith in A Guide to Cults & New Religions (Ronald Enroth Ed.). Downers Grove, IL.: InterVarsity Press, 1983
- Crim, Keith, General Editor. The Perennial Dictionary of World Religions. San Francisco, CA.: Harper & Rowe, 1981, 1989
- Larson, Bob. Larson’s Book of Cults. Wheaton, IL.: Tyndale House Publishers, 1982
- Martin,Walter R. The Rise of the Cults. Grand Rapids, MI.: Zondervan, 1955, 1957 edition
- Martin,Walter R. The Kingdom of the Cults. Minneapolis, MN.: Bethany House Publishers, 1965, 1985 edition
- Mayer, F. E. The Religious Bodies of America. Saint Louis, MO.: Concordia Publishing House, 1956
- Petersen,William J. Those Curious New Cults. New Canaan, CT.: Keats Publishing, Pivot Edition, 1975
- Tucker, Ruth. Another Gospel. Grand Rapids, MI.: Zondervan, 1989
- Wilson, Samuel Graham. Bahaism and Its Claims. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1915
This article appeared in “The Discerner” (Download in PDF Format)