Infallibility

[TransmutingSoul]

Does one mean that there is a chain of "infallibility" in the Bahaism people, please?
Only the poor ordinary followers of Bahaullah are fallible.
Well, since Bahaullah himself was a human being so he has to be fallible also, as the reason goes. Right, please?

Regards

Would you say all that Muhammad Revealed in the Quran was infallible, or was it prone to mistakes as Muhammad was also human?

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

The Covernant of Baha'u'llah has conferred infallibility to both Abdul'baha and on to Shoghi Effendi as to full Interpretation of the Message of Baha'u'llah and infallible guidance to the Universal House of Justice.

The will and testement of Abdul'baha explained this in detail.
Shoghi Effendi has clarified his conferred infallibility.
The Universal House of Justice has clarified their Infalability.
We can not seperate that Infallibility from what Baha'u'llah has given.
Regards Tony

Did Baha'u'llah say "I confer infallibility upon Abdu'l-Baha" or did He say to turn to Abdu'l-Baha after His passing? There is a big difference between those two things. Infallibility means you cannot make a mistake but I cannot logically accommodate that any human being is above making a mistake. I can believe that about Baha'u'llah because he was a Manifestation of God, but even then I think He was only infallible in what He wrote that He said was revealed to Him by God, because God is infallible. The idea that the UHJ is infallible is problematic. Ideally, if we were living in a more advanced age they might be infallible but I cannot believe that they are infallible now. Just some things that have been uncovered about what they did tells us they are not infallible.

We should still follow the teachings and instructions of Abdu'l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi and the UHJ, but we can do that even if they are not infallible. We can just say they know more than we do and they have authority. The Jews obeyed Moses but they never considered Him infallible. The Muslims obey the Qur'an but they do not believe that Muhammad was infallible.

 

[paarsurrey]

Did Baha'u'llah say "I confer infallibility upon Abdu'l-Baha" or did He say to turn to Abdu'l-Baha after His passing. There is a big difference between those two things. Infallibility means you cannot make a mistake but I cannot logically accommodate that any human being is above making a mistake. I can believe that about Baha'u'llah because he was a Manifestation of God, but even then I think He was only infallible in what He wrote that He said was revealed to Him by God, because God is infallible. The idea that the UHJ is infallible is problematic. Ideally, if we were living in a more advanced age they might be infallible but I cannot believe that they are infallible now. Just some things that have been uncovered about what they did tells us they are not infallible.

We should still follow the teachings and instructions of Abdu'l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi and the UHJ, but we can do that even if they are not infallible. We can just say they know more than we do and they have authority. The Jews obeyed Moses but they never considered Him infallible. The Muslims obey the Qur'an but they do not believe that Muhammad was infallible.

I agree with many points mentioned in the post by our Bahai friend Trailblazer here. Only G-d is infallible, everybody else is fallible and open to make mistakes of misunderstanding or otherwise.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

The Covernant of Baha'u'llah has conferred infallibility to both Abdul'baha and on to Shoghi Effendi as to full Interpretation of the Message of Baha'u'llah and infallible guidance to the Universal House of Justice.
The will and testement of Abdul'baha explained this in detail.
Shoghi Effendi has clarified his conferred infallibility.
The Universal House of Justice has clarified their Infalability.
We can not seperate that Infallibility from what Baha'u'llah has given.
Regards Tony

"Baha'u'llah has conferred infallibility to both Abdul'baha and on to Shoghi Effendi" Unquote.

If Bahaullah could confer infallibility to others , why did Bahaullah not confer it on to all his Bahais followers or to all the human race at large, please?
I believe, therefore, it is either a superstition or a blind-faith of the Bahai people, nothing more, please.

Regards

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Did Baha'u'llah say "I confer infallibility upon Abdu'l-Baha" or did He say to turn to Abdu'l-Baha after His passing? There is a big difference between those two things. Infallibility means you cannot make a mistake but I cannot logically accommodate that any human being is above making a mistake. I can believe that about Baha'u'llah because he was a Manifestation of God, but even then I think He was only infallible in what He wrote that He said was revealed to Him by God, because God is infallible. The idea that the UHJ is infallible is problematic. Ideally, if we were living in a more advanced age they might be infallible but I cannot believe that they are infallible now. Just some things that have been uncovered about what they did tells us they are not infallible.

We should still follow the teachings and instructions of Abdu'l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi and the UHJ, but we can do that even if they are not infallible. We can just say they know more than we do and they have authority. The Jews obeyed Moses but they never considered Him infallible. The Muslims obey the Qur'an but they do not believe that Muhammad was infallible.

Trailblazer a study of the Covenant is imperitive. In the years ahead this will be attacked from all sides and I wish you strength in those times.

Baha'u'llah appointed Abdul'baha and what Abdul'baha offered, was the intent of the message of Baha'u'llah. There is much to study on that aspect and there is left no doubt, Abdul'baha on matters of interpretation of Baha'u'llahs Message, speaks with the Authority of Baha'u'llah.

"It is incumbent upon the Aghsán, the Afnán and My kindred to turn, one and all, their faces towards the Most Mighty Branch. Consider that which We have revealed in Our Most Holy Book: "When the ocean of My presence hath ebbed and the Book of My Revelation is ended, turn your faces toward Him Whom God hath purposed, Who hath branched from this Ancient Root." The object of this sacred verse is none other except the Most Mighty Branch ('Abdu'l-Bahá). Thus have We graciously revealed unto you our potent Will, and I am verily the Gracious, the All-Powerful." (Bahá'u'lláh, cited in "The World Order of Bahá'u'lláh - Selected Letters, p. 134)

Now we have the will and testaments in 3 parts of Abdul'baha that passes that Authority to Shoghi Effendi and the Universal House of Justice, as such it is as if Baha'u'llah also gave thise instructions.

How else will the Faith remain undivided, unless the Covernant is clear on these matters?

How else has the Faith remained undivided, despite so many attempted attacks to divide it?

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

If Bahaullah could confer infallibility to others , why did Bahaullah not confer it on to all his Bahais followers or to all the human race at large, please?

Do you think that you have the capacity of Muhammad, a capacity given by Allah?

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

I agree with many points mentioned in the post by our Bahai friend Trailblazer here. Only G-d is infallible, everybody else is fallible and open to make mistakes of misunderstanding or otherwise.

It is a Baha’i belief that God is infallible and the reason all the Manifestations of God are also infallible because their will is identical with the Will of God. That is called Divine Unity. Baha’u’llah was not God in the flesh but what He revealed was identical to the Will of God. Don’t you consider what is written in the Qur’an to be identical with the Will of God? That came from God to Muhammad didn’t it?

“Regard thou the one true God as One Who is apart from, and immeasurably exalted above, all created things. The whole universe reflecteth His glory, while He is Himself independent of, and transcendeth His creatures. This is the true meaning of Divine unity. He Who is the Eternal Truth is the one Power Who exerciseth undisputed sovereignty over the world of being, Whose image is reflected in the mirror of the entire creation. All existence is dependent upon Him, and from Him is derived the source of the sustenance of all things. This is what is meant by Divine unity; this is its fundamental principle.

Some, deluded by their idle fancies, have conceived all created things as associates and partners of God, and imagined themselves to be the exponents of His unity. By Him Who is the one true God! Such men have been, and will continue to remain, the victims of blind imitation, and are to be numbered with them that have restricted and limited the conception of God.

He is a true believer in Divine unity who, far from confusing duality with oneness, refuseth to allow any notion of multiplicity to becloud his conception of the singleness of God, who will regard the Divine Being as One Who, by His very nature, transcendeth the limitations of numbers.

The essence of belief in Divine unity consisteth in regarding Him Who is the Manifestation of God and Him Who is the invisible, the inaccessible, the unknowable Essence as one and the same. By this is meant that whatever pertaineth to the former, all His acts and doings, whatever He ordaineth or forbiddeth, should be considered, in all their aspects, and under all circumstances, and without any reservation, as identical with the Will of God Himself. This is the loftiest station to which a true believer in the unity of God can ever hope to attain. Blessed is the man that reacheth this station, and is of them that are steadfast in their belief.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 166-167​

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer a study of the Covenant is imperitive. In the years ahead this will be attacked from all sides and I wish you strength in those times.

Baha'u'llah appointed Abdul'baha and what Abdul'baha offered, was the intent of the message of Baha'u'llah. There is much to study on that aspect and there is left no doubt, Abdul'baha on matters of interpretation of Baha'u'llahs Message, speaks with the Authority of Baha'u'llah.

"It is incumbent upon the Aghsán, the Afnán and My kindred to turn, one and all, their faces towards the Most Mighty Branch. Consider that which We have revealed in Our Most Holy Book: "When the ocean of My presence hath ebbed and the Book of My Revelation is ended, turn your faces toward Him Whom God hath purposed, Who hath branched from this Ancient Root." The object of this sacred verse is none other except the Most Mighty Branch ('Abdu'l-Bahá). Thus have We graciously revealed unto you our potent Will, and I am verily the Gracious, the All-Powerful." (Bahá'u'lláh, cited in "The World Order of Bahá'u'lláh - Selected Letters, p. 134)

Now we have the will and testaments in 3 parts of Abdul'baha that passes that Authority to Shoghi Effendi and the Universal House of Justice, as such it is as if Baha'u'llah also gave thise instructions.

How else will the Faith remain undivided, unless the Covernant is clear on these matters?

How else has the Faith remained undivided, despite so many attempted attacks to divide it?

Regards Tony

I have read the Will and Testaments of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha as well as the book entitled The Covenant of Baha'u'llah, which covers all aspects of the Covenant in great detail and quotes these documents.

The issue here is not of authority, it is of infallibility. Jesus gave authority to His disciples but they were not infallible. To say that somebody is infallible is to say they cannot make a mistake. Baha'is and non-Baha'is need to understand the CONTEXT in which Baha'is consider Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi and the UHJ infallible.

Words are funny things. they means different things to different people, especially when they land in sentences. So even if we have the authoritative interpretations of Baha'u'llah's Writings from Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi, and what the UHJ writes to clarify things, these have to be interpreted by those who read them. They are not going to mean the same things to everyone. People will interpret them differently and there can still be infighting among Baha'is because of this.

The Covenant is our greatest protection against schisms and splitting off into sects simply because those who break the Covenant will be ousted from the Faith so they can do not damage, but it does not prevent Baha'is from disagreeing about what the Writings actually MEAN. I disagree with many Baha'is about the meaning of "world" as it is referred to in Gleanings. I disagree with many Baha'is concerning what Baha'u'llah enjoined us to do regarding proclaiming and teaching the Faith. To me it is very clear what He said, but others do not see it the same way.

Everyone has a brain that processes incoming information differently given our intelligence, childhood and adult experiences, education, etc. Everyone has a bias. That is unavoidable. It is part of being human. I guess that is okay as long as we do not fight about the meanings of the Writings, but unfortunately ego is also a part of being human.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

The issue here is not of authority, it is of infallibility. Jesus gave authority to His disciples but they were not infallible. To say that somebody is infallible is to say they cannot make a mistake. Baha'is and non-Baha'is need to understand the CONTEXT in which Baha'is consider Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi and the UHJ infallible.

Abdul'baha explained this in detail;

45: EXPLANATION OF THE VERSE OF THE KITÁB-I-AQDAS, “THERE IS NO PARTNER FOR HIM WHO IS THE DAYSPRING OF REVELATION IN HIS MOST GREAT INFALLIBILITY”

"It is said in the holy verse: “There is no partner for Him Who is the Dayspring of Revelation in His Most Great Infallibility. He is, in truth, the exponent of ‘God doeth whatsoever He willeth’ in the kingdom of creation. Indeed the Almighty hath exclusively reserved this station for Himself and to none is given a share in this sublime and highly exalted distinction.”

Know that infallibility is of two kinds: essential infallibility and acquired infallibility....Essential infallibility is peculiar to the supreme Manifestation.....

....But acquired infallibility is not a natural necessity; on the contrary, it is a ray of the bounty of infallibility which shines from the Sun of Reality upon hearts, and grants a share and portion of itself to souls. Although these souls have not essential infallibility, still they are under the protection of God—that is to say, God preserves them from error. Thus many of the holy beings who were not dawning-points of the Most Great Infallibility, were yet kept and preserved from error under the shadow of the protection and guardianship of God, for they were the mediators of grace between God and men. If God did not protect them from error, their error would cause believing souls to fall into error, and thus the foundation of the Religion of God would be overturned, which would not be fitting nor worthy of God........

:...To epitomize: essential infallibility belongs especially to the supreme Manifestations, and acquired infallibility is granted to every holy soul. For instance, the Universal House of Justice, if it be established under the necessary conditions—with members elected from all the people—that House of Justice will be under the protection and the unerring guidance of God. If that House of Justice shall decide unanimously, or by a majority, upon any question not mentioned in the Book, that decision and command will be guarded from mistake. Now the members of the House of Justice have not, individually, essential infallibility; but the body of the House of Justice is under the protection and unerring guidance of God: this is called conferred infallibility.
Briefly, it is said that the “Dayspring of Revelation” is the manifestation of these words, “He doeth whatsoever He willeth”; this condition is peculiar to that Holy Being, and others have no share of this essential perfection. That is to say, that as the supreme Manifestations certainly possess essential infallibility, therefore whatever emanates from Them is identical with the truth, and conformable to reality. They are not under the shadow of the former laws. Whatever They say is the word of God, and whatever They perform is an upright action. No believer has any right to criticize; his condition must be one of absolute submission, for the Manifestation arises with perfect wisdom—so that whatever the supreme Manifestation says and does is absolute wisdom, and is in accordance with reality..."

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

Abdul'baha explained this in detail;

45: EXPLANATION OF THE VERSE OF THE KITÁB-I-AQDAS, “THERE IS NO PARTNER FOR HIM WHO IS THE DAYSPRING OF REVELATION IN HIS MOST GREAT INFALLIBILITY”

"It is said in the holy verse: “There is no partner for Him Who is the Dayspring of Revelation in His Most Great Infallibility. He is, in truth, the exponent of ‘God doeth whatsoever He willeth’ in the kingdom of creation. Indeed the Almighty hath exclusively reserved this station for Himself and to none is given a share in this sublime and highly exalted distinction.”

Know that infallibility is of two kinds: essential infallibility and acquired infallibility....Essential infallibility is peculiar to the supreme Manifestation.....

....But acquired infallibility is not a natural necessity; on the contrary, it is a ray of the bounty of infallibility which shines from the Sun of Reality upon hearts, and grants a share and portion of itself to souls. Although these souls have not essential infallibility, still they are under the protection of God—that is to say, God preserves them from error. Thus many of the holy beings who were not dawning-points of the Most Great Infallibility, were yet kept and preserved from error under the shadow of the protection and guardianship of God, for they were the mediators of grace between God and men. If God did not protect them from error, their error would cause believing souls to fall into error, and thus the foundation of the Religion of God would be overturned, which would not be fitting nor worthy of God........

:...To epitomize: essential infallibility belongs especially to the supreme Manifestations, and acquired infallibility is granted to every holy soul. For instance, the Universal House of Justice, if it be established under the necessary conditions—with members elected from all the people—that House of Justice will be under the protection and the unerring guidance of God. If that House of Justice shall decide unanimously, or by a majority, upon any question not mentioned in the Book, that decision and command will be guarded from mistake. Now the members of the House of Justice have not, individually, essential infallibility; but the body of the House of Justice is under the protection and unerring guidance of God: this is called conferred infallibility.
Briefly, it is said that the “Dayspring of Revelation” is the manifestation of these words, “He doeth whatsoever He willeth”; this condition is peculiar to that Holy Being, and others have no share of this essential perfection. That is to say, that as the supreme Manifestations certainly possess essential infallibility, therefore whatever emanates from Them is identical with the truth, and conformable to reality. They are not under the shadow of the former laws. Whatever They say is the word of God, and whatever They perform is an upright action. No believer has any right to criticize; his condition must be one of absolute submission, for the Manifestation arises with perfect wisdom—so that whatever the supreme Manifestation says and does is absolute wisdom, and is in accordance with reality..."

Regards Tony

Thanks so much for clarifying that. I remember reading that now. I have now saved it into a Word document for future reference.

Being under the protection and unerring guidance of God reminds me of what Christians say about the indwelling Holy Spirit guiding them unerringly. However, I do not think anyone can know that they are guided by the Holy Spirit. They can believe they are but they cannot know. It is logically impossible that everyone who says they are guided are guided because they all believe different things.

 

[siti]

Being under the protection and unerring guidance of God reminds me of what Christians say about the indwelling Holy Spirit guiding them unerringly. However, I do not think anyone can know that they are guided by the Holy Spirit. They can believe they are but they cannot know. It is logically impossible that everyone who says they are guided are guided because they all believe different things.

That^...and so the Baha'i claim of "infallibility" (as expounded by @Tony Bristow-Stagg above) depends on the same divine "protection from error" that Christians and Muslims depend on for the reliability of their scriptural traditions which Baha'is deny. Yet another example of Baha'i doublespeak methinks. God can protect the Baha'i scriptures from error in transmission and interpretation but not the others.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Thanks so much for clarifying that. I remember reading that now. I have now saved it into a Word document for future reference.

Being under the protection and unerring guidance of God reminds me of what Christians say about the indwelling Holy Spirit guiding them unerringly. However, I do not think anyone can know that they are guided by the Holy Spirit. They can believe they are but they cannot know. It is logically impossible that everyone who says they are guided are guided because they all believe different things.

Yes none of us can know, those that are appointed knew what faced them. You would be aware of the reaction of Shoghi Effendi when he found out he had been appointed the Guardian and the struggle he had with this. He later said he knew his life had ended.

It could be said that in the Bible that Peter was the rock of Faith that the Church was to be built on and thus this became the line of the Catholic Church, but no clear authority and thus division resulted.

Likewise with Muhammad, Ali was to be the line of the covernant, (this is a big topic). As it did not appear in the Quran, again division happened.

That is the reason for the Covenant in this day, certainty..In this day, which will not be followed by night. The line of the Covernant is recorded by the Pen of Baha'u'llah and those who were appointed also recorded the line to follow.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

That^...and so the Baha'i claim of "infallibility" (as expounded by @Tony Bristow-Stagg above) depends on the same divine "protection from error" that Christians and Muslims depend on for the reliability of their scriptural traditions which Baha'is deny. Yet another example of Baha'i doublespeak methinks. God can protect the Baha'i scriptures from error in transmission and interpretation but not the others.

We Acknowledge the line of Peter through the Catholic Church.

We Acknowledge the line through Ali which is Shia.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

That^...and so the Baha'i claim of "infallibility" (as expounded by @Tony Bristow-Stagg above) depends on the same divine "protection from error" that Christians and Muslims depend on for the reliability of their scriptural traditions which Baha'is deny. Yet another example of Baha'i doublespeak methinks. God can protect the Baha'i scriptures from error in transmission and interpretation but not the others.

I do understand what you are saying but the difference is that the Christians and Muslims do not have a Covenant written by a Manifestation of God that delineates succession of authority within the religion and protects against errors in transmission and interpretation. In that sense Baha'is have an edge.

 

[siti]

We Acknowledge the line of Peter through the Catholic Church.

We Acknowledge the line through Ali which is Shia.

What does it mean to "acknowledge the line through"? Does that mean Peter was infallible in interpreting the Christian revelation? Does it mean the Catholic Church is infallible in its interpretation? And is Shia Islam an infallible interpretation of the Qur'anic revelation?

 

[siti]

I do understand what you are saying but the difference is that the Christians and Muslims do not have a Covenant written by a Manifestation of God that delineates succession of authority within the religion and protects against errors in transmission and interpretation. In that sense Baha'is have an edge.

An edge or a hedge? Anyway, as @Tony Bristow-Stagg has pointed out, both the Christian and Muslim traditions do indeed have a succession of authority delineated by the founders - Peter and the Catholic Church in the first case and Ali and the Shia Imams in the second. So are Tony's claims false?

 

[Trailblazer]

An edge or a hedge? Anyway, as @Tony Bristow-Stagg has pointed out, both the Christian and Muslim traditions do indeed have a succession of authority delineated by the founders - Peter and the Catholic Church in the first case and Ali and the Shia Imams in the second. So are Tony's claims false?

In Christianity and Islam, I do not think there was any authority conferred in writing like we have in the Baha'i Faith. That was my point.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

What does it mean to "acknowledge the line through"? Does that mean Peter was infallible in interpreting the Christian revelation? Does it mean the Catholic Church is infallible in its interpretation? And is Shia Islam an infallible interpretation of the Qur'anic revelation?

Siti, hopefully will find time to respond later. Lots happening, death of good friend, family visiting, working day job, building extension at home.... etc - Such fun life

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

So are Tony's claims false?

By all means why not look it up , I had to in my search.

Regards Tony

 

[siti]

In Christianity and Islam, I do not think there was any authority conferred in writing like we have in the Baha'i Faith. That was my point.

Yes I know what your point was - ah - but Baha'u'llah himself wrote it down - therefore it must be from God, whereas the Christian and Muslim claims of succession are mere tradition. My point is anybody can write anything down and claim divine revelation. On that basis there is no difference between the Pope and Abdu'l Baha in terms of "conferred infallibility" - except the fact that they both get stuff wrong of course!