Presuppositional Apologetics and Other Religions: Toward a More Refined Approach

This brief post will recall the apologetic encounter of the late Dr. Greg Bahnsen in Orange County with the two alleged (by the debate title) "Sister Faiths" -- Islam and Contemporary Judaism -- offering a critique of his own presuppositional evaluation in light of the Word of God, and in terms of successful strategies for refuting the gainsayers, who oppose themselves.

A brief summary of the interactive panel - between Bahnsen, a Jewish Rabbi, and a Muslim apologist - can be found on the Covenant Media Foundation website under "Free Articles," which (for the sake of brevity) I will here use for the genesis of my evaluation. It is designated "PA123."

First, we must ask (from the end of the evening backward) Did Greg Bahnsen follow his own excellent advice offered in his several courses on VanTillian (presuppositional) apologetics, and were his rejoinders adequate to the task at hand?

To this two part question, I will in the perennial Bahnsen-like fashion, "Yes and No." Here is the CMF summary of the event with my own comments added [in brackets like this]. The article reads:

..... On October 16 a panel comprised of two professors and a L.A. Times religion writer cross-examined the three religious scholars for two more hours. Dr. Bahnsen's strategy was to observe that both Judaism and Islam recognize the divine inspiration of the Torah and most of the Old Testament. (In witnessing to Muslims, Christians need to realize that the Koran honors the writings of Moses, David, etc. as previous revelation.) Therefore, on that common basis, the three religions can objectively judge which theological perspective is divinely authorized.

[Unfortunately, here I must begin with the "No," part. Bahnsen has repeatedly uttered (and written at length) of Dr. Van Til's biblical dictum that belief and unbelief relate to each in an entirely and only 'antithetical' fashion. Given the respective beginnings of differing worldview with wholly different first principles of what kind of world this is (metaphysics), how we know what we know (epistemology) and how we should live our lives (ethics), no two systems so constructed can ever have more than "formal agreement" at any one point.]

[Even when they say the same things (word for word), as in "Jesus was a prophet," they cannot possibly mean the same thing by the utterance. For the Christian, this sentence means, "According to the word of God, as it was originally given in the NT autographs and preserved purely and entirely by the special Providence of the Almighty through the ages and passed down to His church, the Lord Jesus Christ was the final prophet God gave to men, to restore and establish the right meaning of all the law and prophets before him, in his teachings and life, and as their prophesied fulfillment, as the Christ who must first suffer and then enter his [resurrection] glory. For what Jesus prophesied -- his death and resurrection as king of kings with all authority in heaven and earth -- forms the very heart of his ministry as a prophet.].

[This cannot be what the Muslim or Jewish protagonist means by "prophet." This antithesis extends from the fact that Christians believe all propositions, and only each proposition, in the contextual light of all other propositions in the canon of the Holy Scripture. Thus, we must deny the opening approach stated in the article here evaluted since there simply is no "common ground" between belief and unbelief in the interaction of worldviews. And the common citation of this or that text as authoritative from the First Testament, can never amount to a common understanding between such ideologies unless and until each understands the Person and work of the Lord Jesus as the primary referent and controlling hermeneutical feature of each and every text of that text. For all the law and the prophets speak of Him.]

No text handled -- without the goodness of God in Jesus Christ as its defined (and redemptive-historically developed) target, imported into the sense of any text -- can ever mean the same thing as one understood within some other hermeneutical framework. No, not one. We must here deny what Dr. Van Tiil so aptly dubbed "the myth of neutrality." This means that the Word of God requires us to say that Bahnsen failed at this point to uphold the requisite antithesis necessary for the total victory God has in mind for his people in overcoming the lies of the evil one.]

This is not to say that Bahnsen's defense has little of value to offer. Quite the contrary. Even in its more blunted form -- which could have much been sharpened by a greater sense of a purer antithesis in his methodology (of the kind he regularly taught) -- he offered some extraordinarily telling blows against both Islam and contemporary Judaism, which we would be wise to seize upon where accurate (and fully antithetical), and to re-orient and develop at those points where his teaching proved better than his practice at this particular juncture. Here we will follow the parental dictum, "Do not do as I do, do as I say." In this sense, since his teaching was so good on this topic, we can still say he was right, even when his practice did not always match his didactic insights.].

It turned out that the other two scholars shied away from doing exegetical theology and from arguing with Dr. Bahnsen on the basis of the Biblical text. Many in the audience observed this.

[I have heard the tapes more than once. This is entirely accurate. Bahnsen was intimidating in speech to put it mildly].

Many in the audience also heard a clear presentation of the Christian gospel in Dr. Bahnsen's apologetic - Jesus is the promised Messiah, and salvation is not by good works, but rather by faith in the redemptive work of the Messiah.

[Dr. Bahnsen's presentation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ was -- well -- Solomonic. Every minister should have to memorize it. This is simply the best I have ever heard it declared. The cost of either attending (or in my case buying the tapes later) for the debate was more than worth the hearing of the Christian kerygma so skillfully attended. I can only imagine the rest of the audience was likewise stunned].

In his response to the Muslim scholar, Dr. Bahnsen argued that the Koran claims to be the inscription of an eternal book in heaven, and yet later portions of the Koran "abrogate" earlier ones.

[This is true, and well worth exploring; but the studied Muslim is also ready with his "error" passages, and "points of conflict" he believes he can find in the Older and Newer Testaments as they currently read. Because this lacks the presuppositional force of Dr. Bahnsen's more rigorous critiques (of internal, dialectial tensions within the Muslim worldview), a charge WHICH IS NOT REVERSIBLE because of its transcendental nature; thus, this particular challenge, we would have to classify as an evidentiary (non-presuppositional, i.e. unbiblical) approach to apologetics. It may be both instructive and correct, but is better suited to teaching situations -- where Christians are the audience and not unbelievers -- after the transcendental challenge has utterly undermined the Islamic and Judaic worldviews, showing just where they fail to provide the necessary preconditions -- for logic, science and morality -- and for their own particular, central theological claims. Thus, I regard this as an error given the context in which it was applied, though not with respect to the truth-value of the claims in question.].

He argued that the Bible - which Muslims say they accept - teaches that later revelations from God must conform with previous revelations. Moreover, the Koran claims to be continuous with the Bible and a confirmation of it. Yet there are clearly contradictions between the two books (for instance, regarding Christ's deity, His dying on the cross, etc.).

[This brings us back to the myth of neutrality. When Muslims say "Bible," they mean the original one, which on their view, looked just like the Quran. They do not mean, the 66 books of the canon of Scripture as they presently read, say in the KJV or RSV. Again, I would suggest that Dr. Bahnsen has targeted the right teaching to the wrong audience. The presuppositions of the Muslim (and Rabbi) are such that we must show the folly of them ON THEIR OWN TERMS, before adding the kind of confirmatory evidence one finds acceptable upon adopting the true Christian faith, found in the Word of God itself, and in the classic Reformed confessions, and historic Christian creeds.].

Likewise, there are numerous conflicts between Biblical stories and the Koranic versions of them. [A point of curiosity to both Christians and Muslims, but the differences will be explained in terms of one's ultimate pre-commitments, which will obviously differ one from another for reasons already given].

There are also embarrassing historical errors in the Koran (for instance, the mother of Jesus is called the sister of Aaron: "Mary" becomes "Miriam").

[Muslims wishing to remain faithful to their first principles will simply deny that this is an error, and that the error lies instead with the corrupted NT. But we can fix this problem, once the Muslim goes on the offensive, employing the canons of western historiography common to secular universities to attempt to undo the historicity or authenticity of any passage in the New Testament. And they WILL do this.

The Muslim apologist who does this tacitly admits the criteria behind the alleged authority invoked for such criticisms -- by simply offering them. He has thus confirmed their testimony as well regarding the historical errors in the Quran itself -- as those same secular historians and others like them will be happy enough to admit. This way, we find that the presupposed authority of secular western scholars - which the MUSLIM has so foolishly affirmed - undermine his own basis for believing anything theological about Jesus, the prophets or the apostles. He has claimed the NT is corrupt (no good source for him there) and then accidentally also eliminated the Quran as well). This happens when Muslims rush in where angels fear to tread.

But Dr. Bahnsen has not entered this second half of the equation to render the more effective reductio adabsurdum charge. Here, we can help him along a bit, and should.].

Further, there are contradictions right within the Koran itself (for instance, all of Noah's family is said to be saved through the flood, but one of Noah's sons is elsewhere said to have drowned in the flood).

[When the Rabbi or Muslim antes up by trying to show contradictions in the NT, we can first point out that unless they can show that their own worldviews can provide the transcendentals as can the Christian worldview, this only amounts to a Tu Quo Que challenge; this fallacy consists in failing to answer the charges against your own position, and instead simply attacking your opponent's, as if to say, "We don't have the goods, but you don't either." This does not help his position in the least. He has in fact admitted defeat by finding it necessary NOT to defend his worldview and simply substitute an attack for it. Punching holes in your boat won't fix the ones in mine.

The contradictions within not only the Qu'ran, but also the Ahadith (Islam offers two targets to the Christian apologist, not one only; and the second makes his job far easier when added to the first). The Christian must eventually, however, come to that point where he offers a blow-by-blow transcendental comparison of worldviews, highlighting the transcendental strengths of the Christian outlook over against the corresponding weaknesses of Islam and contemporary Judaism, which is easy enough, but only if Christians stick to the apologetic program outlined in the Word of God.].

Dr. Bahnsen argued that the Islamic doctrine of "tanzih" (or transcendence) - which says that no human language can positively describe Allah because he is allegedly "incomparable" (Surah 42:11) - would render it logically impossible for the Koran to be what it claims to be, a positive revelation and description of Allah.

[This is a real and problematic dialectical tension for Islam. It never has -- even in Kalam, wherein Islamic scholars sought to engage in a kind of systematic theology -- been able to reconcile its claims regarding God's complete transcendence with His utter nearness or immanence in the created order. The Quran declares both, but defines them in incompatible ways, such that (given the Quranic definitions) both cannot be the case.

This is well worth exploring. On the one hand Allah is "altogether unlike any creature," when the Quran affirms his majesty above the creation, but then, on the other hand, man is created in God's image. This shows -- on any definition of Imago Dei -- that God is NOT altogether unlike creature, but must be similar to men in some respects. As Dr. Bahnsen so often said, "You simply cannot have it BOTH ways."

Many other dialectical tensions plague the Muslim outlook, and Dr. Bahnsen needed to expound and declare these at length. This comprises the most serious set of omissions in his presentation. The absoluteness Oneness of the Muslim "deity" leaves the Muslim with no analogy between the many-faceted creation -- we see all manner of different kinds of things around us (animal, vegetable, mineral, phenomena, processes, and the like), and the God who (allegedly) made them. Here, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity shines as a philosophical beacon, in that, where it holds the one-ness and many-ness of God as equally ultimate, it alone adequately answers the perennial philosophical problem of the "one and the many."

The world appears as it does, because it reflects the eternal power and divine nature of the God of creation, who subsists eternally as one God in three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the same in substance, equal in power and glory. Thus do we see the unity (uniformity of nature) of all the many-splendored variety about us. In fact, curiously, light has three primary colors. The creation affords many other excellent analogies to the Triune God as well. But the contrary to this high and holy doctrine can be shown plainly as logically impossible, which many wrest to their own undoing as with the Scriptures.

Only the Christian worldview adequately accounts for this uni-diversity; not the Jewish outlook, nor the Muslim, nor that of any non-Trinitarian faith -- the Arianism of the "Jehovah's Witness" -- or any other form of religion, which maintains the appearance of piety, but denies its power. The Word of God provides the victory the apologist needs will he only stick to its basic message regarding God and His created order, as manifested in all the canon of the Holy Scripture. Where we go, they cannot follow.

Countless other objections to the Christian worldview by Muslim and Jew alike provide the very basis for cross-referencing these with the logical mandates of their own worldview, such that their CHALLENGES are their rhetorical undoing. The Jewish apologist who wants the Older Testament without the New is forced to account for a God who demands an atoning sacrifice and high holy days as absolutely essential, and then Who destroys the Temple -- the only place where those sacrifices can be accepted - for over 2,000 years. This "God" thus forbids and requires the same thing for the salvation of the souls of men. No wonder embarrassed Judaism has shifted its emphasis for reconciliation with "God" to their own prayers, gifts, and well-doing. The Older Testament openly affirms that this will never save them in countless ways. The very initial demand for a substitutionary sacrifice in the first place -- from the days when God clothed our first forefathers to the days of the Mosaic tabernacle-Temple (For it became a Temple under Solomon which was on a tabernacle, which came to rest at Gibeon under Moses).

Psalm 40 declares straightway the inherent inefficacy of even the commanded levitical sacrifice. It did not, of its own accord ever, at any time, please God. For it is an abomination to think that an animal by itself could atone for a man's sins (as though the animal were the equal of man, and also made in God's image; for this is what is implied by the supposed adequacy of the original levitical sacrifice if taken to be efficacious of its own. Therefore the Lord Jesus said, "Here I am; it is written of me in the scroll; I have come to do your will, O God."

Therefore, according to this Psalm, on the night he was betrayed, the Lord Jesus prayed according to this song, saying, "NOT my will, but your will be done."

Thus, the Providence of God stands against the Jew, which the Older Testament declares is always from the Lord. If they are His people, then all that happens to them is by his command. Where then is the sacrifice which He demands? And where are the priests of Levi, whose genealogical records fell in the AD 70 catastrophe, never to be recovered. Without a priesthood, Temple or sacrifice for this sins, if the Jews of the Older Testament knew anything, they knew they were doomed for eternity. Moreover, the auxiliary books of the contemporary Jewish faith, Midrash and Mishnah, provide additional problems of major -- dare I say "biblical" proportions?
Each of these sources provides several other dialectical tensions in the Jewish, and the Ahadith and Koran many more for the Muslim to wrestle with. These include fundamental tangles between their notions of priesthood and creation, faith and the priesthood (we have seen between Providence and salvation), and the several other transcendental failures in their inabilities to answer the basic philosophical questions -- the one and the many, the problem of permanence and change (identity through time, the problems of induction and perception, etc), and the like.

If Allah is the absolute One God Muslims claim He is, then no variation should show up in a world which reflects his attributes. But the God of the Bible changes in one respect that is vital; He changes in his relationship to His people as his redemptive-historical plans unfolds because of their maturity to which he tends via sanctification of the Holy Spirit. Thus, God changes relationally, but not essentially, with one exception. By way of addition, the Second Person of the Trinity took on humanity, adding -- in time -- to Himself the nature of humanity.

"He had to be made like his brothers in every respect, save that He was without sin." And Thus in redeeming for Himself a people, God fundamentally changes his relationship to both His people -- who went from darkness to the Kingdom of the Son -- and all men, who are represented by His people pre-eminently as priests and kings over the earth (the Church). Surely, there is no greater change than redemption. Behold all things become new, if any man is in Christ Jesus.

The biblical world-view cannot be defeated but in the nature of the case, if held forward resolutely and without flinching, cannot be touched by any man who speaks against it; for to speak against the law, James says, is to be JUDGED BY THAT LAW (in like manner), which Word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword - not too mention a two-edged tongue which speaks against the Lord and against His anointed One.

For the law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. And the statutes of the Lord are altogether righteous. Taken then as a whole, and applied rigorously in debate, the outcome is foregone. Just as it says, "He shall dash them to pieces like pottery." And again, "A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand." But of the Scripture is says, "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God [The God of the Bible] is ONE (Mark 12:20): therefore, "The Scripture cannot be broken," (John 10:30) but will "accomplish all that for which I sent it forth" (Isaiah 55:11)].

The following text comes from the concluding section of Dr. Bahnsen's major presentation delivered during the first evening of dialogue:

"Neither Judaism nor Islam have an anointed one or Messiah who fulfills the anticipation of the Old Testament scriptures, even though they acknowledge them to be God's inspired self-revelation. For this reason the theologies of Judaism and Islam lack material adequacy: they do not do justice to the message of God's revealed word.

[By referring to them as lacking material adequacy, Dr. Bahnsen has pointed out that they have no authoritative message to declare which confidently promises salvation as an absolute guarantee because it is based on what GOD has done and not on the deeds of men. In Judaism and Islam, for all their chanting to the contrary, God is not finally sovereign in salvation. Only in the Christian faith of the Reformed tradition is it said plainly, "Salvation is of the Lord" who is the "Author and finisher of our faith."]

That is why we look upon them as heretical versions of the Biblical faith, versions which do not deliver good news to mankind.

Following upon their failure to affirm the promised Messiah, Judaism and Islam cannot proclaim an assured word of salvation to those who know that they stand guilty before a holy and just God. Christianity is uniquely the religion of salvation by grace through faith in the finished work of the Christ.

Paul puts it in these words: "For by grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9). Christianity teaches that Christ paid the price of sin, and that through faith in Him and His saving work, men may be forgiven by God. They cannot earn this forgiveness by good works, nor can they take any credit before God. Salvation comes as a gift, appropriated by faith, rather than meritorious good deeds.

Judaism and Islam cannot and do not teach such good news about grace and salvation. By not trusting in the work of God's Messianic Son for redemption, both Judaism and Islam are in their own distinctive ways committed to some form of works-righteousness or legalism. They are left to seek a right standing before God through imperfectly good works performed in human wisdom and strength.

[Human wisdom and strength, plus $2.50, can buy you a cup of coffee and a bagel with cream cheese these days].

The Apostle Paul knew the burden and bondage of such a futile approach unto God. Those who attempt such do not properly comprehend the high demands of God's personal holiness, as set forth in His perfect law. Paul says that before the law of God "every mouth may be stopped" (Romans 3:19), for all are condemned by it. God does not judge on a curve or by moral averages. He judges according to His own flawless character, and as the prophet Habakkuk declared, His eyes are too pure than to look upon iniquity (1:13) - whether it be the iniquity of idolatry and murder, or the iniquity of selfishness, lust or gossip. Thus, as Paul wrote in Romans, "by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in His sight" (3:20). As the Psalmist said, "If you Yahweh should mark iniquities, who could stand?" (130:3).

[I call this "Smokin' aces."]

We flatter ourselves if we believe that our moral goodness somehow outweighs the many ways in which we sin and fall short of God's glory. But even worse, we insult the unchanging and holy character of God if we believe that anything good done by ourselves could take away the offense and offensiveness of our unrighteous attitudes and actions which we have admittedly done before God. God cannot deny Himself and simply pretend that we have not sinned, even if we wish to add to the balances a few kind deeds or decent attitudes (as humans might judge them).

[The greater sins of most people will be found in what their duties were, and in which they failed -- sins of omission. Almost always, when speaking of sin, people think immediately and self-justifyingly of sins of transgression only. This is because they have no idea of how extremely holy God is, and what He requires of them, for a lack of attending the reading of the Holy Scripture with all due diligence, which in itself constitutes a gross negligence subject to the condemnatory verdict of the Almighty. To treat lightly that which is holy, is in the Word, a most noxious sin. But it is not one you will ever see anyone commit. You cannot see what people do NOT DO. Nevertheless, the neglect of God's Word is extremely culpable before the Lord; and He is no respecter of persons. Moreover, we are to meditate on his law at all times -- as king David says, "Day and night" (Psalm 1) as it were like to us breakfast, lunch and dinner].

Good works simply do not eliminate the fact of our past sins or atone for them. And as long as those sins stand in our record before God, we have no hope of forgiveness and communion with Him. This is clearly the message of the Torah, as well as the rest of God's inspired word. The penalty of sin must be paid by another, if we would personally hope to escape that penalty ourselves.

Christianity uniquely proclaims the coming of the Messiah, in accordance with God's inscripturated promises, to pay the price of sin and make atonement. Through faith in Him, God's people may be justified before the Lord without sacrificing His unchanging justice. This is at the heart of the Christian message. Without this heart of the gospel, neither Judaism nor Islam present an alternative which is both formally and materially adequate to the nature of God, the human condition, or the truths of God's word in Scripture."

[This represents a flourishing presentation of the truth of God's holy Word adroitly adapted to the spiritual needs of Dr. Bahnsen's audience. And I would not change a word. In fact, I wish I had said that. With the aforementioned adjustments given to Dr. Bahnsen's fine presentation -- and a few left unmentioned but hinted at (with some like samples provided), the Christian apologist can, with great confidence in the soundness and fidelity of what he has been taught from the Word and confessions of the Christian faith, approach the subject of comparative religions.].

[The presuppositional guide to this question, though these will involve some unique comparisons at points in the Christian worldview to their counterparts in others, the method remains the same. Identify the crucial points of difference between the worldviews, isolate the points of difference in the non-Christian worldview as it weaknesses, and there begin comparing and contrasting one such weakness with another such error. These cannot -- for their deviation from the divine pattern, ever cohere, but much entangle themselves with folly as a net entangles ones feet, who would run a race, as it were, set before him.].

[But he has been ensnared by the cords of his sin, and cannot move against his opponent's position, save that he entangle himself further, each objection providing new assumptions the quick Christian apologist can add to the pool of "wayward propositions affirmed godlessly and without proper fear." These will then begin cancelling each other out at a more furious rate at the hands of the skilled advocate of the Holy Word.].

That is the strength of presuppositional apologetics, for which Dr. Bahnsen was so well noted, as well his Christian testimony, which often took a rather elegant form. I hope these few emendations might likewise serve to strengthen the hearts of God's people, both in knowing the certainty of the things we have been taught from the first, and in sharing the good news with your neighbors, no matter which faith he or she might affirm.

The Bible has the answer.