Ya, unless there is something in the original language that is missing from the english text, I cant see anyone coming to that conclusion without shoe horning the doctrine into the text.

“My original point in the post is that Bahnsen did to the Koran (in this instance) what he would never permit to be done to the Bible. The text is misrepresented by Bahnsen and the fact that some Muslim scholars misrepresent it too is not a sufficient reason for Bahnsen to do so.”

Going over some tapes I think I recall a lecture where he sort of quickly characterized, in a passing reference, the text that way or to that effect. But I dont think thats consistent with the method taught in his penpoint.
But it does sound like maybe he distilled it down for a sympathetic audience, and it sounds, as you say, like he is interpeting the Koran on his own. Certainly an error, whether intentional or not. I wouldnt characterize the man or his methods as being in line with that.

Im am really only defending the man, and only on the basis of his espoused method and teachings. We are all capable of fallng short of our ideals( and I believe you here)…I think Greg would be on your side in this critique.

“Can I at least get you to grant that Surah 42:11 doesn’t teach a hyper-transcendence?”

I wholehearted agree with you.

I hear you. Yes, I think Bahnsen is stepping onto the Muslim’s own ground in order to critique it. He is assuming its truth for the purpose of demonstrating its falsehood. With this practice I have no problem at all. However, my point is that Bahnsen nevertheless thinks that deriving a doctrine of Tanzih from Surah 42:11 is a valid interpretation of that text, and it is on this point alone that I critiqued him.

It is one thing to say that the text doesn’t mean what some Muslims think it does, but go on to critique their doctrine of tanzih anyway. And its another thing to say that you agree with those Muslims on their interpretation of Surah 42:11 and then critique their doctrine of tanzih.

The fact that Bahnsen is critiquing them internally does not justify his poor interpretation of that text himself.

The reason this matters is that there are statements in the Bible which say nearly the same thing as Surah 42:11 (Isa 55:8-9). If Bahnsen thinks that the Surah teaches the doctrine of tanzih, then he has no basis on which to claim that the Bible doesn’t say the same about the Christian God.

By all means he should’ve critiqued the doctrine of tanzih in the same fashion he did, but he didn’t need to agree with that interpretation of 42:11 to do that. My original point in the post is that Bahnsen did to the Koran (in this instance) what he would never permit to be done to the Bible. The text is misrepresented by Bahnsen and the fact that some Muslim scholars misrepresent it too is not a sufficient reason for Bahnsen to do so.

Can I at least get you to grant that Surah 42:11 doesn’t teach a hyper-transcendence?

Thats my point, I am probably unclear, but from what I read in his article he is critiquing the doctrine by assuming on the Muslim worldview that the extreme view of Tanzih is correct, and shows the consequences.

Maybe I misread, but it seems that you were characterizing Bahnsen as critiquing the Koran on the basis of the Surah 42:11 text.

Where as I think the text clearly shows he is criticizing against the doctrine, which is interpreted by some Muslims on the basis of the Surah.

“Sophisticated theologies offered by Muslim scholars interpret the theology of the Koran (cf. 42:11) as teaching the transcendence (tanzih) of unchanging Allah in such an extreme fashion that no human language (derived from changing experience) can positively and appropriate describe Allah — in which case the Koran rules out what the Koran claims to be.”

If I may, I am arguing that Bahnsen is assuming(presupposing) on the Muslim worldview (even if, not one in universal agreement) and is running with a very Muslim interpretation of the text, to show that on this Muslim view of Tanzih the Koran is contradictory.

This is not the same thing as Bahnsen reading the Koran, coming up with tanzih on his own, and thereby claiming to have found a contradiction.

I doubt I’ll be able to make much headway when you’re committed to the conclusion that I’m an uncharitable critic of your celebrity apologist.

First of all, I’m always skeptical when someone writes an article generalizing what scholars say and doesn’t offer one single citation to support the claim. You and Bahnsen have both done just this. But I’m not going to dismiss his arguments against Islam or anything you say on those grounds.

You are wrong if you think that Bahnsen simply thought that Muslims use that text to support the Tanzih doctrine without thinking himself that the verse says that as well. In the audio debates where he mentions that text, it is clear that he is using that verse to demonstrate problems with the Koran’s portrayal of Allah. On this point he agrees with the Muslims scholars he is critiquing.

At this point, I could take your strategy here and accuse you of not being researched enough or not being as familiar with Bahnsen as I am, but that’s silly. I don’t know what you’ve read or haven’t read just as you don’t know what I’ve read or haven’t read. All I know is what you’ve said, and it’s only on that basis that I conclude that you’re mistaken. I recommend you drop the air of supperiority in comments like, “I dont think you have researched the doctrine or its pervasiveness” and “Had you read the text…”

Certainly Bahnsen is critiquing a doctrine that SOME Muslims have espoused. But due to the fact that the text doesn’t say what those Muslims say the text says (or what Bahnsen says the text says), this doesn’t qualify as a critique of the Koran. I think a better strategy would be to argue for the inconsistency of the Koran (there is plenty of material here). If the Koran cannot stand then a defense of Islam cannot either. But by criticizing the theology of some Muslim scholars one only critiques what applies to them and not all of Islam.

The fact is that there are differences among Muslims as to the degrees to which Allah is transcendent. Bahnsen has criticized one of them, but many Muslims could simply say, “That’s not my view and that’s not what the Koran says so Bahnsen’s criticism doesn’t apply to true Islam.”

You might entertain the chance that maybe I did comprehend Bahnsen’s statement but I still have the audacity to disagree with it.

“Bahnsen’s use of that text. Surah 42:11 simply doesn’t say what any Muslim or Bahnsen says that it says. There is nothing in that text that Christians we do not say about the Christian God.”

Its is the doctrine in question not the text.

Establishing Tanzih via Surah 42:11 is not of Bahnsens doing, it is the proof text that Muslims cite.

It is a staple doctrine, and not something alllowed to be decided upon individually. Much like Catholocism, there is a religious structure, and you dont get to cherry pick your doctrines. Muslims dont take reform well, they are at least as a rough as group as medival Catholics

“Furthermore, it’s bad apologetics to use this as a critique of the whole faith because some people in the religion teach this doctrine.”

If it is not the doctrines of faith that we look at for inconsistency, what would you reccomend?

“That is not an internal critique of Islam, it is an internal critique of SOME Islamic theologians.”

It is an article of orthodox Muslim faith, there may be some that dont hold to it, but that is by far a minority. I dont think you have researched the doctrine or its pervasiveness.

Bottomline is that you could have taken the Bahnsen article as him criticizing the Muslim faith based on their own tenants, there is plenty of material there.

Instead you chose to misrepresent his comments like he read the text and came to the doctrine of Tanzih on his own.

A very dishonest treatment of the text of his article.

“Charity has nothing to do with my critique of Bahnsen.”

Sadly here we agree…

If it had been a brother in Christ’s mistake in judgement concerning apologetic methodology…you might entertain the chance that maybe you didnt fully comprehend the statement.

What does OP mean? Orthodox Presbyterian? Original Poster? Other Person? Oblong Packederm? I’m not sure.

There’s a lot of things to grieve over in this cold, cruel world: genocide, abortion, cancer deaths, starving children, etc. Yet you’re grieving over people who have learned from Bahnsen and still criticize him. How difficult this whole ordeal must be for you.

Years ago when I was in college and only months ago before I wrote this post, I read every word of Bahnsen’s little essay from Penpoint 1996, and I still think it is excellent in many ways. I’ve read it again, and yet I still disagree with Bahnsen’s use of that text. Surah 42:11 simply doesn’t say what any Muslim or Bahnsen says that it says. There is nothing in that text that Christians we do not say about the Christian God.

Furthermore, it’s bad apologetics to use this as a critique of the whole faith because some people in the religion teach this doctrine. That is not an internal critique of Islam, it is an internal critique of SOME Islamic theologians. All Muslims should no more consider that a valid critique of their faith than you would consider a criticism of what SOME Postmodern theologians say about the inability to describe God in human words to be a valid critique of your faith. I would never raise this argument in apologetic debate and I hope no one else ever does either.

Charity has nothing to do with my critique of Bahnsen. I will be judged one day for my lack of charity in many situations, but I am certain that one of them will not be that I was uncharitable in my reading and assessment of Greg Bahnsen’s article on presuppostional reasoning with false faiths.

I’m sure all of this only adds to your grief. Perhaps you’ll find comfort somewhere.

“Unfortunately, this has been done by some presuppostionalists. Greg Bahnsen, for example, argues that Allah is too transcendent to be able to reveal himself to humanity. He cites Surah 42:11 in support of this doctrine. The verse simply says, “Nothing can be compared with Him [Allah]. He alone hears all and sees all.” Now if we’re honest I think we have to admit that there is nothing in this verse that demonstrates any difference in the transcendence of Yahweh vs the transcendence of Allah.”

I am an unashamed fan of Bahnsen, and grieved whe I see Christians standing on his shoulders and not willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Had you read the text you extracted your quote from you would also have read
“Sophisticated theologies offered by Muslim scholars interpret the theology of the Koran (cf. 42:11) as teaching the transcendence (tanzih) of unchanging Allah in such an extreme fashion that no human language (derived from changing experience) can positively and appropriately describe Allah–in which case the Koran rules out what the Koran claims to be.”

He quotes the passage because it is one that Muslims use to back their doctrine of tanzih.

It is an internal critque, not one he is bringing to the text.

As a christian I think it is important to be charitable.
How much more so should we be charitable to those upon whose shoulders we stand?

I don’t see this as a problem however. For me, I see it as more of a complentary way of doing apologetics. First, is to show that everybody borrows the Christian faith in order to live their lives, then switching to evidence for the Bible as the true authority, such as textual criticism, transmission issues, archeology, etc. and doing internal critiques of other religions to show their short-comings.

At least that’s the way I see it, with my very limited mind anyway.

Much love

Michael,
Thanks for the necessary explanations. With regard to methodology, I think I did three things in the post.

1) Correct some errors in application of a good methodology. This clear when I say that pointing out contradictions in other religions is a fine approach only we must be careful that we don’t rip verses out of context when we do so. Then I gave a glaring example of Bahnsen having made this very error (which is why I was a bit taken back at your defense of him on this point).

2)Correct some bad methodology. Thus I say,
“Another approach that presuppositionalists take is to argue that the other major theistic religions are spinoffs and perversions of Christianity. John Frame and Steve Hays offer this argument in their response to John Johnson. There are several problems with this approach, not the least of which is that its hard to make the case that Judaism is a spinoff of Christianity. I’m not generally convinced that this is a very effective method in apologetics.”

3)Add a biblical theology approach that I’ve noticed generally lacking in presup approach to religions. I don’t see most presups emphasizing an apologetical role for the redemption of God’s people as God’s goal for humanity. I don’t see them showing the development of the history of the world and its intersect with salvation. Muslims and Christians have a radically different view of human history and thus redemptive history. I also don’t generally see presups emphasizing that regeneration is necessary to properly think God’s thoughts after him.

You are certainly right that employing a transcendental approach is where Bahnsen and I overlap. However, there are misapplications of that approach and then things that have been added (such as Frame and Hays geneological argument) that need to be dropped and then things that have been ignored that need to be added to transcendental methodology.

Great discussion. It definitely helps me get clear about what I think.

Thank you for the reply. Allow me to clear some things up. I never meant to suggest that substantiating claims is irrelevant or that by virtue of us claiming something the burden of proof magically falls on our opponent(s). I was simply taking for granted that Bahnsen, given his abilities as a philosopher, was not proof texting, being lazy in his critique, etc….I probably shouldn’t assume things like that. You know what happens when we assume don’t you? HA! Because I was taking for granted that Bahnsen was correct in his critique I just thought that you may be coming down on him for not citing enough texts in support of his conclusion. I’ll be more careful in the future!

With all that said….I still believe that you and Bahnsen are following the same methodology. You just think that you have understood Islam better than he did. It seems to me that you and Bahnsen both come to systematic conclusions (right or wrong as they may be) about a worldview or religion and based on those systematic conclusions you proceed to critique that religion or worldview by way of the transcendental argument. Is this what you have done in your post?

I’m not sure if you’re suggesting that you follow a method that other presups have neglected or that your critique is the same in method but superior in content.?.?.?.?