If you prefer to read this article from the printed page, click here for a PDF file which you can print out.

Actually, could we say that in the portion of the world that has heard the words of Christ, there are just two kinds of foundationalists, based on the two foundations of Matt 7:24-27?  There are rock foundationalists (wise men who hear the words of Jesus and act on them) and sand foundationalists (fools who hear the words of Christ but do not act on them).  Wise foundationalists and foolish foundationalists, just like the two seeds of Genesis 3:15, the two ways of Psalm 1, etc., etc. 

As an aside, let us not be misled into confining "the words of Jesus" to the immediate context (the sermon on the Mount) or even the words in red of our red letter Bibles.  Since Jesus is the eternal Son, the Bible as a whole, "the word of God," should be considered the word of Christ.  Those who are wise, then, build upon the foundation of the Bible, which is sufficient so that the man of God will be equipped for every good work.  Those who are fools have other foundations.  Even people who say there are no secure foundations must have some foundation for making such a claim, right?

Along the same lines, two papers are shown below, both read at the annual ETS convention, 2005.  It looks to me like John Franke quotes from Karl Barth in a foundational manner, as if to explain Barth is to show something to be true.  I've referred to this talk elsewhere on this site; now see for yourself as you read the paper below, and then contrast it with J.P. Moreland's response.  A good example of sand and rock, folly and wisdom?

I heard from a number of friends who were at this debate.  One was BTS alumnus John Bloom (MDiv, 1983), who said:

After hearing the Franke and Moreland debate at the 2005 ETS meeting, I came home and dropped Biblical as a beneficiary from my will. I humbly suggest that it may be time for a new board and president at BTS. Sadly, it seems that a new generation of teachers arose at BTS who knew not MacRae and do what is right in their own and Barth’s eyes.

We would like to advise, "Go thou and do likewise."

In John Franke's paper he mentions J.P. Moreland's plenary address at ETS the previous year ("Truth, Contemporary Philosophy, and the Postmodern Turn," delivered November 18, 2004).  To supply some context I quote from the conclusion of that paper:

...postmodernism is an immoral and cowardly viewpoint such that persons who love truth and knowledge, especially disciples of the Lord Jesus, should do everything they can to heal the plague that postmodernism has and inevitably does leave...

For some time I have been convinced that postmodernism is rooted in pervasive confusions, and I have tried to point out what some of these are. I am also convinced that postmodernism is an irresponsible, cowardly abrogation of the duties that constitute a disciple’s calling to be a Christian intellectual and teacher...

Faced with such opposition and the pressure it brings, postmodernism is a form of intellectual pacifism that, at the end of the day, recommends backgammon while the barbarians are at the gate. It is the easy, cowardly way out that removes the pressure to engage alternative conceptual schemes, to be different, to risk ridicule, to take a stand outside the gate. But it is precisely as disciples of Christ, even more, as officers in His army, that the pacifist way out is simply not an option. However comforting it may be, postmodernism is the cure that kills the patient, the military strategy that concedes defeat before the first shot is fired, the ideology that undermines its own claims to allegiance. And it is an immoral, coward’s way out that is not worthy of a movement born out of the martyrs’ blood.

The full paper is posted at Stand to Reason.

Read more: