To quote from Grenz & Franke, Beyond Foundationalism:

In its broadest sense, foundationalism is merely the acknowledgment of the seemingly obvious observation that not all beliefs we hold (or assertions we formulate) are on the same level, but that some beliefs (or assertions) anchor others. Stated in the opposite manner, certain of our beliefs (or assertions) receive their support from other beliefs (or assertions) that are more "basic" or "foundational." Defined in this manner, nearly every thinker is in some sense a foundationalist.

…

In philosophical circles, however, "foundationalism" refers to a much stronger epistemological stance than is entailed in this observation about how beliefs intersect. At the heart of the foundationalist agenda is the desire to overcome the uncertainty generated by our human liablity to error and the inevitible disagreements that follow. Foundationalists are convinced that the only way to solve this problem is to find some means of grounding the entire edifice of human knowledge on invincible certainty. This quest for complete epistemological certitude is often termed "strong" or "classical" foundationalism (pp. 29–30).

So, "foundationalism" can be used in two senses. In the first, nearly everyone is a foundationalist (which is my point elsewhere on this site: "Everyone is Some Sort of Foundationalist," see under "Foundations"). In the second, it’s a matter of interest to a few people, philosophers, namely. In the first sense, it merely means you’re a human being who’s old enough to think about things beyond "I’m hungry," so there's not much point in identifying someone as a foundationalist.  In the second, it’s a philosophical subject, which means most people would find the discussion pretty boring.

For Christians, the obvious question is, does the Bible teach us to be foundationalists or not? Let’s translate "this quest for complete epistemological certitude" into ordinary language. Is it right for us to desire to know the truth about spiritual things, does the Bible say we should and can know the truth? What does the Bible say about how we come to know the truth?  Kind of a "no-brainer" question, isn't it?  Probably many or most reading this would think first of John 8:31-32; "If you remain in my word, then you are truly disciples of mine.  And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."  Conversely, one might think of that proto-postmodernist Pontius Pilate scoffing, "What is truth?" [wait a minute: how did he get to be a postmodernist prior to "modernism?"].  Here we have then from Jesus the promise of knowing the truth, as well as the method for coming to that knowledge (remaining in his word).  We have that word written down for us.

From the very beginning, the devil has tried to move people’s attention from the objective ("Do not eat it, you will die") to the subjective ("She saw that it was good for food, and a delight to the eyes, and desirable for making one wise"). While subjective experience is important (regeneration and sanctification, for example, are definitely experiential things), the subjective must be subordinate to the objective if we are to avoid being deceived like Eve, who listened to an unclean spirit and experienced the defilement of sin passed on to all of us, because of which we are "by nature children of wrath" (Eph 2:3).  And so the subjective experience of Eve was used to support an objective opinion ("you shall not die") directly opposed to God's decree ('you shall die").

I’ll offer my opinion here that Beyond Foundationalism is all about making the subjective foundational (in the first sense used above). My reasoning is as follows: In each of the three sources for theology postulated by the authors (scripture, tradition, and culture), the method is to "listen for the voice of the Spirit," which is experiential and subjective, not objective.

Thus, while claiming to offer a third way between conservatives who "look to an error-free Bible" as an (objective) source for theology, and liberals who look to religious experience as a (subjective) foundation for their beliefs (pp. 23–24), the authors in my opinion are simply offering another subjective experience as foundational, that is, it is another form of liberalism, although perhaps more "chastened" in its conclusions. Listening for the voice of the Spirit is not how the Bible itself tells us to view the words in it, and the authors give not one word of warning that there are other spirits communicating with men who, like Eve, open themselves up to subjective experiences which contain messages that are contrary to objective truth.

Professor of Christian Theology Stephen J. Wellum (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville), has this to say about the method of Grenz and Franke in Beyond Foundationalism:

As the title of the book suggests, Grenz and Franke are convinced that evangelicals need an alternative way of viewing the nature of theology in light of postmodernism's rejection of epistemological "foundationalism" for a more "chastened rationality." For them, this entails that theology must employ a nonfoundationalist epistemology which adopts a combination of coherentism, pragmatism, and the later-Wittgenstein's notion of language-games. In addition, Grenz and Franke develop the insights of Wolfhart Pannenberg (i.e. truth as historical and eschatological) and George Lindbeck (i.e. theological statements are not "true" in the sense that they say anything about a reality external to language, rather they are rules of grammar establishing the grammar of Christian thinking, speaking, and living). Thus, theological statements are not making "first-order" truth claims (i.e. asserting something about objective reality); instead they are "second-order" assertions (i.e. rules for speech about God). Within this understanding of the nature of theology, Grenz and Franke assert that what is "basic" for theology is not sola Scriptura, but what they label "the Christian-experience-facilitating interpretative framework" which consists of three sources—Scripture, tradition, and culture—and ultimately the Spirit who speaks through these three sources to the church today.

In their proposal for understanding the nature of theology, Grenz and Franke are clearly distinguishing themselves from historic evangelical theology and especially what has been meant by sola Scriptura, namely, that Scripture is first-order language and thus the final, sufficient authority for all Christian faith and praxis. For them, Scripture is authoritative because it is the vehicle through which the Spirit speaks, yet in the Spirit's appropriation of Scripture, the Spirit's intention is not simply and totally tied to the author's intention in the text. Hence, reminiscent of Karl Barth, they are reluctant to posit a one-to-one correspondence between the Word of God and the words of scripture.

(Taken from, "The Emerging Consequences of Whose ideas?", underlining added.  Readers might also be interested in BTS alumnus Fred Zaspel’s review of John Franke's article "Reforming Theology: Toward a Postmodern Reformed Dogmatics" (WTJ 65 [2003], 1-26).

On a related matter, about 40 Bible Fellowship Church (BFC; a denomination) pastors and elders met at BTS on Nov 29, 2006, in response to a four page letter expressing concerns on the part of the BFC. An excerpt from a report summarizing the meeting written by pastor Lou Prontnicki (with input from John Studenroth and Dave Dunbar) and a clarifying response from J.P. Moreland are provided below.

[John Franke] is thoroughly committed to the metaphor of 'conversation' for the work of theology. It is a note of great praise to God that Dr. J.P. Moreland (Biola) and Dr. John Franke (BTS) are continuing such a conversation in the next issue (Vol. 8, No. 2) of Philosophi Christi. These two scholars have reached agreement on one matter: namely that none of us should be "classical foundationalists." The question of "modest foundationalism" is not yet resolved. We all believe in 'truth/Truth', but how do we affirm it? All of us must understand ourselves as fallible.

This report could be interpreted to the effect that Moreland has changed his views as a result of "conversation" with John Franke. Moreland says that is not the case (source is an e-mail forwarded to me upon my inquiry):

My views about these matters are published in JETS and Midwest Journal of Theololgy, I haven't changed one single inch in 20 years, my "concession" to Franke about classical foundationalism was no big deal since no one is a classic foundationalist in the sense being used here and I have argued that foundationalism is still the key (a mitigated form). I do agree that dialog and conversation is important in the sense of trying to talk about these things civilly and our ETS papers of two years ago will be jointly published in the next Phil Christi. But we wrote those 2 years ago and have had no dialog since then. I am extremely suspicious as to what is meant by the metaphor of "conversation" in doing theology and, in fact, do not recall ever using that in conjunction with theological methodology. The only conversation I agree needs to happen is among folks with common interest. We need to continue talking, finding areas of agreement, misunderstanding, critique, refutation, and so forth. That's all I mean by conversation.