Blogging at ETS/EPS

Blogging at ETS/EPS

More from ETS/EPS. J.P. Moreland (one of my profs from Talbot) had a lively exchange with a postmodern theologian, John Franke.

Postmodernism & Truth

John Franke & J.P. Moreland

Franke

• Non-foundational approach to truth in theology


• 1922 – Karl Barth – “The Word of God is a Task of Theology.” We must recognize that we are, in a sense, unable to speak about God. But we still want to give a faithful witness of God. Barth commends a dialectical approach to theology: the dogmatic approach vs. the self-critical approach. We get close to the truth, but in a fragmentary way. We must relate affirmation and negations to each other. Like walking a narrow ridge between two chasms.


• Truth about God only happens when humans speak of God AND God speaks through them. We have no control over this self-revelation of God.


• We adopt our method because it is the best we can do – not because it is ideal.


• Human communications, even in the incarnation, are limited in their ability to speak about God. The human nature of Jesus was not divinized – revelation was still indirect in this case.


• Revelation in the Scripture is not the end of God’s revelatory work. It still requires God’s revelation to understand the Scriptures – we are always epistemically dependent.


• A non-foundationalist approach (NFA) seeks to embrace this dependence, which yields a theological plularism.


• Does this deny “Truth?” (with a capital “T”) Perhaps there is Truth, but only for God, not us.


• Foundations of knowledge are not “given” to human beings. We are always in a position of dependence. We cannot “seize control” of these foundations or revelations. NFA seeks to oppose such seizure by acknowledging our limitations.

Moreland

• There is a real world, independent of observers and their language.


• The Bible expresses this reality and the importance of knowledge thereof.


• Franke sees reality as social constructions. Words and language to not represent reality – they do not have fixed, timeless meanings.


• Perhaps John is not making an ontological claim, but an epistemological one. There is a spiritual reality out there, but we have no direct access to it.


• Just because we have limitations or our perception of God is incomplete, it does not follow that our knowledge of God (no matter how limited) is not accurate.


• When I see an apple, I do not have exhaustive knowledge of the apple. I see only one side, etc. But the knowledge that I do have of the apple (it is red, it is a certain size, it is shiny) is still accurate and true.


• To say that “we cannot speak of God,” or “there is no capital T truth for us – only for God,” or “the information we have about God is not really information,” is very close to being self-refuting.


• We can embrace humility in our knowledge claims and relinquish our need for control over God without giving up our claims to objective knowledge.