Good thoughts. Not sure what is meant at the end. An eschatological realism evidently means something of God’s kingdom in Jesus breaking in and forth in a world in which the full realization won’t occur until Jesus returns and with that comes the fulfillment and completion of redemption and the new creation.

No question – so I will bring up one that comes to mind.
Not knowing what “nonfoundationalism” is, I googled it (the solution my students also have to every question) – and found notes by LeRon Shults on foundationalism, nonfoundationalism, and post foundationalism. But I don’t see what nonfoundationalism has to do with the idea that apart from the grace of God, humans cannot know the Truth. Is the idea simply that truth comes through relationship with Father, Son, Spirit – so that the truth in the Word is revealed in a coherent fashion in the community and relationship?
The last comment on Word creating “a world today that may be called eschatological realism” is interesting in the light of some of Tuesday’s discussion of evangelicals and evolution. The purpose of the Word – as it seems to me – is to tell the story of God’s interaction with his people, and even more importantly to paint a vision of the ultimate purpose and goal – eschatology. The purpose of Word is to provide a functional, not a detailed description of origins.

RJS, foundationalism is indubitable empirical truths on which, by reason, we construct truth. Nonfoundationalism doesn’t approach truth apart from faith seeking understanding, and that it is God’s grace that gives us a point of view that permits all things to be discerned. I hope this represents John accurately … more could be said.

For a more detailed, but still brief discussion of nonfoundationalism and my reason for holding it see: ?Nonfoundationalism, Truth, and the Knowledge of God,? Philosophia Christi 8/2 (2006): 295-303. A response from J.P. Moreland of Biola University follows my essay and should give folks a good sense of the issues involved.

John, or Scott….or whoever….
Could you please create a live link to the article John mentioned in #4? Thanks!

Jason, I don’t think it is online, but here’s the link:
http://www.epsociety.org/store/backissues.asp?issue=16&mode=detail

I’m still a little concerned that ‘fallen’ has dropped out of what delimits our knowledge. Why do we need an eschatological Word if our condition is limited to being finite?

John,
Ah well – the library here has volumes 1-7…and then stopped. Just my luck.

Craig V,
Are you saying that if the plurality of knowledge is an intrinsic fact of our limited creaturely existence and therefore will continue even after the full consummation of God’s kingdom, then the eschaton will have no real effect on our knowledge?
I think we can acknowledge sin as part of what limits our knowledge while believing that our inherent finitude is also part of what limits our knowledge. Because I think we can hold that “we will know fully, even as we are fully known” and yet still know in a pluralistic way. Our full knowledge will be because we are part of a perichoretic community telling each other their own vision of God (as the angels say “Holy, Holy, Holy” to each other in Isaiah 6).

Travis Greene,
I like your speculation of a perichoretic community. At the risk of over simplifying, I suppose I’m arguing that what keeps us from being that perichoretic community right now has at least as much (possibly more) to do with sin as it does with our being finite.

Craig,
I’d probably agree. Or maybe it’s more complicated than that; part of what sin does is twist our God-given diversity into division.