February 20, 2012 at 5:04 pm
I think Franke here is guity of at least one common error: there is a difference between the truth and knowing the truth. Many people conflate truth with epistemology, talking about the truth with regard to how we know the truth. However, this denies that the truth that has been revealed to us is actually knowable.
But in one sense I see the issue that Franke is trying to address here. It seems (seems) like Jesus and the Apostles treated the OT scriptures often willin-nilliy. Jesus talked about how the Son of Man was to be raised up like Moses raised up the serpent (John 3:14) or that Jonah was a sign of Christ (e.g. Mat 12:39). But the NT meanings aren’t revealed by an exegesis of the OT passages. In these examples, Jesus is using those accounts as illustrations of something else he was trying to teach. That’s not to say that those accounts weren’t given originally in part to provide material for NT analogy, but we don’t have the place of being able to invent our own meaning for things like this. Jesus and the Apostles did – we don’t. So their use of OT scriptures is instructive to us, but we can’t fully base our methods of exegesis on them.
Monday, February 20, 2012
Understanding and Responding to John Franke’s Nonfoundationalism
This article on SBC Voices by Jared Moore is very instructive. It's long, but very well done. My own comment adds only a drop to the bucket full of what Jared wrote: