Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 59

Acts 1:6 and 7, "When they [the Apostles], therefore, were come together, they asked of Jesus, saying, Lord wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? and he said unto them. It is not for you to know the times or the seasons which the Father has put in his own power." The enquirers were evidently awaiting the restoration, and learnt from his own avowal, that he did not consider himself the restorer of the kingdom of the Jews. At the same time he owned, that the termination of Israel's exile is only known to the Almighty. If Jesus had considered himself divinely inspired, he would have given an answer in unison with his supernatural knowledge. 

In Acts 1, Jesus encounters his disciples for the last time before his ascension:

So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.” (Acts 1:6-11)

 It's true that the disciples were awaiting God's restoration of Israel. In Jeremiah, God promised the Jews eventual supremacy over the world.

“For thus says the LORD: David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel, and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man in my presence to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings, and to make sacrifices forever.”

 The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: “Thus says the LORD: If you can break my covenant with the day and my covenant with the night, so that day and night will not come at their appointed time, then also my covenant with David my servant may be broken, so that he shall not have a son to reign on his throne, and my covenant with the Levitical priests my ministers. As the host of heaven cannot be numbered and the sands of the sea cannot be measured, so I will multiply the offspring of David my servant, and the Levitical priests who minister to me.” (Jeremiah 33:17-22)

 God says that only if you can break the day/night cycle can this covenant be broken. What is the covenant promising, that there will be a Levitical (Jewish) priestly system making animal sacrifices on the altar forever. Even the Catholic priests do not pretend to be Levitical, nor do they make burned offerings or grain offerings. This makes me very skeptical of any view that says the Church is now Israel.

Troki makes 3 arguments in this chapter:
1. Israel has yet to be restored
2. By not saying that he will restore the kingdom, Jesus denies being Messiah
3. It is impossible for Jesus to know when this will take place, and therefore Jesus is not God and did not get this information from God.

The first point is unobjectionable. We still await the full restoration of the Jewish nation of Israel. The second point is a giant leap in logic. All Jesus said is that the timing is not for the disciples to know. He does not deny that he will restore the kingdom. In order to give a positive argument that Jesus is not Messiah, the anti-missionary will need to show that Jesus is in some way disqualified from fulfilling Messianic prophecies in the future.

One might punt to Maimonides and say that if the person dies, then he cannot be Messiah. First, this puts the cart before the horse. Maimonides came in the Middle Ages, and wrote in reaction to Christian doctrine. He could easily stipulate theological criteria that directly conflict with Christian teaching because they conflict with Christian teaching. Secondly, this criterion flies in the face of Jewish tradition. The rabbis had a Messiah ben Joseph who died for the people. I was listening to an Orthodox Union podcast called Nach Yomi, and the rabbi mentioned that there were traditions describing Messiah ben David as poor and afflicted, and that the influence of Christianity caused the rabbis to suppress this tradition.

The third objection is also multiple leaps in logic. Jesus did not say anything about not knowing the day or hour of his return, the way he did during his trial. Troki also assumes, without argument, that if Jesus did not tell his disciples the time of his return, that he did not know it. There are plenty of good reasons for him not to give this information.

Jesus himself said this in Matthew 24:

"But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into."

Even the Talmud seems to agree in principle with this idea.

Targum of the Prophets was composed by Jonathan ben Uzziel under the guidance of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, and the land of Israel [thereupon] quaked over an area of four hundred parasangs by four hundred parasangs, and a Bath Kol came forth and exclaimed, Who is this that has revealed My secrets to mankind? Jonathan b. Uzziel thereupon arose and said, It is I who have revealed Thy secrets to mankind. It is fully known to Thee that I have not done this for my own honour or for the honour of my father's house, but for Thy honour l have done it, that dissension may not increase in Israel. He further sought to reveal [by] a targum [the inner meaning] of the Hagiographa, but a Bath Kol went forth and said, Enough! What was the reason? — Because the date of the Messiah is foretold in it.
(Megillah 3a)

Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 58

John 20:17, "Jesus saith unto her [Mary Magdalene], Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God." Jesus showed here clearly that he was no God, but was in the same subjection to God as his brethren. It cannot, therefore, be asserted on the authority of this passage, that Jesus meant anything more by styling himself "the Son of God," than the Holy Scriptures indicate by such passages as Deuteronomy 14:1, "Ye are children of the Lord your God." The expression "Son of God" has not the slightest reference to a Superhuman Being. 

 Again, what do we expect Jesus to say? You, Father, are just one of many Gods? Troki continues to read the book of John without taking verses 1-18 into context. So let's get to the more important part: Jesus as Son of God. What, exactly, did that mean in the time of Jesus?

The term has many uses. It is often used of kings. Psalm 2 declares the reigning king to be God's son.
I will tell of the decree: The LORD said to me, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.” (Psalm 2:7-9) 

Daniel mentions the Son of God in the furnace episode:

Then King Nebuchadnezzar was astonished and rose up in haste. He declared to his counselors, “Did we not cast three men bound into the fire?” They answered and said to the king, “True, O king.” He answered and said, “But I see four men unbound, walking in the midst of the fire, and they are not hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods.” (Daniel 3:24-25 ESV)

This reference did have superhuman implications. The term "son of" implied that someone was in that category. The Tanakh had sons of valor (valorous people), sons of wise ones (wise people), sons of rebellion (rebellious people), sons of murder (murderous people), sons of foolishness (foolish people), sons of smiting (those who deserved to be beaten), and sons of tumult (those who were in tumult). S. Herbert Bess goes through more detail in his esssay.

Son of God can mean king of Israel. It was also used of Roman emperors have been decared as "Son of God" in their emperor cults, which was a title of divinity.

Again, I punt to Williams:

Lastly, may one word be added with regard to the teaching of the passage as a whole? Mary Magdalene, when she recognized Jesus after this His resurrection from the dead, fell at His feet saying, "Rabboni!" and, as it appears, was clinging to them. But Jesus saith to her: "Do not stay clinging to Me thus; there is more for thee than this. I am ascending to the Father; then thou shalt have perfect communion and fellowship." Even at that moment of blissful thankfulness at His resurrection, Jesus would draw her thoughts away from the earthly and visible to the unseen, with its promise of intercourse closer than she then enjoyed. The ascended Christ is nearer to believers than He could ever have been on earth. If Christ were reigning as king in Palestine, He would not be as nigh to His servants as He is now, when He is seated in glory.

Son of God is not a prooftext that Jesus was God. The idiom had multiple uses. The phrasing we see in this chapter of John is precisely what the author would convey if he wanted to affirm monotheism (there is one God) and deny unitarianism (God is one person).

Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 57

John 19:15, "The chief priests answered. We have no king but Caesar." Those who are of opinion that the Jews lost their independence on account of their putting Jesus to death, find here a complete refutation. The Caesar alluded to was the Emperor Tiberius, who had, according to Luke 3, placed Pilate over Jerusalem

John 19 covers the trial of Jesus. Here is the larger part of the passage:

So when Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judgment seat at a place called The Stone Pavement, and in Aramaic Gabbatha. Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover. It was about the sixth hour. He said to the Jews, “Behold your King!” They cried out, “Away with him, away with him, crucify him!” Pilate said to them, “Shall I crucify your King?” The chief priests answered, “We have no king but Caesar.” So he delivered him over to them to be crucified.

 Interestingly enough, Maimonides agrees with the notion that the Jews lost their independence on account of putting Jesus to death. He says in Hilchot Melachim: "He who thought he would be the Messiah and was slain by the Sanhedrin . . . caused Israel to be destroyed by the sword, and their remnant to be scattered."

This makes sense, as Jesus and Paul both agreed that Jews should pay their tribute to Rome. If the Jews of the day had followed Jesus, the Zealots and Sicarii would never have gained a foothold within Israel, and Rome would never have obtained its reason for waging a war against the Jews and destroying the Jerusalem temple.

One might think that John's portrayal of Pontius Pilate is out of character, since he had quite a history with Israel. Pilate was the procurator of the region from 26 to 36. He was a tough leader, which led to a few scandals, the last of which ended his career.

First, Pilate carried medallions bearing the Emperor's image into Jerusalem. This led to unrest and a five day demonstration in Caeserea. Pilate eventually backed down. Secondly, Pilate built an aqueduct to improve Jerusalem's water supply, but used Temple funds to do it, which sparked another incident and a bloody riot. Later, Pilate set up golden shields in his residence, which caused the populace to protest to the Emperor Tiberius. The emperor then sent a nasty letter back to Pilate telling him to respect the religious customs of the Jews, or else. This was five months before the incident described in John.

Pilate was in hot water with Rome, and was willing to do anything to save his own hide. He hoped that by dealing with Jesus in a way that would appease the crowd, it would save his hide. Unfortunately for him, just a few years later, he attacked a group of Samaritans and was reported to the Emperor and recalled to Rome to stand trial for cruelty and oppression, ending his career.

Pilate may have been cruel and unfair, but he was not stupid.

Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 56

John 18:3-5, etc., "Judas Iscariot having received a band of men from the chief priests and pharisees, cometh with lanthorns," etc., and was asked by Jesus, "Whom seek ye? and they answered and said, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, who betrayed him, stood with them." This account of the betrayal differs from that given in Matthew 26:47; Mark 14:43; and Luke 22:47; for according to those authors of the respective parts of the Gospel, Judas gave a secret sign to his companions, saying, "Him whom I shall kiss, that same is he, hold him fast.

Now we get to a better objection. From Mark's account:

And immediately, while he was still speaking, Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders. Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, “The one I will kiss is the man. Seize him and lead him away under guard.” And when he came, he went up to him at once and said, “Rabbi!” And he kissed him. And they laid hands on him and seized him.

John's account differs in the details:

Now Judas, who betrayed him, also knew the place, for Jesus often met there with his disciples. So Judas, having procured a band of soldiers and some officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, went there with lanterns and torches and weapons. Then Jesus, knowing all that would happen to him, came forward and said to them, “Whom do you seek?” They answered him, “Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus said to them, “I am he.” Judas, who betrayed him, was standing with them. When Jesus said to them, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground. So he asked them again, “Whom do you seek?” And they said, “Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus answered, “I told you that I am he. So, if you seek me, let these men go.” 

 Again, John' account has a great deal more explanation from the narrator. Let me state the response from A. Lukyn Williams before giving my own

To a reader of history, and, we venture to say, much more to a writer of history, it seems absurd to argue from these verbal differences that the narrative is untrustworthy. Differences in unimportant details are rather the proof, not the denial, that the testimony of witnesses is true (cf. par 298). Here both sets of persons testify to the all-important point that Judas was guide to them that took Jesus. Whether he actually did, or did not, carry out his proposal to kiss His Master as a sign to the soldiers, matters very little. According to John, our Lord seems to have forestalled him, and to have made the kiss which followed only an act of hypocrisy towards Himself, and no longer also a sign to the soldiers. Why blame the Synoptic Gospels for not stating this at length? It is to be feared that Jews treat the New Testament with wilful injustice. They do not accord to it the same measure of reverent study, of historical common sense, which they pay to the Old Testament. Yet every Jew will grant that when two passages of the Law speak of the same thing, one passage may be fuller than the other, without either being wrong. What says R. Nehemiah in T. J. Rosh haShanah, III. 5 (58d)? "The words of the Law are poor in one place and rich in another." So, too, we find, in Bemidbar R., Chapter 19, towards the end (on Num 21:21) "All the words of the Law need each other; for what one closes, another opens." See also Tanchuma on the same passage, ed. Buber, p. 129. If this be granted to the Law, why refuse it to the Gospel? 

 Williams is right about the inconsistent double standard. When God says "remember the Sabbath" in Exodus and "guard the Sabbath" in Deuteronomy, the rabbis do not take this to be a contradiction, but say that God said both at the same time.

If you read the two accounts closely, there is no explicit contradiction. It could have been the case that Judas came up and kissed Jesus. The soldiers then marched toward him and initiated the conversation we read in John.

For futher viewing, I recommend Mike Licona's lecture about the gospels as ancient Greco-Roman biographies. Skeptics complain about differences between the gospel accounts, but Licona mentions that Plutarch's own accounts of different people's lives contain many of the same kinds of differences, even though they are all written by the same author. Plutarch, for example, tells of the assassination of Julius Caesar 5 different times, and it is not easy to come up with a harmonization which allows all of them to be interpreted literally.

Licona notes that ancient biographies gave a general idea of the historical figure, rather than giving exact details. Think of this as the difference between painting a portrait vs. taking a photograph. Portrait artists are allowed creative liberties without being criticized as erroneous.

So if you insist that these books have to be harmonized down to the minute detail, this account is pretty easy to harmonize with the other gospel accounts. If you do not require such adherence to detail, recognize that these differences would not have been seen as errors by ancient readers, but more like creative liberties taken by the authors.

Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 55

John 17:3, Jesus says, "And this is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." In this verse, Jesus acknowledged himself to be merely a messenger, and not an integral part of the Deity. The awe and worship due to the Almighty is also, in 1 Timothy 1:17, declared to belong to God alone; for we find there, "Now unto the king eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever, amen." If Jesus does not share the glory of God, he must be dependent on the will of his Creator, like every other creature. 

 Troki gives an allusion to Isaiah 42:

“I am the Lord, I have called You in righteousness,
I will also hold You by the hand and watch over You,
And I will appoint You as a covenant to the people,
As a light to the nations,
To open blind eyes,
To bring out prisoners from the dungeon
And those who dwell in darkness from the prison. “I am the Lord, that is My name;
I will not give My glory to another,
Nor My praise to graven images. “Behold, the former things have come to pass,
Now I declare new things;
Before they spring forth I proclaim them to you.”

Again, Troki reads John while ignoring the first 18 verses, which give the background needed to understand this book. A key verse is 14

And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Let's look at John 12:

These things Jesus spoke, and He went away and hid Himself from them. But though He had performed so many [n]signs before them, yet they were not believing in Him. This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke: “Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, “He has blinded their eyes and He hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and be converted and I heal them.” These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him. Nevertheless many even of the rulers believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they were not confessing Him, for fear that they would be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the approval of men rather than the approval of God.

 John is quoting Isaiah 6, which speaks of God's glory and says that Isaiah saw the glory of Jesus. This can only make sense if Jesus is God.

Regarding John 17, what exactly did we expect Jesus to say? Did we expect him to say that you, Father, are just one of many gods? If the Jehovah's Witnesses were right that this verse teaches that only the Father is God, then they would have to reject Jesus as a false God, because even the New World Translation translates John 1:1 as saying that Jesus was a god.

Again, Troki's answer is a straw man attack on the idea of Trinitarian monotheism. This is to say that there is one God, but that God is not one person. I think of this as one mind with multiple centers of self-consciousness. Since there is one God, any of the three persons could say to another "you are the only true God" and the statement would be true.

Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 54

John 13:34, Jesus asserts, "A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another," etc. This commandment was by no means a new one. Moses had inculcated it in the words, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self." Matthew 19:19, and 22:39, admit that Moses was the first who promulgated this precept

 Again, it's hard to pinpoint Troki's exact objection. He argues that by calling it a "new" commandment, Jesus was contradicting himself and the book of Leviticus. In fact, the objection is pretty silly given the context of the two verses:

A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”

 Jesus is not just telling his disciples to love one another. He is saying that they should love one another as Jesus loved them. They should love one another in the way that they have been loved by their master. Jesus repeats this command two chapters later.

This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.

This is the meaning of the statement. Jesus is telling his disciples to love one another to the point of self-sacrifice. This is in stark contrast to the conventional Jewish wisdom of the day. Bava Metzia 62A states:

If two are travelling on a journey [far from civilization], and one has a pitcher of water, if both drink, they will [both] die, but if one only drinks, he can reach civilization, - The Son of Patura taught: It is better that both should drink and die, rather than that one should behold his companion's death. Until R. Akiba came and taught: 'that thy brother may live with thee:' thy life takes precedence over his life.

Jesus taught to the contrary: you are to lay down your own life for your companion.

Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 53

John 13:3, "Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands," etc. See also ibid. 16:15, "All things that the Father hath are mine"; and Matthew 28:18, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." This assumption of Supreme dominion is in total opposition to the often-quoted passage of Mark 13:32, "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the son, but the Father only." A like inconsistency in ascribing to Jesus at one time the possession, and at another a deficiency, of Supreme dominion, is perceptible in Matthew 20:23 where Jesus owns that it is not within his power to allot to the meritorious certain distinctions in future life. We have before quoted from Matthew 8:20, that Jesus confessed he had no place on which to rest his head, and was poorer than the fox in the field and the bird of the heavens. In John 14:28, he states, "The Father is greater than I." Such repeated discrepancies must deprive the New Testament of all title of a genuine and an inspired work. 

All four gospels are compilations of different stories in the life of Jesus. In each one, the different stories follow one another like pearls on a string, until we get to the Passion narrative, where there is one continuous story beginning at the last Passover meal. John 13 is where Jesus assumes the lowliest of a servant's duties by washing each of his disciples' feet. The passage in question is as follows:
The evening meal was in progress, and the devil had already prompted Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, to betray Jesus. Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God. One might object here that this passage distinguishes Jesus from God and therefore imply that Jesus is not God. I would direct any such person to the first 18 verses of John.

The passage that Troki quotes in Mark speaks about future destruction; first of the temple, and then of the eventual return of Jesus.

At that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.

 It is this day or hour that Jesus does not know, nor does anyone know but the Father. Preterists will argue that all the events in this chapter already occurred at the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in the year 70, but notice that Mark says that people will see the Son of Man at that time. Remember what the angel said in Acts.

They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.” (Acts 1:10-11)

Did people visibly see Jesus descend? No? Then at least some of the events have not yet occurred.

Back to Troki's objections. He states that the New Testament books contradict one another by stating that in one passage, the Father gave full ownership and dominion over all things to Jesus, and in another passage, not only does Jesus not know when he will take over, he doesn't have a place to lay his head.

The objections can be dissolved quite easily through the same reasoning that the rabbis use in the Talmud. The idea of having or owning something has different applications. It can mean that someone has the legal right to it, and it can also mean that the person has the thing in his or her possession.

Imagine an ancient kingdom which is taken over by an empire, which drives the king of the nation into hiding. One generation later, the empire crumbles, and the kingdom regains its independence. The deposed king's firstborn son enters the kingdom, but is quickly robbed and then has nothing on his person. In this scenario, the king's son has nothing, and yet in another sense he owns the whole kingdom. He both has nothing and has everything at the same time, but not in the same sense.

Foundationalism

Ancient Greek skeptics held to the view that nothing could be known. One of their arguments was known as Agrippa's Trilemma:

We are told to state a belief and ask "how do you know that?" Whatever justification we give for that belief, we repeat the question. This line of questioning will eventually lead one of three ways:

1. An infinite regress
2. A circle of beliefs
3. Beliefs which do not have any further justification

Option 1 is like the story of the woman who said the world is on the back of a giant turtle. When asked what the turtle is standing on, she said "Sorry, but it's turtles all the way down"

Option 2 is a simple fallacy of circular reasoning. When someone says something like "miracles are impossible because they never happen, and we know they don't happen because they are impossible" they really aren't giving a justification. What they are doing is asserting those two statements.

With option 1 and option 2 out of the way, this leaves option 3 as the only option left, which is called foundationalism. On foundationalism, certain beliefs are considered "basic" meaning that they form the foundation of one's belief system and do not require any additional justification.

The first flavor of foundationalism, and the one people think of when they hear the word, is hard foundationalism. On this view, beliefs have to meet one of three criteria to be eligible for the category of "basic." They are:

Infallible beliefs - Beliefs that cannot possibly be false
Indubitable beliefs - Beliefs that cannot possibly be doubted
Incorrigible beliefs - Beliefs that cannot possibly be corrected

An example of an infallible belief is the law of non-contradiction. To deny the law of non-contradiction is to affirm it, so one cannot possibly be wrong about it. An example of an indubitable belief is one's belief in one's own existence. One cannot assert the doubt if one does not exist. An example of incorrigible beliefs are my beliefs in my subjective experiences. I may be wrong that what I am seeing is a white shirt, but I cannot be corrected about my belief that what I am seeing looks like a white shirt.

Descartes held to hard foundationalism in his Meditations on First Philosophy. He said to imagine a situation where a demon was constantly deceiving his senses, his reasoning, his beliefs. Even if he were being deceived in such a way, Descartes would have to exist in order to be deceived.

"After having reflected well and carefully examined all things, we must come to the definite conclusion that this proposition: I am, I exist, is necessarily true each time that I pronounce it, or that I mentally conceive it."

These indubitable propositions formed the basis for Cartesian epistemology. Descartes build his system on the foundation of his own existence, which he cannot rationally deny. He then argued for the reliability of sense experience based on his idea of God, which could not have been built in his mind by anyone but God. With God as a guarantor of sense perception, Descartes could then build a system of knowledge, trusting his senses and his reasoning.

Hard foundationalism has fallen on hard times recently. The difficulty with hard foundationalism is that one is forced to justify all beliefs on the basis of the very limited number of beliefs that we can hold with certainty.

A second problem with hard foundationalism is that we do not think in this manner. We form most of our beliefs on sense experience, intuition, and heuristic devices. We do not check our beliefs for adherence to this kind of structure. This means that hard foundationalism is at best an ideal for how we ought to form our beliefs, not a description of how we do form our beliefs.

Moderate foundationalism rose in the second half of the 20th century in response to objections that our infallible, indubitable, and incorrigible beliefs are too sparse to form an adequate foundation for knowledge. Moderate foundationalism allows as basic any belief that has a strong presumption of truth. The biggest problem with moderate foundationalism is the problem of arbitrariness. What keeps us from stipulating any belief which we cannot support with other beliefs as basic? It seems like any belief could theoretically be justified on this system.

Foundherentism is a system invented by Susan Haack to combine the strengths of foundationalism and coherentism. There are certain beliefs which are considered basic, and which form the basis of our knowledge. Coherentism states that beliefs are justified by their relationship to other beliefs, like a spider's web. Systems of belief that best hang together are the most justified.

One problem with coherentism is that works of fiction and conspiracy theories can be highly coherent, and even connect with our current system of beliefs. There can be independent webs which are each fully coherent within themselves and yet contradict one another. Basic beliefs can serve to anchor that web of beliefs into reality.

Haack asks us to think of our belief systems like a crossword puzzle. Certain answers form the foundation for other answers, and yet the answers have to cohere as well. Beliefs are not built on a purely vertical system. Not every justified belief is justified on the basis of more basic beliefs. Some beliefs are basic, and we then build a web of beliefs by adding beliefs which best cohere with that belief system. This system has coherence as its basis for justification, but basic beliefs keep the web from being arbitrary. Any web consistent with itself must also be able to accommodate our basic beliefs. Critics like Laurence Bonjour argue that foundherentism is just another label for moderate foundationalism.

Reformed Epistemology gives many of the benefits of coherentism and foundherentism, and places them within a foundationalist framework. Plantinga's project seeks to provide justification for our common sense beliefs and to avoid the problem of arbitrariness. On reformed epistemology, beliefs are justified if they are produced by properly functioning mental factulties in an appropriate environment.

On Plantinga's Reformed Epistemology, most of our beliefs are foundational. Traditional foundationalism looks at our belief structure like a skyscraper. There is a narrow foundation of beliefs which supports the entire structure. On reformed epistemology, our belief structure is like bricks scattered throughout a parking lot. A few beliefs are stacked on top of one another, but most lay at the ground level. Most of our beliefs are basic.

What keeps contradictory beliefs from being considered basic is the notion of a defeater. A defeater is something that causes a belief to lose justification and/or warrant. If I see what looks like a sheep in a field, I have justification that I actually am seeing a sheep in a field. However, if I talk to someone who says that his dog is out in the field, and when seen from a distance looks like a sheep, then I have a defeater for my initial belief that there is a sheep in the field. Most of our beliefs may be basic, under this view, but they are also defeatable.

One implication of Reformed Epistemology is that belief in God can be considered justified until proven otherwise. Plantinga thinks of this as analogous to the problem of other minds. How do I know there are other minds besides my own? Philosophers have tried to give arguments for this principle, especially arguments from analogy, but they end up either being question-begging or being logically invalid. There simply are no good arguments for the existence of other minds, yet we all believe we are justified in believing in the existence of other minds.

Some beliefs are unjustified even if true. I could believe that the universe has an even number of stars, and be correct, and yet be unjustified in believing this because it is due to nothing but a random guess. Under reformed epistemology, this cannot be the case for belief in God. If a good God exists, then he could plant knowledge of his existence in some individuals.

For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

If this is the case, then one cannot argue that belief in the existence of God is unjustified even if God existed. In order to argue against the rationality of belief in God, one has to argue against the existence of God.

Foundationalism is the axiomatic solution to Agrippa's Trilemma, grounding our knowledge in a more basic set of axioms. Coherentism and infinitism cannot form a basis for formal systems of reasoning such as logic or mathematics, since they either form an infinite vicious regress or result in circular reasoning. This leaves us with foundationalism

Hard foundationalism is difficult to accept since it allows for too narrow a foundation to give us any real justification for our ordinary knowledge. Moderate foundationalism is too arbitrary to work. Foundherentism looks quite promising, but it might degenerate into moderate foundationalism. Reformed epistemology makes the best sense of our every day experience and coheres the best with our common sense beliefs.