One of the epistemologies of modernity is foundationalism. W. Jay Wood helpfully states (but does not endorse) the strong foundationalist position: “If one starts with self-evidently true starting points and accepts what can only be validly derived from the same, one thereby ensures that one’s entire set of beliefs is untainted and error-free.” Given the foundationalist’s demand about self-evident propositions forming basic beliefs, no one has more helpfully-exposed the faults in this reasoning than Nicholas Wolterstorff in Reason within the Bounds of Religion. Wolterstorff states, “Even if there is a set of foundational propositions, no one has yet succeeded in stating what relation the theories that we are warranted in accepting or rejecting bear to the members of the community.20” As John Frame has stated, starting with abstract self-verifying laws of logic do not tell us much. The only thing that can come from the laws of logic is more laws of logic. Foundationalism can give us nice starting points, but these points do not take us anywhere.