Chapter 2.6

Born Again Certainty

The Divine Expectation of Believing

Overall Objective

To discuss the biblical view of certainty, and defend it against postmodern attacks.

Table of Topics

A) Absolute Certainty

A.1) The Denial of Absolute Certainty in Contemporary Theology

A.2) The Demonstration of Absolute Certainty in Life & Scripture

B) Potential Absolute Certainty

C) Adequate Certainty

Extras & Endnotes

Primary Points

• Our level of certainty is the measure of our beliefs.
• There are various levels of certainty. Absolute certainty is the condition of being absent of any doubt. Potential absolute certainty means we can become absolutely certain with more evidence. Adequate certainty is what we live with in most areas of our life because we are not God.
• However, it is difficult to distinguish different levels of certainty, or to internally evaluate “how strongly” we believe something compared to our belief in something else.
• Some Christian theologians deny we can be absolutely certain about anything, including Christianity.
• If we take the view of “Christian” skeptics, then Jesus and the Apostle Paul could have been lying and every time we share the Gospel of Jesus Christ, we could be lying.
• According to Dr. Stackhouse, we are to be humble about our spiritual knowledge, not because it is the gracious gift of God to sinners like us, but because it might actually be a trick of God played on dummies like us.

The Scriptures and common sense assure us that there are many things that we can and should be absolutely certain about.

Postmodern skepticism is a sin against the Creator Who has revealed some things for us to be absolutely certain about.

There are things we can become absolutely certain about with more research.

A person can be saved without being sure they are saved, but a person cannot be saved unless they are sure Christ saves.

We are to be certain of what God has revealed, but cannot always be certain of things that rely on merely human information.

Much of even the Christian life is lived in the realm of adequate certainty by which we make decisions on matters God has not revealed.

While God of course has absolute perfect certainty about all things ^[1] people cannot. For example, while we would be willing to die for our belief that Jesus Christ died for our sins, are we equally convinced that the weather forecast for tomorrow will be accurate? Probably not, which demonstrates there is a limit to how certain we can be of certain things. Accordingly, our level of certainty is the measure of our beliefs.

However, it is difficult to distinguish different levels of certainty, or to internally evaluate “how strongly” we believe something compared to our belief in something else. Still, in order to better understand the topic, it is helpful to distinguish different levels of certainty, and we will suggest the following three: 1) absolute certainty, 2) potential absolute certainty, and 3) adequate certainty.

A) Absolute Certainty

A.1) The Denial of Absolute Certainty in Contemporary Theology

In spite of the philosophical theories of skeptics that everything is only an illusion, we would suggest that there are some things which a human can possess absolute certainty about. In fact, if we don’t get too weird about it, we can say we have absolute certainty that we exist, and that we are writing/reading this right now. We define absolute certainty as simply a condition of being absent of any doubt. The influential Roman Catholic theologian, John Henry Newman (1801-1890), listed a number of things that we can have absolute certainty about:

We all believe, without any doubt, that we exist; that we have an individuality and identity all our own . . . that we have a present sense of good and evil, of a right and a wrong, of a true and a false . . . We have an absolute vision before us of what happened yesterday or last year . . . We are sure that of many things we are ignorant, that of many things we are in doubt, and that of many things we are not in doubt . . .

We are sure beyond all hazard of a mistake, that our own self is not the only being existing; that there is an external world . . . that the future is affected by the past . . . that the earth . . . is a globe . . . that there are vast tracts on it of land and water; that there are really existing cities on definite sites, which go by the names of London, Paris, Florence, and Madrid . . . We laugh to scorn the idea that we had no parents . . . that we shall never depart this life . . . that we are able to live without food . . . that a world of men did not live before our time, or that that world has had no history. ^[2]

Mere common sense assures us that we can be absolutely certain about many things. However, common sense is often times not adequate for philosophers, and they sometimes think it is their duty to correct it. Such is the case with our certainty of certainty. While there have always been pagan skeptics who have questioned whether humans can be certain of anything, there has recently been several respected Christian theologians who would seem to agree.

For example, the respected Oxford theologian/apologist Richard Swinburne suggests that we only need to believe that Christianity is probably better than the alternatives in order to be saved. ^[3] Such a position is certainly not new. The famous eighteenth century theologian, Joseph Butler (1692-1752) wrote: “to us, probability is the very guide of life.” ^[4] Regarding Butler’s rather famous statement on this issue, John Frame, Professor of Theology at Westminster writes:

Butler was right when he said that many of our decisions in life are based on probability rather than absolute certainty. . . . Where Butler went wrong was in saying that our belief in Jesus Christ for salvation is only a matter of probability. ^[5]

This, unfortunately, is precisely what several Christian philosophers/theologians seem to be claiming today. We would suggest that such attacks on absolute certainty are philosophically unwarranted, biblically refuted, and morally dangerous.

Postmodern elements in the Church, of course, would be guilty of such skepticism. Accordingly, John MacArthur writes:

If you were to challenge me to boil down postmodern thought into its pure essence and identify the gist of it in one single, simple, central characteristic, I would say it is the rejection of every expression of certainty. In the postmodern perspective, certainty is regarded as inherently arrogant, elitist, intolerant, oppressive, and therefore always wrong. . . .

The belief that no one can really know anything for certain is emerging as virtually the one dogma postmodernists will tolerate. Uncertainty is the new truth. Doubt and skepticism have been canonized as a form of humility. Right and wrong have been redefined in terms of subjective feelings and personal perspectives.

Those views are infiltrating the church too. In some circles within the visible church, cynicism is now virtually regarded as the most splendid of all virtues. I began this book with a prime example of that cynicism, as seen in the so-called Emerging Church movement. A relentless tone of postmodern angst about too much certainty pervades that whole movement. No wonder: the Emerging Church began as a self-conscious effort to make Christianity more suitable to a postmodern culture. Emerging Christians are determined to adapt the Christian faith, the structure of the church, the language of faith, and even the gospel message itself to the ideas and rhetoric of postmodernism.

Postmodernism is simply the latest expression of worldly unbelief. Its core value-a dubious ambivalence toward truth-is merely skepticism distilled to its pure essence. There is nothing virtuous or genuinely humble about it. It is proud rebellion against divine revelation.

In fact, postmodernism’s hesitancy about truth is exactly antithetical to the bold confidence Scripture says is the birthright of every believer (Ephesians 3:12). Such assurance is wrought by the Spirit of God Himself in those who believe (I Thessalonians 1:5). We need to make the most of that assurance and not fear to confront the world with it. ^[6]

We will biblically support Dr. MacArthur’s claims below.

In addition, it would seem that those who label themselves as Reformed epistemologists ^[7] advocate such skepticism as well. For example, Alvin Plantinga, Professor of Philosophy at Notre Dame, and recognized father of this Christian philosophical movement, has written many helpful and biblical things. However, he has also said:

In religious belief as elsewhere, we must take our chances, recognizing that we could be wrong, dreadfully wrong. There are no guarantees; the religious life is a venture; foolish and debilitating error is a permanent possibility. ^[8]

Likewise, William Alston, another Christian philosopher at Syracuse University, has written: “The fact remains . . . one is not in a position to repose unqualified confidence in Christian explanations of the Christian life.” ^[9] Another Reformed epistemologist, James Kelly Clark, is critiqued in the following review by William Lane Craig:

Clark comes close to making self-refuting statements when he asserts, “We can provide reasons or evidence that, for all we can tell, support our beliefs. But we can’t tell if we are sufficiently informed or if our cognitive faculties are working properly (or, on the other hand, if the nontheist’s are working properly)” (p. 88).

How can Clark know that “we can’t tell if we are sufficiently informed” if we can’t tell if we are sufficiently informed? Such skepticism about the workings of one’s cognitive faculties is self-defeating, since the skepticism is the result of the working of those faculties. Because it is self-undermining, this sort of skeptical relativism cannot be rationally affirmed. ^[10]

The well known Christian philosopher J. P. Moreland would also seem guilty of abandoning certainty in Christian things when he writes:

Something is certain if it is utterly impossible that one be mistaken about it. In this sense, few things can be known with certainty. Among them are that I exist, that basic principles of math are true (2+2=4), and that the fundamental laws of logic are correct (something cannot be true and false at the same time in the same sense). That’s about it [what about the Gospel?].

But knowledge does not require certainty, as Paul’s remark in Ephesians 5:5 suggests: “For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.” [another thing we can believe with certainty] If knowledge is simply a sort of certainty, then to assert “you know with certainty” would be redundant . . . .

When we seek knowledge of God, specific biblical texts, morality, and a host of other things, we should not assume that our search requires reaching a state with no doubt, no plausible counterarguments, no possibility of being mistaken [including the Gospel?]. ^[11]

Dr. Moreland clearly leaves room for legitimately doubting that the Gospel, for example, is true. In addition, he himself notes something that Scripture tells us we can be certain about (i.e. immoral people are eternally damned), beyond the basic tenets of logic which Dr. Moreland would seem to limit certainty to.

Such skepticism regarding certainty is also evident in the writings of Daniel Taylor, Professor of English at Bethel College [a Christian school!]. In his book, The Myth of Certainty he writes:

Such [supposed] absolutes, for the Christian, include God’s existence, His love for His creation, and the redeeming work of Jesus Christ. . . . A naive conception of absolutes offers a truth packaged in an illusion accompanied by a danger. The truth, which I affirm by faith in response to evidence, is that the essential Christian claims are actually so. The illusion is that I can be certain that they are so. . . . Whether by invoking faith or absolutes or human reason or, ironically, by claiming all belief is illusory, many people pursue the myth of certainty.

The reflective Christian does well, in my view, to freely admit this possibility of being wrong. All I believe may in fact be false. God may be only wish fulfillment. The sense of His presence that I sometimes get in worship and prayer may derive simply from the release of certain chemicals in the brain. ^[12]

As is the case with all skeptics, it is difficult to believe that Dr. Taylor even really believes what he says. This is because virtually every sentence in his book is a dogmatic statement claiming to be true, yet relatively few of them are prefaced with “maybe.” In addition, there is some doubt that one could even possess a saving faith in Christ with so little certainty about the saving truths of Christ. By bringing such things into question, in the name of the current postmodern fad of humility about truth, Dr. Taylor is in danger of damning himself, and anyone who would follow his skepticism about the Savior.

Similar things have come from the pen of John Stackhouse, Professor of Apologetics at Regent College, one of the most renowned Evangelical seminaries in the world. In his book Humble Apologetics, he makes it clear that he thinks Christians are in no position to be certain about anything. For example, we read:

No human being in any situation has perfectly certain knowledge. Human knowledge is like human beings: finite and fallen. . . . Our best ideas [apparently including the Gospel] are merely our best guesses–not certain knowledge. . . . So we see that none of us knows everything, and none of us knows anything for certain and with perfect clarity. ^[13]

We would suggest that here, Dr. Stackhouse is confusing the depth and breadth of our knowledge, with the certainty of our knowledge. Of course “none of us knows everything” but that does not mean “none of us knows anything for certain.” Our lack of understanding something fully does not mean that we cannot be certain of what we do understand. Dr. Stackhouse seems to be implying that if our knowledge of something is not as complete as God’s knowledge of something then we cannot be certain about the amount of knowledge we do have. ^[14] This is not so. For example, there are a multitude of things about how God created the Universe that we are not capable of knowing, but we are free of any doubts that He did indeed create it.

Accordingly, Dr. MacArthur addresses several other postmodern “Christian” theologians along the same lines:

[John] Armstrong, [Stanley] Grenz, [John] Franke, and the Emerging postmodernists have blurred the line between certainty and omniscience. They seem to presume that if we cannot know everything perfectly, we really cannot know anything with any degree of certainty. . . .

The fact that our knowledge grows fuller and deeper-and we all therefore change our minds about some things as we gain more and more light-doesn’t mean that everything we know is uncertain, outdated, or in need of an overhaul every few years. The words of I John 2:20-21 apply in their true sense to every believer: “You have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things. I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth.” ^[15]

Dr. Stackhouse writes elsewhere:

It is at least theoretically possible, in fact, that we are mistaken about even obvious and important things. Yet there are many things about which we doubt very strongly that we are mistaken. There are propositions and experiences about which we are, instead, virtually certain. “Two plus two equals four,” I assert, with considerable assurance. “I am now looking at a book,” you might affirm with (almost as much? greater?) vigor. Then there are propositions and experiences about which we have absolutely no confidence. “Two plus two equals five,” for instance, or “I am now looking at a book that is playing the piano.” ^[16]

We noted above that discussions of certainty are difficult because its different levels are hard to accurately describe, let alone recognize in our own mind. In the above statement we encounter semantics that need to be defined clearly. While Dr. Stackhouse would claim he is only “virtually certain” that “Two plus two equals four,” we would claim to be absolutely certain, having no doubts that it is entirely accurate to claim within the recognized constructs of mathematics that two apples plus two more apples equals four apples. Likewise, while Dr. Stackhouse “might affirm” that he was “looking at a book,” we could claim a certainty beyond any doubt whatsoever that we were doing so.

In addition, it would seem Dr. Stackhouse admits that we can be absolutely certain that something is not true (i.e. “Two plus two equals five”), although he labels it as something we hold with “absolutely no confidence.” Isn’t this that same as being absolutely certain something is not true? And is this not true? Are we not absolutely certain that we are not standing on the second planet from the sun (Mars) today? And if we have the ability, and the world is such a place, that we can be so certain about something that is not true, does it not follow that we also have the ability to be equally certain of something that is true? We are absolutely certain this is so.

Professor Stackhouse continues:

So we might arrive at two crucial propositions about the quest for religious certainty: It is impossible, but it is also unnecessary. . . . To be committed, body and soul, to someone or something, one need not be certain in the strictly epistemological sense of “knowing I am right about this and knowing, furthermore, that I could not possibly be wrong.”

And it’s a good thing, too, since we finite and fallen human beings cannot be certain of anything in that sense. But we can commit ourselves to a cause, or a religion, or a deity without holding anything back. We can follow that particular road as best we can, moment by moment, day by day, until it gets us where we want to go or turns out to be a false trail. That’s all we can do. ^[17]

Here, it would seem we have encountered full-blown pagan skepticism and agnosticism; the idea that everything could be a lie. That the whole world we live in could be nothing more than a “house of mirrors” that one finds at a carnival in which everything is specifically designed to deceive, and nothing you see is really what we think it is. Such skepticism opens God to the charge of being the most abominable liar we could imagine, creating us and the world such that we can be certain of nothing. This is the unavoidable conclusion of the idea that we could be wrong about even the most fundamental things as the above Christian theologians suggest.

In addition, as we demonstrate elsewhere, the biblical concept of faith is a certainty based on evidence, and has nothing to do with the “humble” faith of Dr. Stackhouse. ^[18] Ultimately, Dr. Stackhouse’s “humble” faith is indistinguishable from the agnostic faith of Voltaire (1694-1778) who summed up his own religious beliefs in the last chapter of his Micromegas by saying: “May God, if there is one, save my soul, if I have one.” ^[19]

Epistemological skeptics encounter the same self-defeating sword of truth by which all skeptics commit philosophical suicide. How can they claim so confidently that we can be certain of nothing, if in fact we can’t be so confident about anything? They seem to be speaking with a certainty that they will not allow anyone else. For example, when Dr. Stackhouse states emphatically above that, “none of us knows anything for certain” he seems to be claiming a certainty that his own theories say are not only unavailable to humans, but arrogant as well.

We notice here also that Dr. Stackhouse defines absolute certainty as knowing that “I could not possibly be wrong.” This seems to be more of a philosophical maneuver, rather than anything that is based in reality. It appears that what Dr. Stackhouse is asking us to do is to imagine that we could be wrong about the fact we exist, or that Jesus saves. And indeed, we can imagine that we could be wrong about such things, but our ability to simply imagine it does not mean that we believe it, that it is true, or that it is even possible. God Himself can imagine that He too is deceived about what He thinks He knows, but that does not make His deception a fact or even a possibility. While we can imagine there would be a possibility we are wrong that we exist, we do not really believe that there is a possibility that we do not exist. While we can imagine the doubts that Professor Stackhouse apparently has, we do not possess his doubts, nor do we perceive any reasons to do so.

We would also question Dr. Stackhouse’s suggestion that we can “be committed, body and soul, to someone or something . . . without holding anything back,” even though we really believe we “could . . . possibly be wrong.” Of course, we act upon things that we are uncertain about. We take risks. We cannot be certain that we will not die in a car accident while driving to work today, but we still drive to work. But our reservations are revealed in the fact that we put our seat belt on. We are not “committed . . . without holding anything back” to a belief that driving a car is safe, but we still do it.

But a commitment to Christ is different. Saving faith is a trust in Christ without seatbelts. The reason we are “committed, body and soul” to Christ for our eternal salvation “without holding anything back” is that we have no doubts whatsoever that He is the one and only Savior. Dr. Stackhouse cannot claim the highest level of commitment a human can make, without the kind of doubt free conviction such a commitment requires. Nobody fully commits their life to following Jesus Christ in this life, and trusting Him for the next life, while thinking they could possibly be wrong. Again, a philosopher can imagine that Christians believe in Christ with such doubts, but in reality they do not.

Dr. Stackhouse fails to distinguish between beliefs and decisions based on a divine revelation and on mere human information. ^[20] Our saving faith and any faith in God is based on an absolutely certain divine revelation, instead of the mere human information by which we have to make many of our decisions. We have also elsewhere illustrated this difference by distinguishing between biblical faith which is based on what God has said and can be absolutely certain, and practical faith based on human information and which need not be certain. ^[21] Dr. Stackhouse does not distinguish between these and suggests that making the right decision on a car purchase with practical faith based on human information is the same as believing on Christ for salvation with a biblical faith based on the Gospel and possessing absolute certainty. That is not so.

Are such skeptical and agnostic Christian epistemologists really asking us to believe we could be deceived about our Christian faith? Do they think we are less certain about the fact that we exist, than we are about the fact that we are saved? Do they realize the consequences of accepting their skepticism? If we take the view of “Christian” skeptics then the Creator of the “old” physical Creation we observe and the Creator of the “new” spiritual creation we have experienced could be a liar. And Jesus and the Apostle Paul could have been lying as well. According to the “Christian” skeptics the whole Christian Church throughout almost twenty centuries could have been lying. And according to “Christian” skepticism, every time we share the Gospel of Jesus Christ, we could be lying. And for the “Christian” skeptic, it may not matter that we are lying because it could be that there is not even such a thing as a lie. Such is the life of a skeptic.

Professor Stackhouse’s reason for encouraging us to possess less certainty about our faith is not only philosophical, but ethical. In other words, he claims it is morally wrong to be absolutely certain about our beliefs. He writes:

When someone asks, “Why do Christians think their religion is right and everyone else’s is wrong?” the Christian can respond that this is not really what Christians are saying when they are affirming the uniqueness of Jesus and his central [how about exclusive!] role in the economy of salvation. [Of course we are saying that—if the real purpose of religion is salvation!]. . . .

Thus we can deploy various kinds of evidentialist or rationalist apologetics, but we should do so, in the light of postmodern cautions, with something less than triumphalist claims for their power. We should offer them as our best hypotheses so far, as probably true. . . .

We do believe that we know some things that other people don’t, and those things are good [just good?] for them to hear. . . . [But] For all we know, we might be wrong about any or all of this [including the Gospel]. And we will honestly own up to that possibility. Thus whatever we do or say, we must do or say it humbly. ^[22]

Apparently, according to Dr. Stackhouse, we are to be humble about our spiritual knowledge, not because it is the gracious gift of God to sinners like us, but because it might actually be a trick of God played on dummies like us. Dr. Stackhouse seems to think that if we are to be truly humble, we cannot allow ourselves to be any more certain of the Gospel than to perceive it as among “our best hypotheses so far” and only “probably true.”

In our opinion, this is where the good Professor’s “humble apologetics” actually becomes dishonest apologetics. Is Dr. Stackhouse really expecting Christians to lower their certainty in the Gospel, or just fake some kind of uncertainty in order to seem more humble? We question whether or not somebody could even be a Christian if they believed that the Gospel was simply “our best hypotheses so far” and only “probably true.” Jesus expects more from His followers than this.

And we also question whether or not a real Christian could honestly and sincerely feel about Christ the way Dr. Stackhouse suggests we should if we are to be humble. We wouldn’t even expect a Buddhist or Muslim to be so uncertain about their own religion, and would our uncertainty really be as appealing to unbelievers as this renowned apologist suggests? No. It bears repeating: We do apologetics humbly because all we know and are, is a gracious gift from God, not because we entertain doubts that the Gospel might be a deceptive trick from God.

Solomon said, “There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death” (Prov 14:12). Dr. Stackhouse and postmodern philosophers like him are suggesting that we believe this may be true of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that it could actually “turn out to be a false trail” as he puts it above.

And while philosophers may make such uncertainty seem like the right and moral thing to do, it actually may turn out to be immoral. There is a reason the Apostle Paul warned:

But even if we or an Angel from Heaven should preach a Gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a Gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! (Gal 1:8-9)

We see then how dangerous it is to suggest, as skeptical and agnostic epistemologists seem to do, that the Gospel of Jesus Christ could be wrong. Because if we truly would admit that it could be wrong, then we are equally admitting that another one could be right. And if we were to publicly and confidently admit that, are we not borderline candidates for the Apostle’s eternal curse?

Do we think God wants us to admit that we might possibly be wrong about Him? As discussed further below, Paul said even eating food while entertaining doubts was sin (cf. Rom 14:23). What kind of sin then is skeptical and agnostic epistemologists calling us to when they suggest we should have doubts about who God is and what He is like? Read the Scriptures, my friend, instead of the philosophers, and you will discover that not believing “the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” is to violate “the first and greatest commandment” (Matt 22:37-38). ^[23]

St. Augustine (354-430) said such a postmodern perspective was insane when he wrote:

That we live is therefore not only true, but it is altogether certain as well. And there are many things that are thus true and certain concerning which, if we withhold positive assent, this ought not to be regarded as a higher wisdom but actually a sort of dementia. ^[24]

We would go further and say that what Dr. Stackhouse calls a “humble” and moral approach to truth is a grievous sin against the Creator, or as Dr. MacArthur put it above, “proud rebellion against divine revelation.” Uncertainty about things that God has not revealed may be a virtue. Uncertainty about things God has revealed is a sin, and one that most people will be punished for eternity.

A.2) The Demonstration of Absolute Certainty in Life & Scripture

Such skepticism is relatively new in the Church, as certainty has always been a foundation of Judeo Christian epistemology. Thus, the Roman Catholic theologian Avery Dulles writes concerning Christian faith:

Theologians of different Christian traditions have agreed that faith is an assured belief. On this point there was no dispute between Protestants and Catholics at the time of the Reformation. Luther and Calvin built the element of certitude into their very definitions of faith. Luther called it “a living, daring confidence in God’s grace, so sure and certain that the believer would stake his life on it a thousand times” [Preface to Romans]. Calvin defined faith as “a firm and certain knowledge of God’s benevolence toward us, founded upon the truth of the freely given promise in Christ, both revealed to our minds and sealed upon our hearts through the Holy Spirit” [Institutes, III.ii.7]. ^[25]

The Scriptures as well reflect the idea that humans were created to be absolutely certain about some things. Accordingly, several words reflecting such certainty are used. For example, many OT characters speak in terms of absolute certainty. Jethro says, “I know [yāda] that the LORD is greater than all other gods, for He did this to those who had treated Israel arrogantly” (Exod 18:11). This Hebrew word yāda is used throughout the OT to describe God’s knowledge of man, which is obviously certain (cf. Gen 18:19; Deut 34:10), and man’s absolutely certain knowledge of things as well. ^[26]

Accordingly, even a pagan such as Naaman could say to the Prophet, “I know [yāda] that there is no God in all the world except in Israel” (2 Kgs 5:15). Job said what all Christians can say with absolute certainty: “I know [yāda] that my Redeemer lives and that in the end He will stand upon the Earth” (Job 19:25). David speaks of things he knows without a doubt when he prays, “I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well [yāda meod]” (Psa 139:14). The Prophet Isaiah speaks with absolute certainty when he says, “Because the Sovereign LORD helps me, I will not be disgraced. Therefore have I set my face like flint, and I know [yāda] I will not be put to shame. (Isa 50:7)

Another Hebrew word, ’āman in the Hiphil (causative) means: “to trust, to be certain, to believe in” ^[27] and is the chosen word for “believe” in the OT. Its first use in Scripture at Genesis 15:6 makes it obvious that it reflects an absolute certainty: “Abram believed [āman] the LORD, and He credited it to him as righteousness.” Accordingly, OT scholars Keil and Delitzsch define it as, “that state of mind which is sure of its object, and relies firmly upon it.” ^[28] Likewise, the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament notes:

In the Hiphil (causative), it [aman] basically means “to cause to be certain, sure” or “to be certain about,” “to be assured.” In this sense the word in the Hiphil conjugation is the biblical word for “to believe” and shows that biblical faith is an assurance, a certainty, in contrast with modern concepts of faith as something possible, hopefully true, but not certain. . . .

The various derivatives reflect the same concept of certainty and dependability. The derivative amēn “verily” is carried over into the New Testament in the word amēn which is our English word “amen.” Jesus used the word frequently (Mt 5:18, 26, etc.) to stress the certainty of a matter. The Hebrew and Greek forms come at the end of prayers and hymns of praise (Ps 41:13 [H 14J); 106:48; 11 Tim 4:18; Rev 22:20, etc.). This indicates that the term so used in our prayers ought to express certainty and assurance in the Lord to whom we pray. ^[29]

Likewise, we read in Nelson’s Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament:

Often, this [causitive] stem [of ’āman: he’ ĕmîn] connotes a psychological or mental certainty . . . Considering something to be trustworthy is an act of full trusting or believing. This is the emphasis in the first biblical occurrence of ’āman “And [Abram] believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness” (Gen. 15:6). The meaning here is that Abram was full of trust and confidence in God. ^[30]

Jesus describes the disciples’ faith in Him when He prays to the Father, “I gave them the words You gave Me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty [egnōsan alēthōs: “knew truly”] that I came from You, and they believed that you sent Me” (John 17:8). In addition, there were times when Christ rebuked people for having doubts (cf. Matt 14:31).

Also, the King prayed to the Father:

Righteous Father, though the world does not know You, I know [egnōn] You, and they know [egnōsan] that You have sent Me. I have made You known [egnōrisa] to them, and will continue to make You known [gnōrisō] in order that the love You have for Me may be in them and that I myself may be in them. (John 17:25-26).

All of these uses of the Greek verbs “to know” are in the aorist tense, “usually indicating definiteness.” ^[31] The King says that in the very definite way that He knew the Father, the disciples knew that the Father had sent Him. The King’s task was to make the Father known to them, not in the sense of an uncertain, provisional belief that might turn out to be a lie as the postmoderns think, but the King no doubt intended to give them an absolutely certain knowledge, and He no doubt accomplished His task.

In fact, it was necessary that the disciple’s knowledge was as certain as the King’s knowledge or else “the love” that the Father had for Christ, would not be able to be in the disciples, nor would the King be able to indwell them as was His obvious promise (cf. John 14:17). In other words, if the disciples could not know Christ’s mission with the same certainty that Christ knew the Father, they could not be saved.

Likewise, all of the Greek words used by the Apostles for “know” and “believe” can include the idea of absolute certainty. Accordingly, the NIDNTT notes that the oida and ginōskō word groups (“to know”), “contain the implication of certainty based on experience” because particularly the latter refers to a personal knowledge, not just a speculative one, and is “distinguished from mere opinion.” ^[32] Oida is used to speak of the absolutely certain knowledge that God has, ^[33] and is used of people’s knowledge as well. Likewise, the peithō word group (“persuade”), which is derived from the same verbal stem as pistis (“believe”), often carries the idea of certainty. As the NIDNTT notes:

The perfect [pepeis] always denotes a situation in which the act of examining and weighing up has been concluded, and where a firm conviction has already been reached (cf. Lk. 20:6; Rom. 8:38; 14:14; 15:14; 2 Tim. 1:5, 12; Heb. 6:9). This can refer to convictions concerning facts or people, as well as to the all-embracing, unshakeable certainty that has been attained in faith (Rom. 8:38). ^[34]

These words and their derivatives are used throughout the Apostles’ writings in contexts that clearly communicate absolute certainty. Accordingly, the Apostle Paul is speaking with a certainty that some Christian theologians would seem to deny is possible when he says near the end of his life, “I know [oida] whom I have believed [pepisteuka], and am convinced [pepeismai] that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him for that day” (2 Tim 1:12). In fact, as noted above, the Apostle implies that there are instances in which it is sin not to be absolutely certain.

In a discussion of people’s varying convictions he says: “Each one should be fully convinced [plērophoreiothē: “fully persuaded”] in his own mind. . . . But the man who has doubts [diakrinomenos] is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin” (Rom 14:5, 23). In other words, and again contrary to postmodern philosophers in and outside the Church, it is sin to have doubts about some things.

The absolute certainty of the disciples in the identity of the King is clearly communicated when the Apostle Peter tells Him, “We believe [pepisteukamen] and know [egnōkamen] that you are the Holy One of God” (John 6:69; cf. John 4:42). VIRA–1PγινώσκωWhile the “humble apologetics” of Dr. Stackhouse claims that we should offer the Gospel “as our best hypotheses so far,” the Apostle said, “let all Israel be assured [ginōsketō asphalōs] N-GM-SἸσραήλ of this: God has made this Jesus, Whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36). The Greek here literally means that these people can “know safely, securely,” without fear (cf. similar Greek at Luke 1:4).

Likewise, it is obvious that the Apostle Peter has no doubts about saying that God, “has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade–kept in heaven for you,” and that we can and should, “set your hope fully on the grace to be given you when Jesus Christ is revealed” (1 Peter 1:3-4; 13).

This is the very kind of “hope” that the Apostle Paul said, “does not disappoint us, because God has poured out His love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit” (Rom 5:5). Postmodern epistemologists have no room in their philosophy for a hope that cannot possibly disappoint. The Apostle Paul did, and as we demonstrated in previous chapters, this certainty was to be based on the fact that “God has poured out His [supernatural, God-like virtue of] love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit.”

The Apostle John suggests that God commands absolute certainty, because, “this is His command: to believe [pisteusōmen] in the name of His Son, Jesus Christ” (1 John 3:23). Likewise, the Apostle writes throughout his epistle that there are several things that the Christian can and should be absolutely certain about. He claims that Christians, “know [oidate] the truth” about Christ, and “no lie comes from the truth” (2:20). John says, “We know [oidamen] that we have passed from death to life” (3:14), and that we can, “know [gnōsometha] that we belong to the truth” (3:19), and that we can “know [ginōskomen] VIPA–1Pγινώσκωthat He lives in us” (3:24). The Apostle claims, “We have come to know [egnokamen] and have believed [pepisteukamen] the love which God has for us” (4:16), and that the Christian can “know [eidēta] that you have eternal life” (5:13), and “know [oidamen] that He hears us” when we pray (5:15).

When the Bible speaks of the certainty that even “faith” can possess, it disagrees with a common notion that only beliefs gained through direct knowledge can be absolutely certain. We have already noted that the Hebrew words for “faith” (yāda and aman) involve absolute certainty, but do not include direct experience. Likewise, the Greek word for faith used in the NT is pistis, of which Vine’s Dictionary notes is always used for “faith in God or Christ, or things spiritual.” ^[35] The concept of faith in the Bible is always a faith toward God, not humans, and it therefore has the potential, the warrant, and the mandate to be absolutely certain, because God is absolutely trustworthy. ^[36]

Accordingly, we read in Hebrews that, “Faith [pistis] is being sure [hupostasis] of what we hope for [elpizomenōn] and certain [elegchos] of what we do not see” (11:1). Likewise, we read in Hebrews, regarding God’s promise of salvation through Christ, that, “We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure” (Heb 6:19). It was, no doubt, in the context of biblical faith that the twelfth century Roman Catholic theologian, St. Bernard of Clarivaux (1090-1153) wrote Pope Eugene III: “A faith that lacks certainty is not really faith but mere opinion.” ^[37]

Not only is such certainty in faith possible in spiritual or religious matters, but in, for example, geographical matters as well. As John Henry Newman pointed out above, we have no doubts that Paris, France exists, even if we have never been there. Contrary to postmoderns, it is virtually impossible to even imagine we might be wrong that there is a Paris, France. Try imagining that you and everyone else who believes there is such a place but has never been there, is actually deceived, and you begin to understand how absurd postmodern epistemology and “humble apologetics” really are. Matters of faith, like a belief in a place you have never been, can be said to be absolutely certain and free of any doubt.

Let us note here, that in fact, God created us for absolute certainty. Postmodernism is to epistemology what homosexuality is to sexuality—a human perversion in rebellion to the Creator. God never created anyone to be either postmodern or homosexual, and it requires a deliberate and forceful twisting of the mind to be either. In return for their rebellion, postmoderns, like homosexuals, suffer the consequences, the former missing out on the intellectual peace that could be theirs. Along these lines, the Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck (1854-1921) wrote:

The intellect pursues knowledge, truth. That is the nature of the intellect; truth is its “good,” its wealth, the fulfillment of its hunger. When it finds truth, it is satisfied; it rests in it; it feels safe and secure. Certainty is rest, peace, joy, bliss; there is rest and relaxation in truth. Certainty is the normal state of the human mind, just as health is of the body. Doubt [the foundational virtue of postmodernism], uncertainty, by contrast, is unrest, unease, wretchedness. ^[38]

We would simply suggest then that God has created both humans and the world in such a way that we can and should be absolutely certain, having no doubts, about some things. One of those things is certainly the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and as John Calvin wrote: “[I]t is quite essential that this should be so, for [saving] faith is concerned with spiritual and eternal things, in which certainty is needed, if anywhere.” ^[39] Such certainty in the Savior is reflected in the following rather interesting story:

Although he had been brought up in a nominal Reformed faith, Frederick the Great [1712-1786, King of Prussia] was a thorough rationalist and patron of ‘free thought’. The sight of a cross, it was said, was enough to make him blaspheme. On one occasion when he was declaiming against Christ and the Christian religion during a dinner, he observed an apparent lack of sympathy on the part of one of his guests, Prince Charles of Hesse. To an enquiring question from the king, the prince replied: ‘Sire, I am not more sure of having the honour of seeing you, than I am that Jesus Christ existed and died for us as our Saviour on the cross.’ After a moment of surprised silence Frederick declared, ‘You are the first man who has ever declared such a belief in my hearing.’ ^[40]

May we be just as bold and honest to proclaim our own certainty in the promises of Jesus Christ in our own day, and not succumb to some silly, contemporary notion that uncertainty demonstrates the kind of humility God is looking for. Real “humble apologetics” is also done with absolute certainty about what God has done and said for our salvation.

B) Potential Absolute Certainty

Not that we desire to get too complicated here. God forbid that we would sound like some of those philosophers. Still, one of the reasons that philosophy gets so complex is that the full discussion of some things requires considerable precision. Such is true about certainty. While we would suggest that there are things that we are rather immediately given absolute certainty about, there are other things that, while we can be absolutely certain about them, they require further human research, or they can be susceptible to doubt.

For example, for some reason my child may not be absolutely certain that the kitchen stove is hot, just because I’ve told them so. But after they touch it, they not only possess an absolute certainty that the stove is hot, but possibly a burn to prove it. And before we simply conclude that’s just a kid kind of thing to do, we recognize that adults too often learn things the hard way as well. But back to our point. While the child could have been legitimately absolutely certain without doubt that the stove was hot based on only testimony, he or she only gained such certainty with more research.

Such is the case with the assurance of our salvation, as is illustrated by the unfortunate fact that some Christians can possess saving faith such that they are actually saved, but still struggle with the confidence that they are saved. Our standing before God is something that we can potentially be absolutely certain about, but such certainty is neither immediate nor automatic.

The Apostle John seems to be implying this very thing when he tells his readers in 1 John: “I write these things to you who believe [with certainty] in the name of the Son of God so that you may know [with certainty] that you have eternal life” (5:13). The Apostle is writing to those who possess the certain knowledge of what is necessary for anyone to be saved (cf. 2:20-21), but his entire letter is an encouragement to them to gain the same absolute certainty that Christ has indeed saved them.

While we would suggest that salvation requires an absolute certainty in the objective fact that Christ saves, it does not require the same level of certainty in the subjective fact that Christ has saved us. A person can be saved without being sure they are saved, but a person cannot be saved unless they are sure Christ saves. ^[41]

And it is indeed further proof of our salvation that we need, and that John encourages his readers to provide. It is only after we are experiencing willing obedience to Christ (cf. 2:3-6, 15-16, 29; 3:21-24), consistent victory over sin (cf. 3:6-10; 5:18), and sincere, active love for others (cf. 2:9; 3:15, 18-20; 4:7-8), that we can and should gain the absolute certainty of our salvation that God desires us to have. Note that at least one of the costs of not consistently obeying the Spirit and allowing Him to manifest Himself in our life is to legitimately lose that assurance. ^[42]

Growing in certainty of something usually requires time and/or research to gather further information. It can be an arduous task, but if the issue is important enough, it is well worth the effort. Along these lines, NT scholar William Sanday (1843-1920) wrote:

The certainty which springs from the absence of questioning and of search is a different thing from the certainty which comes after search and enquiry. And the latter kind of certainty is, we may be sure, the higher and better of the two . . .

Belief which rests on grounds such as I have been describing touches the bottom; it feels the solid rock. Belief which rests upon [mere] authority [i.e. testimony] has always a certain amount of scaffolding between it and the base on which it stands; and the mind cannot help being haunted by the doubt whether that scaffolding is strong and firm enough to bear the weight thrown upon it. Will the authority itself bear the solvents of criticism?

But belief which has been itself tested by criticism–which comes out as the result of a critical process–cannot have any further solvent applied to it. Its roots go down into the very constitution of the human mind. And the faith which springs from it has all that buoyancy and sense of freedom which comes from having no reserve–no weak place which one shrinks from putting to the proof.

The confidence which comes from the rigorous exclusion of opposing forces is one thing; that which comes from having met and fought and conquered them is another. The last alone is a healthy confidence; it alone carries with it the true assurance and elation of victory. ^[43]

Which is why in particularly spiritual matters, we should do what is necessary to grow our faith, something we discuss further elsewhere. ^[44]

Pastoral Practices

• Are you absolutely certain of all that Scripture teaches? Perhaps none of us are supposed to reach such a point, but let us not assume that the King does not expect His Teachers to fervently and diligently strive to correctly and confidently understand everything He has said. This is a vital way in which we honor Him and serve the saints, never assuming that any part of God’s word is not important enough for such confident understanding.

It is a humble yet studied confidence in what we understand of God’s word that is necessary to teach it with authority as the King has commanded (cf. Tit 2:1, 15). Even a Deacon “must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear [and confident] conscience” (1 Tim 3:9), how much more a Teacher!

Is there anything God has said that He would want you to be more certain of, and you could be, with further study, prayer, and seeking Him on it?

C) Adequate Certainty

While some areas of truth are capable of absolute certainty, many things in life are not, and instead, are only capable of adequate certainty. In other words, if we were God, we would have an immediate and absolutely certain knowledge of everything. For us, however, many of our conclusions are at best interpretations, made by beings of limited intelligence, on the basis of a limited selection of evidence, which in turn is interpreted in the light of an unknown number of hypotheses, most of which we have never personally examined. Such is being human instead of divine. That is not to say that we cannot have absolute certainty of many other things as well, but simply to admit that we cannot have such certainty in all things.

Here we wish to avoid two unfortunate extremes. We have already noted above the error of those who claim all of our beliefs are mere probabilities. For the regenerated Christian, Jesus Christ is more than a probability. However, there is a tendency in Christianity to claim absolute certainty in more areas than we can. Does God give us warrant to be absolutely certain about everything like He is? No. And, in fact, we are left to probabilities and our own private judgment in more areas than some Christians think. But this is precisely what God intended, and it is yet another example of the gap between us and our Creator. God expects us to live in the realm of private judgment, our Spirit-liberated reason, a multitude of probabilities, practical faith, and adequate certainty, all of which are under His sovereignty. ^[45]

Along these lines, Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, Professors of Philosophy at Boston College, point out:

Sometimes we can draw a conclusion, not from premises known with certainty to an equally certain conclusion, but from various convergent clues to a reasonable (or probable) conclusion. Juries do this all the time. They decide that someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; they weigh the evidence with scrupulous care; but still a wrong verdict is conceivable.

Drawing a probable or reasonable conclusion is not like doing logic or mathematics. Plato said long ago that most of our knowledge is “light opinion.” And in this life it couldn’t really be otherwise . . . In fact, what counts today as the scientific method doesn’t even claim to deliver what we mean by certain knowledge. ^[46]

In mentioning the courtroom, the authors are obviously using the classic illustration of what we mean by adequate certainty. It is important to note that not even God promises to intervene to ensure the right verdict, and, in fact, horrible mistakes have been made. Nonetheless, all the jury has to depend on is human information, which can be faulty, as opposed to divine revelation, and therefore, only natural and imperfect certainty is possible. ^[47]

While we may wish for absolute certainty in every area of life, we are not God, and He expects us to live and act according to reasonable certainty. For example, Paul tells Timothy that if, “an accusation against an Elder . . . is brought by two or three witnesses” then it is to be accepted as certain enough that the Church leader is “to be rebuked publicly” (1 Tim 5:19-20). Could there be some conspiracy against the leader? Of course, but in this life we do not have the privilege of operating with absolute certainty in everything, and God knows that and is sovereign in these things as well. He had even instructed the Israelites, “On the testimony of two or three witnesses a man shall be put to death” (Deut. 17:6).

John Henry Newman made an important point regarding the practical difference between absolute certainty and adequate certainty when he wrote:

Most of the propositions we think, reason, discourse-nay, act upon, are such as we cannot have undoubted knowledge of their truth: yet some of them border so near upon certainty, that we make no doubt at all about them; but assent to them as firmly, and act, according to that assent, as resolutely as if they were infallibly demonstrated, and that our knowledge of them was perfect and certain. ^[48]

In other words, it is difficult for us to clearly delineate different levels of certainty, and in reality, such differences may not affect our decisions. As noted above, we cannot be certain that we will avoid a fatal car wreck on the way to work today, but we do not hesitate to drive to work anyway. Therefore, the differences in certainty we are discussing should, for the most part, be seen as philosophical differences rather than practical ones. We are going to act upon things we cannot be absolutely certain about, even though it will be with less confidence than those things that we are more certain about. This is what we discuss elsewhere as practical faith. ^[49] And this is, again, a way of life for finite humans.

Hopefully, some perspective on certainty can help those who live in unreasonable fear or have a difficult time making decisions. As John Frame notes:

We have a moral obligation, when we do not have absolute certainty, to accept the most probable possibility [if necessary]. Scripture tells us to live according to wisdom, and such judgments are certainly part of wisdom. It would be very foolish, for example, for me to live in mortal terror that an earthquake would open up in front of my house and bury me alive. I cannot prove absolutely that such an earthquake will not occur, but the chances that it will are so remote that it would be irresponsible for me to let such a slight probability rule my life. ^[50]

Likewise, J. R. Lucas writes:

We can afford to be choosy about what counts as a mathematical or scientific argument because we always have the option of not reaching a conclusion. It is otherwise in practical life. Decisions have to be taken. Not to decide is in effect to take a particular decision. The option of suspending judgment is not open. Our information may be imperfect, our reasoning ill-considered, but we must do the best we can in the time available and in the light of what we know at the time. ^[51]

God knows that we must make a myriad of decisions without the luxury of His foreknowledge and omniscience, and He will be gracious and sovereign as we plod through life with our human limitations. And contrary to mega mysticism, God is not in the habit of constantly intervening to give us an extra-biblical divine revelation of His omniscience and foreknowledge in order to ensure we make the right decisions. ^[52] Sometimes in order to move forward in life, it is not more divine revelation or human research that we need, but rather more trust in God’s goodness which He has already revealed.

In the end, life is full of making decisions based on perceived probabilities, all of which makes us even more thankful for the things we can be absolutely certain about, like the never-ending love of God which He, “has poured out . . . into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom He has given us” and which has been clearly “expressed in His kindness to us in Christ Jesus” (Rom 5:5; Eph 2:7). What else do we need to be certain about?

Pastoral Practices

• Do you have a difficult time making decisions? This may reveal a lack of confidence in God’s grace and provision. He expects us to make decisions with the best human information we can obtain, and then trust Him with the mistakes that might be made. A man who refuses to decide because of fear may not be loving those who need a decision made. A man afraid to make mistakes may not know God’s love for Him. Is there something in your life in which the loving thing to do is to make a decision even if it is with adequate certainty?

Extras & Endnotes

A Devotion to Dad

Our heavenly Father, we praise You today that we can be certain about some things, and they are the most important things! Help us to grow in our certainty of things that we can be more certain of, including Your love and faithfulness. And help us to teach others the truth they need to be more certain of the same.

Gauging Your Grasp

1. Define each of the three levels of certainty we suggest and give examples of each.
2. Do you believe we can have absolute certainty about some things? Why or why not?
3. What is something you currently only have potential absolute certainty in and God would have you grow to absolute certainty?
4. What are some practical applications from our discussion regarding adequate certainty?

Publications & Particulars

1. God has perfect knowledge despite what proponents of “Open Theism” contend. For further discussion of the heretical idea of open theism that God does not know the future perfectly see Bruce Ware, God’s Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism (Crossway, 2000); John Frame, No Other God: A Response to Open Theism (P & R, 2001); and Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity, John Piper, Justin Taylor, Paul Kjoss Helseth, eds. (Crossway, 2003). ↑

2. Quoted by William R. Fey in Faith and Doubt: The Unfolding of Newman’s Thought on Certainty (Patmos Press, 1976), 102. ↑

3. Richard Swinburne, Faith and Reason (Oxford University Press, 1981), 123 ↑

4. The Works of Joseph Butler, D. C. L., W. E. Gladstone ed., vol. 1 (Clarendon Press, 1896), 5. ↑

5. John Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1987), 136. ↑

6. John MacArthur, The Truth War: Fighting for Certainty in an Age of Deception (Thomas Nelson, 2007), 12, 16-17, 24-25. ↑

7. For further discussion of Reformed epistemology see chapter 2.8 ↑

8. Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief (Oxford University Press, 2000), 63. ↑

9. William P. Alston, Perceiving God: The Epistemology of Religious Experience (Cornell University Press, 1991), 297. ↑

10. William Lane Craig in Five Views on Apologetics, Steven Cowan ed. (Zondervan, 2000), 323 ↑

11. J. P. Moreland, Kingdom Triangle (Zondervan, 2007), 121 ↑

12. Daniel Taylor, The Myth of Certainty (Intervarsity, 1992), 91, 94, 97. Dr. Taylor offers the following quote by Pascal as historical evidence of his skepticism: “Let us therefore not look for certainty and stability. Our reason is always deceived by fickle shadows (Pensees, 19-20). However, Pascal is quoted in the book elsewhere as stating: “We must know where to doubt, where to feel certain, where to submit. He who does not do so, understands not the force of reason” (95). This would seem to us to uphold the virtue of certainty and the value of reason, contrary to Dr. Taylor’s view. And anyone who knows the writings of Pascal, knows he was no skeptic, but wrote with a great deal of certainty about many things of God. ↑

13. John G. Stackhouse, Humble Apologetics: Defending the Faith Today (Oxford University Press, 2002), 95-6. ↑

14. In response to a critical review of his book, Humble Apologetics, Dr. Stackhouse writes:

    In short, I think we human beings can come to strong, heartfelt, life changing convictions. . . . I don’t think we can come to certainty—the province of omniscience. I think we come, instead, to faith. (Quoted in Books & Culture [Sept/Oct 2003], 4-5.

    Dr. Stackhouse is right to point out that our finite knowledge is certainly different from God’s omniscient knowledge. This is, in fact, why we trust what God says more than what we think. However, it is not necessary for humans to have omniscience in order to have absolute certainty that is free of doubt, nor is biblical faith something short of absolute certainty either. ↑

15. MacArthur, Wars, 21-22 ↑

16. Stackhouse, 96. ↑

17. Ibid., 109, 112. ↑

18. For an introduction to the biblical concept of faith see chapter 6.1 ↑

19. Quoted by Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (BECA) (Baker, 1999), 765. ↑

20. For further discussion of the distinction between divine revelation and human information see section 2.3.C. ↑

21. For further discussion of the adequate certainty involved in practical faith see section 6.C. ↑

22. Stackhouse, 120, 155, 232. ↑

23. For further discussion regarding the certainty of biblical faith see chapter 6.16 ↑

24. Augustine, Handbook on Faith Hope and Love, VII:20. (online at ccel.org) ↑

25. Quoted by Avery Dulles in The Assurance of Things Hoped For (Oxford University Press, 1994), 230. ↑

26. The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (TWOT) defines yāda in all sorts of ways that reflect absolute certainty:

    This root, occurring a total of 944 times, is used in every stem and expresses a multitude of shades of knowledge gained by the senses. . . . yāda is used of God’s knowledge of man (Gen 18:19; Deut 34: 10) and his ways (Isa 48:8; Ps 1:6; 37:18), which knowledge begins even before birth (Jer 1:5). God also knows the fowl (Ps 50: 11). . . . yāda is also used for man’s knowledge and for that of animals (Isa 1:3). . . . The yāda is also used for the most intimate acquaintance. God knows Moses by name and face to face (Ex 33:17; Deut 34: 10). He knows the Psalmist’s sitting and arising (Ps 139:2). . . . plagues of Egypt were sent so that the Egyptians might know that Jehovah is God (Ex 10:2, etc.). He will destroy (Ezk 6:7) and restore Israel so that they may know that he is God (Isa 60:16). The prophet Ezekiel, in particular, uses the phrase “that you may know” in his threats (Ezk 6:7, 10, 13, 14; 7:4, 9, 27, etc.). (Paul R. Gilchrist, “know,” Gleason Archer, R. Laird Harris, Bruce K. Waltke eds. [Moody, 1980], 366). ↑

27. Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Definitions, (Findex.com, 1999), #539. ↑

28. C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, Electronic Edition STEP Files CD-ROM (Findex.com, 2000), Gen 15:6. ↑

29. Jack B. Scott, TWOT, 51-52. ↑

30. Nelson’s Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament (NEDOT), Merrill F. Unger and William White Jr. eds. (Thomas Nelson, 1996), 15. ↑

31. Vine, 346. Dr. Vine lists instances in the aorist tense:

    (Matt 13:11; Mark 7:24; John 7:26; 10:38; 19:4; Acts 1:7; 17:19; Rom. 1:21; 1 Cor. 2:11 (2nd part), 14; 2 Cor. 2:4; Eph. 3:19; 6:22; Phil. 2:19; 3: 10; 1 Thess. 3:5; 2 Tim. 2:19; Jas. 2:20; 1 John 2:13 (twice), 14; 3:6; 4:8; 2John 1; Rev. 2:24; 3:3, 9. (346). ↑

32. E. D. Schmitz, “Knowledge, Experience, Ignorance,” NIDNTT, II:391ff. ↑

33. Dr. Vine lists: Matt. 6:8, 32; John 6:6, 64; 8:14; 11:42; 13:11; 18:4; 2Cor. 11:31; 2Pet. 2:9; Rev. 2:2, 9, 13, 19; 3:1, 8, 15 (Ibid.) ↑

34. O. Becker, “Faith,” NIDNTT, I:591. ↑

35. Vine, 222. ↑

36. For further discussion of the absolute certainty in biblical faith see chapter 6.16. ↑

37. Quoted by Avery Dulles in The Assurance of Things Hoped For (Oxford University Press, 1994), 30. ↑

38. Herman Bavinck, Prolegomena, Church Dogmatics, Vol. 1 (Baker, 2003), 576. ↑

39. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion in The Comprehensive John Calvin Collection, CD-ROM, (Ages Software, 1998), III.ii. ↑

40. Quoted in Iain Murray, Evangelicalism Divided, (Banner of Truth Trust, 2001), 5. ↑

41. For further discussion of the absolute certainty involved in saving faith see section 6.16.B ↑

42. For further discussion of the assurance of our salvation see chapter 5.5 and chapter 6.6. For other examples of areas of potential absolute certainty, or things in which our faith can grow see Rom 8:38-9; 14:14, 23; 2 Cor 10:15; Eph 1:18-19; 3:18-19; 2 Tim 1:12. These pertain to what we call empowering faith as opposed to other kinds of faith (cf. chapter 6.7). ↑

43. William Sanday, The Oracles of God (Longmans, Green, 1891), 45, 81. ↑

44. For further discussion on growing our faith see chapters 6.12-14. ↑

45. For further discussion of the concept of private judgment see section 3.1.C. and chapter 3.3. Regarding Spirit-liberated reason see especially chapters 4.15-16. Regarding practical faith see section 6.1.C. ↑

46. Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics, (InterVarsity Press, 1994), 18-19. ↑

47. R. C. Sproul speaks of the difference between absolute and adequate certainty when he writes:

    Without a distinction between formal [absolute] certainty and moral or juridical [adequate] certainty, it would be impossible to convict anyone of a crime unless God Himself were both prosecutor and judge. Thus moral [adequate] certainty refers to certainty acquired from the weight of evidence that, though lacking in philosophical [absolute] certainty, is weighty enough to impose moral culpability. (“The Internal Testimony of the Holy Spirit” in Inerrancy, Norman Geisler ed. [Zondervan, 1979], 347). ↑

48. Fey, 73, underlining added. ↑

49. For further discussion of the adequate certainty exercised in practical faith see section 6.1.C. ↑

50. Frame, 136. ↑

51. J. R. Lucas, “Reason Restored” in The Rationality of Religious Belief (Clarendon, 1987), 80. ↑

52. This approach to decision making can be referred to as mega mysticism which is the belief that God regularly communicates to us regarding extrabiblical matters (e.g. what job to choose) through more direct and miraculous means of divine revelation such as inspired intuitions and impulses and miraculous “signs.” For further discussion see Book 14. ↑