"Certain"

The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience.

The plight of any philosopher in the realm of epistemology is certainty. I recall listening to the debate between Greg Bahnsen and R. C. Sproul regarding apologetic method and one of the key issues that arises is this idea of philosophical certainty. Sproul denied its possibility, while Bahnsen upheld it. Before we defenestrate Sproul for heresy (I personally lean toward the presuppositionalist position), let's actually consider the discussion of certainty.

What is certainty? It is probably the closest term to what we might deem as inerrant in scholarly discussions today. It regards the characteristics of what is written as dependable, accurate, and true. We can be certain of the facts it expresses. Certainty doesn't necessitate exhaustiveness, but we can be sure of the validity of that which it does express.

Certainty is something we all desire. If there is one question always posed against the Bible, it is "How do you know it is right?" First, Scripture is self-testifying, "All Scripture is inspired [breathed] by God" (2 Tim 3:16, cf 2 Pet 1:16-21).  All throughout the Old Testament, we read "thus says the LORD." The 10 Commandments were spoken aloud by God and heard by all Israel (cf. Exo 20:1-22; Deut 5). Again and again, one will rad in Scripture that it is literally and simply the Lord God's words. The confession states this point thusly, "The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the author thereof; therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God." (Chapter 1:4).

Paragraph 5 of this chapter continues the issue:

We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church of God to a high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scriptures; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, and the Mandy of the style, the consent of all the pays, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, and many other incomparable excellencies, and entire perfections thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

In brief, what this section is saying is that we cannot ground our certainty in Scripture in anything else but by the Spirit's internal testimony. There may be a plethora of other evidence which support our conclusion, but none should be our ultimate grounding for our belief.  Certainty is ultimately a subjective experience. But being a subjective experience does not deny its objective reality. The recent discussions online about the color of the dress (is it white & gold or blue & black?) prove that even our physical senses are subjective interpreters of the objective reality.

This is why the presuppositionalist is right. There is an objective reality, but until one engages with their own "spectacles" through which they view reality, one argues in vain with evidences. And there is only one prescription glass which will cause the eye to see clearly. Until then, people walk around like Mr. Magoo, blind and clueless to it.  Further, how could someone blind have certainty in the world around them? It is only the person who can see clearly in the light that can have certainty in where his foot is placed. Likewise, it is only the Christian who's eyes and soul have been enlightened that can have certainty, but until that believing soul experiences it, they cannot even begin to understand the certainty which we have given by the Holy Spirit through the Scripture.

So what about Sproul and Bahnsen? I think Sproul was speaking for the blind man while Bahnsen spoke for the man with corrective lenses. It really did seem like Sproul was speaking from the philosopher's position as opposed to the Christian's. One of the key characteristics of Christ's ministry, and that of the apostles, was that the words they spoke was done so with authority and certainty, unlike the scribes and teachers of the law. How do we describe someone who seems to lack confidence and authority in their words and speech? Uncertain. But with the Christian message there is absolute certainty. There is no need to doubt the reliability of its testimony.  Therefore we can have "philosophical certainty."