You never know what you’re going to find when looking through old computer files. In my case, I stumbled upon this little gem of a quote from John Robbins. Here, with his typical brevity and clarity, he teaches about the crucial distinction between knowledge and opinion.
“I distinguish – as the Bible and Plato do – between three noetic states: knowledge, opinion, and ignorance. Perhaps you do not so distinguish. But why would you not distinguish between knowledge and opinion, or knowledge and ignorance? It seems to me that a refusal or failure to distinguish between these thee states can lead only to greater confusion. Knowledge is always true. One cannot know that 2 + 2 = 5. Opinions may be true or false. Ignorance is neither true nor false. What distinguishes a true opinion form knowledge is an account of that opinion: It is giving reasons. Sudduth dared me to provide any passage of Scripture that so defines knowledge. It seems to me that here are many. For example, ‘Be ready to give a reason…’ ‘To the Law and to the testimony: If they speak not according to that Word, there is no light in them.’ ‘In Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.’ All, not some. Hidden, not available to discovery by men. The Scripture is both the content and the account of knowledge.” (Yahoo Van Til Ring, msg. 373, 1-22-99).
Lux Lucet 
I agree knowledge is always true and opinion isn’t, but I disagree knowledge requires a reason: otherwise, we wouldn’t be able to know the axiom of revelation.
Please re-read the quote, “The Scripture is both the content and the account of knowledge.”
I read it, it’s just inconsistent with:
“What distinguishes a true opinion form knowledge is an account of that opinion: It is giving reasons.”
Giving reasons is inferential knowledge. This definition of knowledge fails to capture the very axiomatic knowledge Robbins wants and makes anything axiomatic become mere opinion.
I disagree.
With what? Do we need to give reasons/an account in order for our beliefs to qualify as knowledge (pace Robbins), or do we not?
If we don’t, that is at odds with Robbins’ definition of knowledge.
If so, that leads to the need for giving reasons/an account for us to know the Bible as God’s word, thus preventing it from being axiomatic.
I’ve already answered you. Please feel free to have the last word.