top of page
Search
Writer's pictureEdward D. Andrews
Sep 158 min read

Refuting the Accusation of Circular Reasoning in Defending the Bible's Authority

In the world of Christian apologetics, a common accusation thrown at believers is that using the Bible to prove the Bible constitutes "circular reasoning." This accusation often comes from individuals who do not accept the Bible as the inspired Word of God and demand that believers set aside their foundational text when presenting evidence for their faith.


What follows is a real-world exchange between a Christian and a skeptic, where the skeptic repeatedly insists that the Christian's defense of the Bible is circular, while the believer responds with logical and reasonable arguments. The conversation showcases a respectful yet assertive back-and-forth, tackling the accusation of circular reasoning and defending the Bible as both a foundation of faith and a piece of evidence that stands on external corroboration, such as archaeology, fulfilled prophecy, and historical accuracy. As the dialogue progresses, it becomes clear that for believers, the Bible is not just a book but the ultimate source of truth that cannot be abandoned when making a case for the Christian faith.


Explore strategies for using Scripture to defend and prove truth. Learn effective reasoning methods. Read more for insights.



OBJECTOR


"This method involves explaining, proving, persuading, and defending the truth of Christianity by using the Bible as the ultimate authority." Isn't that circular?"


CHRISTIAN APOLOGIST


Your concern about circular reasoning assumes that everyone approaches the Bible from a neutral perspective, which isn't the case. If someone doesn't already accept the Bible as the inspired and authoritative Word of God, it may seem circular to use it to prove its claims. However, if we start from the premise that the Bible is indeed God’s revelation, it’s not circular but rather consistent with our worldview to use Scripture as the ultimate authority in spiritual matters.


Beyond that, the Bible doesn’t stand alone without corroborating evidence. History, archaeology, fulfilled prophecy, and the consistency of the biblical narrative all reinforce the reliability of Scripture. For example, historical and archaeological discoveries have validated biblical events and places (e.g., the existence of ancient cities like Nineveh and Babylon), and fulfilled prophecies like those concerning Jesus Christ add weight to its divine inspiration. So, while the Bible is our ultimate authority, it is not without external evidence that supports its claims.


In any worldview, including those based on science or philosophy, there is always an ultimate authority or foundational premise that you appeal to in order to reason. For Christians, that foundation is the Bible because we believe it is divinely inspired and inerrant (2 Timothy 3:16). Therefore, our reasoning is not circular but consistent with our foundational belief.



OBJECTOR


"I don't see how believing in the bible helps, though. Whether or not you believe the bible is true, if you want to prove that belief then you have to set that belief aside for the sake of argument, on pain of circularity."


CHRISTIAN APOLOGIST


I would respectfully disagree. All I have to prove is that the Bible is authentic and true. In any worldview, there must be an ultimate authority or foundation that doesn't get set aside for argument's sake, because it is the standard by which everything else is measured. For example, in logic, reason itself is the ultimate foundation, and no one would ask someone to "set aside" reason to prove reason’s validity—that would make no sense. Similarly, for Christians, the Bible is that ultimate authority. If we were to set it aside to prove its truth, we would essentially be asking ourselves to argue from a worldview we don't hold.


That said, when engaging with people who don’t hold the Bible as authoritative, we don’t simply rely on the Bible alone. As I mentioned earlier, there is significant external evidence—historical, archaeological, and even philosophical—that supports the Bible’s claims and its reliability as a document. For example, fulfilled prophecy, like the detailed predictions about the rise and fall of specific empires (e.g., Babylon, Medo-Persia), has been verified through history. Additionally, archaeological findings (like the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls) have confirmed the consistency of biblical texts over centuries.


The idea isn’t to “prove” the Bible by setting it aside, but rather to show that it holds up under scrutiny in a way that is consistent with both internal coherence and external evidence. By showing that the Bible is reliable, historically accurate, and internally consistent, we provide reasoned support for why we hold it as our ultimate authority without needing to abandon it for the sake of argument. I gave the following article to the objector.


Discover THE clear and definite miracle that you can hold in your hand: an absolute piece of evidence that points to the existence of God.



OBJECTOR


I kinda agree with you about the logic thing. If you are referring to the most basic form of classical logic, then sure, we cannot just set it aside, as you correctly point out. But notice that we can't prove logic either. Any such attempted proof would presumably rely on the very logic we are trying to establish! And that's no proof at all, as it would be circular. So if you're trying to say that the Bible is just one of those things that we have to take for granted up front, that would be something worth exploring. But that's very different from trying to use the bible to prove the bible---which, again, seems to me pretty self-evidently circular.


CHRISTIAN APOLOGIST


Your response about circular reasoning and the Bible’s authority brings up an important distinction. When someone views the Bible as the inspired Word of God, it’s not circular to use it as a foundation—just as it isn’t circular for someone who believes in classical logic to use logic in their reasoning. Every worldview has an ultimate foundation that isn’t "set aside" for the sake of argument. For Christians, the Bible serves as that ultimate authority because we believe it’s divinely inspired and trustworthy.


However, this belief in the Bible as God's Word isn't based solely on internal claims. We also rely on external evidence—such as historical accuracy, fulfilled prophecy, and archaeological discoveries—that consistently affirm the reliability of Scripture. The Bible, unlike other religious texts, has stood up to historical scrutiny and has been validated by non-biblical sources. For example, archaeological finds like the ruins of ancient Jericho or the Dead Sea Scrolls confirm the Bible's historical accuracy. This means we're not using circular reasoning, but rather pointing to external evidence that corroborates what the Bible says about itself.


So while we accept the Bible as the ultimate authority, we’re not asking anyone to do so without reason. The Bible’s internal consistency, external corroboration, and its ability to transform lives provide solid grounds for treating it as a trustworthy source, making it more than just a book of faith claims—it’s a "miracle" that stands up to rigorous investigation.



OBJECTOR


If you're going to adduce evidence like the external corroboration, archaeology, and so forth, then that would be one thing. Then, as long as you did not also just take the bible's claims for granted, then your case would not be circular in the way I mentioned above. But if at any point in making your case you fall back on just taking for granted that the bible's claims are true, then that's going to be circular by definition. Some people are okay with a circular argument---I've seen presuppositionalists call such reasoning "virtuously circular", whatever that means. But there seems to be no question that using the a belief to justify that same belief---regardless of what that belief is---is circular.


CHRISTIAN APOLOGIST


It’s interesting how often people who reject the authority of the Bible want to tell Christians how they should defend their faith, almost dictating what we can or can’t use as evidence. As free-willed agents, we aren't obligated to let others define how we do Christian apologetics or limit the tools we employ to defend our beliefs. You can’t expect Christians, who view the Bible as the ultimate source of truth, to set it aside in the process of explaining or defending their faith. Doing so would be like asking a scientist to stop using the scientific method when arguing for the validity of science—it’s simply inconsistent.


You’ve been given logical, rational responses that include external evidence like archaeology, fulfilled prophecy, and historical validation. Yet it seems that no matter what evidence is presented, you want to dictate how Christians should approach their defense. Why should Christians be required to abandon their foundational text when every worldview has its own core presuppositions that they hold to be true? For us, the Bible is both a source of truth and a piece of evidence in itself, as it is validated by various forms of corroboration. Dismissing it outright just because it doesn’t fit into the criteria you’ve set doesn’t invalidate our approach—it simply reveals a difference in foundational beliefs.


There comes a point when we have to recognize that no amount of evidence will convince someone who refuses to consider the Bible as a credible source. We don't use the Bible in isolation; we use it in harmony with the external evidence to build a coherent case for its divine inspiration. If that’s not satisfactory for you, we’ll agree to disagree, but we won’t allow others to dictate how we defend the faith or how we present our evidence. Christians have the freedom to use every tool at their disposal, including Scripture, which we believe is the very Word of God.



In Conclusion


In conclusion, it’s important to understand that defending the Bible using the Bible is not circular reasoning when viewed from the perspective of a Christian who holds the Bible as the ultimate authority. Every worldview has foundational beliefs that are not up for debate within that system, just as reason is foundational to logic, and scientific methods are foundational to science. For Christians, the Bible is that foundation, and while external evidence like archaeology, fulfilled prophecy, and historical corroboration strengthen its case, we don’t abandon our core belief in Scripture simply to appease skeptics.


We must also recognize that no matter how much evidence we provide, there will always be critics who dismiss the Bible outright and expect us to tailor our apologetics to fit their expectations. This is not the way to defend our faith. We should be respectful and rational in our defense, but we must remain firm in our conviction that the Bible is both our authority and evidence of God's truth. Ultimately, our goal is not to align our apologetics to please objectors but to stand firmly on the truth of God's Word, with confidence that it is divinely inspired and sufficient in both its internal consistency and external validation. We defend the Bible’s authority because it is the truth, not because we need to convince every critic.



About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220 books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).


RECOMMENDED READING


61 views0 comments

Comentários

bottom of page