Unlocking Divine Truths: Breaking Free from Not-Circular-Reasoning

Using the Bible to Prove the Bible: Are Biblical Creationists Guilty of Circular Reasoning?

Creation Ministries International has long been known for accepting the Bible as God’s written Word, considering it without error and the ultimate authority on all matters it teaches. However, critics often argue that biblical creationists engage in circular reasoning by believing the Bible to be God’s Word simply because it claims to be. In order to address this objection, we must consider two important points: starting assumptions and breaking the circle.

Starting Assumptions

All philosophical systems begin with axioms or presuppositions—non-provable propositions that are accepted as true—and then deduce theorems from them. Christians should not be faulted for having axioms, which are the propositions of Scripture. A proposition is a fact about a thing, such as "God is love." Therefore, the question for any axiomatic system is whether it is self-consistent and consistent with the real world.

Self-Consistency

Self-consistency refers to the absence of contradictions within a set of axioms. The accusation of circular reasoning actually demonstrates the internal consistency of the Bible's claims about itself. If the Bible had disclaimed divine inspiration, defending it would indeed be illogical. This argument can be applied to the Apocrypha, which explicitly disclaims divine inspiration in 1 Maccabees 9:27 and 2 Maccabees 15:37–39.

Consistency with the Real World

Christian axioms provide a coherent worldview—a thought map that guides us in all aspects of life. In contrast, non-Christian axioms fail these tests, as do the axioms of other "holy books." Biblical axioms have historically provided the foundation for modern science. One major axiom is that the universe is orderly because it was made by a God of order, not chaos (1 Corinthians 14:33). This raises the question: why should the universe be orderly if there were no God, or if a different deity were in charge? Without a consistent framework, the universe could potentially change its behavior.

Christian axioms also provide a basis for objective right and wrong. It is important to note that this does not mean atheists cannot be moral, but rather they lack an objective basis for morality within their own system. Atheistic evolutionist Clinton Richard Dawkins himself admits that our "best impulses have no basis in nature," and another atheist, William Provine, claims that evolution means "There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either." Christian axioms also provide a basis for voluntary choice since we are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26–27). Evolutionists, on the other hand, believe that we are merely machines and that our thoughts are solely motions of atoms in our brains. However, they quickly realize that this perspective does not align with functioning in the everyday world. By treating their wife as a free agent with desires and dislikes, they can more accurately predict behavior. In essence, they treat their spouse as someone who makes choices and has preferences. This highlights the practicality of acknowledging free will and contradicts the notion that we are merely automatons governed by programmed responses.

Breaking the Circle

It is important to note that using one part of the Bible to prove another part is not circular reasoning. For example, using Matthew to prove Genesis (Matthew 19:3–6) or Paul to prove Luke (1 Timothy 5:18) is not circular reasoning. Additionally, using Jesus' clear statements to validate the Bible is not circular either. Jesus frequently asserted that Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35) and consistently referred to it by saying "It is written." His words indicate that what Scripture says is what God says. Furthermore, Jesus defended many doctrines that skeptics often ridicule. It is worth noting that even liberal theologians, who may not accept Scripture as the ultimate authority, acknowledge the overwhelming historical evidence suggesting that Christ affirmed biblical inerrancy. Jesus' resurrection provides independent historical evidence that breaks the circular reasoning objection.

Conclusion

Creationists are not guilty of circular reasoning when it comes to their beliefs. Accepting biblical presuppositions is not a matter of blind faith, but rather a belief grounded in sound reasoning. Biblical faith is not blind; instead, it is a belief based on trust and loyalty, supported by valid reasons. As 1 Peter 3:15 encourages, we should always be ready to provide a reason for the hope that we have. Moreover, creationists do not merely present biblical presuppositions as an alternative perspective or a "nicer" framework. They assert that the biblical framework is superior in explaining data and provides the foundation for science, voluntary will, logic, and morality.

Why This Matters

Understanding the role of starting assumptions and evaluating self-consistency and consistency with the real world is crucial in assessing any philosophical system, including Christianity. By addressing objections related to circular reasoning, we can have more informed discussions about the validity of biblical claims and the Christian worldview.

Think About It

Consider the importance of starting assumptions in any belief system. Reflect on how these assumptions shape your understanding of reality and influence your worldview. Additionally, contemplate the practical implications of recognizing free will and objective morality within a Christian framework compared to alternative perspectives.