What are some examples of circular reasoning in issues that Christians debate?

N*. We do not doubt that. It is begging the question. We are inquiring which is the true church. Is he to take for granted that securing grace to monsters of wickedness by sacraments, and they communicating it to profligates like themselves, is sanctioned by Christ, and His way of maintaining the security of the true church, when he has been taught by yourselves to look for holiness as a mark of the true church and apostolic succession? when, if he could read these things, and were not deceived by men like Milner, he would know that Baronius says he cannot own them for legitimate popes?

Bishop Gore has written that, for his school, "it becomes more and more difficult to believe in the Bible without believing in the Church" ("Lux Mundi," p. 248; cf. his sermon in 1900 at Westminster Abbey for the British and Foreign Bible Society), which means, doubtless, as Fairbairn puts it, that "as the supremacy of the Bible is weakened, the position of the Church is strengthened." If men thus tell us that our faith must be rooted in the Church's testimony, we need only reply by inquiring, How are we to know that "the Church" is to be trusted? Any rejoinder that the Church rests on the authority of the Bible would he manifest reasoning in a circle.

310 But, further, "the universal practice of the one body" is the authority for the unity of the constitution. To say that one Spirit and one body proves the unity of the constitution of the body and its form on earth, is rather violent; but this we may take up on its own merits farther on. Only if this be a strict definition of the unity, it certainly defines nothing as to any constitution on earth, nor even alludes to it. They did well not to attempt to prove it from holy scripture; but then why say it defines it strictly? If it did, being scripture, it would prove it clearly; but it says nothing about any constitution, about the only point to be proved — a visibly constituted form on earth displayed in an episcopate and priesthood. But, in point of fact, about one-third of the universal professing church has not this form, say a quarter of it; universal practice does not prove it now. It will be said, "But they have separated from the unity as they have not the episcopate and priesthood;" but this is begging the question. Universal practice, they say, proves the unity of the constitution of the one body. I shew the practice is not universal, and I am told that they are therefore not of the body. This is a mere vicious circle.

274 But this is the whole question. Dr. O'Brien takes the definition of the word given by the impugned system, and then shews that the definition involves the system. Of course it does. But that is exactly the point in question; the adversaries of the erroneous system deny that the grace is conferred in the rite, and Dr. O'Brien, bringing in the word sacrament (which has no warrant in scripture) and the definition given of it by his system, cannot prove anything but that his system holds it. It is too gross a case of begging the question to pass current for a moment. It is the very thing denied which his definition of a sacrament involves if we call it sacrament. Of course, if I accept his word and definition, I must accept the conclusion, for it states it: that is, he states what is denied as a proof that it is true. His arguments amount to the use of an unscriptural word as the name of the rite, and a traditional definition giving a sense which the word itself never had which false definition is a statement of the doctrine denied.

But, after all, clever as Mr. Wiseman is, it is a vicious circle he is in; he takes the scripture as an authentic book. This itself then he supposes may be done. But if authentic, in the first place, it is clearly inspired, as any one who reads it may see - that is, it gives us (to say the very least, for I think it goes further) an authentic account of the actual authoritative teaching of Paul, Peter, James, John, Jude, and of the Lord Himself. If this be so, I have no need of the church to receive its doctrine as divine. The authentic record of Christ's words and the apostles' teaching, gives me a divine instruction directly, which no reference to a derivative authority can set aside; because the body which would set aside or call in question the authority of that from which it derives, is not derivative from it at all. If it be then authentic, I have the original divine instructions which founded, formed, and guided the church itself at first. If it be not authentic, then to find that the church was founded proves nothing, for if not authentic, I do not know it is true. If I am to receive the church from it, I certainly can receive Christ's and all the apostles' words from it directly. But I may go further. If it be not inspired as well as authentic, and if I do not know it to be so, I have no inspired warrant, that is, no divine warrant for hearing the church at all. So that on this ground you cannot set up the authority of the church, without setting up previously the authority of scripture itself. The authenticity proves inspiration, or it gives no inspired authority for the church, and I hear all Christ's and the apostles' inspired words, as well as that as to the church. For if I receive something a person says, and not the rest, I receive none of it on his authority.

But after all, clever as Doctor Wiseman is, it is a vicious circle he is in. He takes the scripture as an authentic book. This itself then he supposes may be done. But if authentic, in the first place it is inspired, as anyone who reads it may see. That is, it gives us (to say the very least, for I think it goes farther) an authentic account of the actual authoritative teaching of Paul, Peter, James, John, Jude, and of the Lord, Himself. If this be so, I have no need of the church to receive its doctrine as divine. The authentic record of Christ's words and the apostles' teaching gives me a divine instruction directly, which no reference to a derivative authority can set aside; because the body, which would set aside or call in question the authority of that from which it derives, is not derivative at all. If it be then authentic, I have the original divine instructions, which founded, formed, and guided the church itself at first. If it be not authentic, then to find that the church was founded proves nothing; for if not authentic, I do not know it is true. If I am to receive the church from scripture, I certainly can receive Christ's and the apostles' word directly.

But I may go farther. If it be not inspired as well as authentic, and if I do not know it to be so, I have no inspired warrant, that is, no divine warrant for hearing the church at all. So that, on this ground, you cannot set up the authority of the church without setting up previously the authority of scripture itself. The authenticity proves inspiration, or it gives. no inspired authority for the church, and I hear in scripture all Christ's and the apostles' inspired words, as well as that as to the church. For if I receive something a person says and not the rest, I receive none of it on his authority.

Mr. G. would contend for the scriptures "as corresponding by their contents to the idea of a divine revelation to man." This idea is then outside and independent of the scripture. For to attempt to prove the correspondence between the scripture and an idea is valueless. It would seem that man has it through the "known divine operations in other spheres" (I suppose, the material creation, and providence). How does man know apart from the Bible that there are divine operations in other spheres? The ancient pagans saw these self-same operations, but looked at them as the operations of nature, and concluded that nature was eternal. If he admits — as he must — that these divine operations. in other spheres are only known through the scripture, his reasoning amounts to this, that by the Bible-we know that these operations in other spheres are divine; and then, by a change of front, these same operations are proof that the Bible is a divine revelation. Is this logic? Is ii not rather arguing in a circle? There must be a fixed point to begin with. That fixed point every believer has by faith in God's word (Heb. 11:1-2). All this illogical shuffle is because he says holy scripture is a divine revelation, in which nevertheless we see the imperfection and failing memory, etc., of man. But if he does not admit receiving this "idea" from the Bible, we can only ask where did he get it? Was it from the prehistoric documents of other religions, or from himself?

Now if there can be no faith without divine communication, then we can have no faith if we have no such divine testimony. If the Bible is not inspired, our only testimony is human, on which faith cannot rest. Where then is our faith? It cannot exist; and yet "Without faith it is impossible to please God" (Heb. 11:6). Is there not a fault in our reasoning? Yes there is; the fault lies in assuming the Bible is not inspired.

That is resting upon God. The heart, as it were, says, "I know Him; I do not test Him, I do not tempt Him; I believe Him, and I believe what He says is true. I believe, moreover, it is true, because He says it." You will tell me that this is reasoning in a circle. Be it so! It is a magnificent circle to reason in — it is a divine circle. I believe what He says is true, and I believe it is true, because He says it.

61 In speaking of John's Gospel, he assumes this absence of God's inspiration. "Is it possible for me to receive them [the miracles] on his word?" (Ib. p. 175.) Perhaps not; perhaps yes. But the question is, Is it God's word? I am not here saying it is God's word (though I need hardly say I fully and thankfully believe it, and bless God for it, as the best treasure of my soul); but I say that is the question, and asking "How can I believe on his word?" is begging the question. You are seeking to prove it cannot be inspiration; the reason you give for it is, that you cannot believe it on his word. But the whole question is, Is it on his word? That is, you exclude God. And I here recall to the reader that what Mr. N. calls faith at second-hand is alone faith at all, unless each person is to receive a message from God immediately.