ARE WE ASSUMING WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO PROVE?

Bible and Logic — Study 7

How circular reasoning can make an argument sound convincing without actually proving its conclusion.

1. "How Do You Know?"

Imagine this conversation.

A man says, "My brother always tells the truth."

Someone asks, "How do you know?"

He answers, "Because my brother told me so."

"But how do you know your brother was telling the truth when he said that?"

"Because my brother always tells the truth!"

Do you see the problem?

The man is using his brother's truthfulness to prove his brother's truthfulness.

He has not provided independent evidence.

He has simply repeated the very claim he is supposed to establish.

This is called circular reasoning.

Another name for it is begging the question.

That expression does not mean merely raising a question. In logic, it means assuming what needs to be proved.

An argument does not establish a conclusion merely by assuming that the conclusion is already true.

This mistake can occur in ordinary conversations.

It can also occur in Bible study.

2. What Is Circular Reasoning?

Circular reasoning occurs when an argument depends on a premise that assumes the truth of the conclusion it is supposed to prove.

Sometimes the circle is obvious.

For example:

Premise: This teacher is always correct.

Conclusion: Therefore, this teacher's teaching is correct.

But how do we know the premise is true?

If the answer is simply that the teacher says so, we have not established the conclusion independently.

Other times, the circle is harder to recognize.

An argument may contain several statements.

It may quote multiple Bible passages.

It may use technical terms.

But if the argument eventually depends on the conclusion it is trying to establish, it is circular.

Consider:

"This interpretation is correct because it agrees with the true doctrine."

"How do you know that doctrine is true?"

"Because this interpretation proves it."

The interpretation and the doctrine are being used to prove each other.

Neither has been established independently.

Repeating a claim in different words does not turn it into proof.

3. Can We Assume Our Interpretation Is Correct?

This is one of the most important questions in Bible study.

Suppose someone reads a passage that can reasonably be understood in more than one way.

The person chooses one interpretation.

Then he uses that interpretation as proof of a larger doctrine.

Finally, he uses the larger doctrine to prove that his original interpretation must be correct.

What has happened?

The argument has gone in a circle.

Consider this pattern:

Step 1: My doctrine is true.

Step 2: Therefore, this passage must mean what my doctrine requires.

Step 3: Since this passage has that meaning, it proves my doctrine.

But the interpretation in Step 2 was never independently established.

It was assumed because of the doctrine.

Then it was used to prove the doctrine.

That is circular reasoning.

This does not mean we should ignore the rest of Scripture when interpreting a passage.

Other passages can provide genuine evidence.

The problem occurs when we treat our preferred conclusion as though it were independent evidence for itself.

4. What About the Bereans?

Acts 17:10–12 provides a useful example.

Paul preached in Berea.

The Bereans received his message eagerly.

But they also examined the Scriptures daily to determine whether his teaching was true.

Notice the difference between two possible responses.

Response A: "Paul says this is true, so it must be true because Paul says it."

Response B: "Paul has presented a message. Let us examine the Scriptures to see whether the message agrees with what God has revealed."

Luke commends the second response.

The Bereans did not merely repeat Paul's claims as proof of those same claims.

They examined evidence.

Of course, Paul's authority as an apostle is established elsewhere in the New Testament.

But the point here is the Bereans' willingness to examine the message rather than accept a conclusion without investigation.

A claim should be examined using evidence that does more than repeat the claim itself.

5. Can a Bible Verse Be Used in a Circular Argument?

Yes.

The problem is not the Bible verse.

The problem is how someone uses it.

Consider a hypothetical discussion about the meaning of a prophecy.

One person says:

"This prophecy must refer to a particular modern event."

Someone asks:

"Why?"

The teacher answers:

"Because the prophecy describes that event."

"But how do you know the prophecy is describing that event rather than something else?"

"Because that is what the prophecy means."

The teacher has not supplied evidence identifying the event.

He has simply repeated his interpretation.

A stronger argument would examine the prophecy's original setting, language, historical background, and relationship to other biblical passages.

It would explain why the proposed fulfillment fits the evidence better than reasonable alternatives.

An interpretation becomes an argument only when reasons are supplied for accepting it.

6. What About the Book of Revelation?

Revelation provides many opportunities for circular reasoning because it contains symbolic visions.

Consider Revelation 13.

John describes a beast with seven heads and ten horns.

Suppose a teacher identifies the beast with a particular modern organization.

Someone asks:

"How do you know that organization is the beast?"

The teacher answers:

"Because Revelation 13 describes it."

"But what evidence shows that Revelation 13 refers to that organization?"

"Because the organization is the beast."

Nothing has been demonstrated.

The identification is being used to prove itself.

A responsible study would first examine the symbolism, the original audience, the historical setting, and the related imagery in passages such as Daniel 7.

Only then should the interpreter evaluate proposed identifications.

Even when an interpretation seems attractive, we must distinguish between what the passage establishes and what we have assumed.

We must not begin by deciding what a symbol means and then use the symbol to prove our decision.

7. Does Comparing Scripture With Scripture Create a Circle?

Not necessarily.

This distinction is important.

Suppose one passage is difficult to understand.

Another passage speaks more clearly about the same subject.

Using the clearer passage to help interpret the difficult passage is not automatically circular.

It can be a legitimate way of examining evidence.

For example, Luke 24:44–47 records Jesus explaining that the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms pointed toward His suffering, resurrection, and the proclamation of repentance for forgiveness of sins.

Jesus connected different parts of Scripture.

He did not treat each passage as an isolated statement.

The question is whether the passages provide genuine evidence for the interpretation.

Consider two approaches.

Legitimate reasoning:

"Passage A is difficult. Passage B provides additional information about the same subject. Together, they support this conclusion."

Circular reasoning:

"My doctrine requires Passage A to mean this. Passage A therefore proves my doctrine."

The first approach uses additional evidence.

The second assumes the conclusion.

Comparing Scripture with Scripture is valuable when the passages genuinely support one another rather than merely repeating our assumptions.

8. Can Our Religious Background Influence Our Reasoning?

Certainly.

Everyone approaches Scripture with some prior knowledge, experiences, and beliefs.

That is not automatically wrong.

We cannot erase everything we have learned before opening the Bible.

But we must recognize the difference between a starting belief and a demonstrated conclusion.

Suppose someone has believed a doctrine for fifty years.

He has heard it preached hundreds of times.

His parents believed it.

His congregation teaches it.

He may naturally read familiar passages through that understanding.

But none of those facts proves the doctrine.

The question remains:

Does Scripture actually establish the conclusion?

This is why we should be willing to examine interpretations that challenge our assumptions.

That does not mean abandoning a belief merely because someone questions it.

It means giving the evidence an opportunity to confirm or correct what we believe.

9. Is Every Argument Based on Starting Assumptions Circular?

No.

This objection deserves careful attention.

All reasoning begins somewhere.

We rely on basic principles such as the distinction between truth and falsehood, the reliability of properly established evidence, and the ordinary meaning of language.

Some questions about our most basic starting points belong to philosophy and cannot be settled by a simple syllogism.

But that does not mean every argument is equally circular.

There is a difference between openly identifying a starting point and secretly assuming the very conclusion under debate.

For example, a Bible study written for Christians may begin with the shared belief that Scripture is God's Word.

That is an openly stated starting point.

But if the discussion concerns whether a particular interpretation is biblical, the writer must still demonstrate that the interpretation follows from Scripture.

He cannot simply declare:

"My interpretation is biblical because it is the correct interpretation."

A shared starting belief does not excuse faulty reasoning about what Scripture teaches.

10. How Can We Recognize Circular Reasoning?

When examining an argument, ask these questions:

First: What conclusion is the teacher trying to establish?

State it clearly.

Second: What evidence is offered for that conclusion?

Identify the passages and other premises.

Third: Does the evidence have support independent of the conclusion?

Or does it depend on assuming the conclusion is already true?

Fourth: If someone does not already accept the conclusion, does the argument give that person a reason to accept it?

Fifth: Could the teacher explain the interpretation without simply repeating the doctrine being defended?

These questions can reveal a hidden circle.

They can also help us improve our own reasoning.

11. Some Objections Worth Considering

Objection: "Doesn't every Christian begin with faith in the Bible?"

Many Christians do.

But beginning with faith in Scripture does not establish every interpretation of Scripture.

The purpose of this study is to examine whether our conclusions follow from what the biblical text teaches.

A person's belief in biblical authority does not make every personal interpretation correct.

Objection: "If I already know a doctrine is true, why must I prove it again?"

You may have good reasons for believing it.

But when presenting an argument to someone else, you should be able to explain those reasons.

Simply repeating the doctrine does not demonstrate it.

Objection: "Can't two passages explain each other?"

Yes.

That is not automatically circular.

Two passages may provide independent or complementary evidence.

The problem occurs when the interpretation of one passage depends entirely on a conclusion that is then supposedly proved by that same interpretation.

Objection: "Isn't this just another way of demanding proof for everything?"

No.

We are asking for reasons appropriate to the claim being made.

Some statements are directly expressed in Scripture.

Others require interpretation or inference.

The more an argument depends on disputed assumptions, the more carefully those assumptions should be examined.

Objection: "Can a circular argument have a true conclusion?"

Yes.

A conclusion may be true even when the argument offered for it is circular.

The problem is that the argument has not independently established the conclusion.

A true belief still deserves a sound defense.

12. Try It Yourself

Consider this argument:

Premise 1: This interpretation of Daniel is correct because it agrees with the biblical timetable.

Premise 2: We know the biblical timetable is correct because this interpretation of Daniel establishes it.

Conclusion: Therefore, the interpretation and timetable must both be correct.

What is wrong?

The interpretation is used to prove the timetable.

The timetable is then used to prove the interpretation.

Neither has been established independently.

Now consider a different argument:

Premise 1: Acts 2:36 states that God made the crucified Jesus both Lord and Christ.

Premise 2: Peter was speaking about Jesus of Nazareth.

Conclusion: Therefore, Peter proclaimed Jesus as Lord and Christ.

Does the conclusion follow?

Yes.

The passage itself establishes the central claim.

We do not have to assume a disputed interpretation in order to reach that conclusion.

The argument rests on what the text actually says.

13. What Have We Learned?

We have learned that:

• Circular reasoning assumes what it is trying to prove.

• Repeating a conclusion in different words does not establish it.

• A Bible passage must be interpreted before it can properly support a larger argument.

• We must not use a doctrine to determine a passage's meaning and then use that assumed meaning as independent proof of the doctrine.

• Comparing Scripture with Scripture is not automatically circular.

• Our religious background may influence how we interpret passages.

• An openly stated starting point is not the same as a hidden circular argument.

• A circular argument may have a true conclusion, but the argument itself does not establish that conclusion.

• The same standards must be applied to our own interpretations.

Here is the principle to remember:

YOU CANNOT PROVE A CONCLUSION MERELY BY ASSUMING IT IS ALREADY TRUE.

A Final Thought

It is easy to recognize circular reasoning when someone else uses it.

It is much harder to recognize when the argument supports something we have believed for many years.

That is why we must examine our own reasoning.

When we say, "The Bible teaches this," we should be able to explain how the passages establish the conclusion.

If our explanation depends on assuming the conclusion before examining the evidence, we need to reconsider the argument.

The truth does not need to be protected by circular reasoning.

Our responsibility is to examine Scripture carefully and follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Read First. Reason Carefully. Conclude Later.

TEXT B4 TRADITION

Continue Exploring Scripture

Bible and Logic — Main Study Page

Does That Conclusion Really Follow?

Previous Study — Does a Teacher's Reputation Prove His Conclusion?

Learn why even respected teachers must demonstrate that their conclusions follow from Scripture.

Next Study — Does Biblical Silence Prove Permission or Prohibition?

Learn why an argument based on what Scripture does not say requires especially careful reasoning.

Return to HOME page

Return to STUDY page