Sometimes a philosopher will try to pull what he thinks is a "tried-and-true" criticism of people of faith. And time after time, Christians fall for it because they don't know the refutation. However, when it comes to an answer to the Circular Reasoning accusation, we have the goods. Truth and logic are on our side.

The argument goes something like this: I am Pope Gregory the Great. How do you know I am Pope Gregory? Because I tell you I'm Pope Gregory. Why should you believe what I say? Well, because Pope Gregory wouldn't lie to you, would he?  You see the point. Citing something to prove something, then taking that proved something to support the first thing, is called "circular reasoning."

Put it another way. I never make a mistake. How can you believe that? Because someone who never makes a mistake would never get that wrong, right?

And if you don't think this really happens and that people lose their souls over it, look at the career of the "Prophet" Joseph Smith in the Mormon church. He said he had a vision of God the Father in which God told him he would be a prophet. Well, people reasoned, it must be true that he had the vision; after all, a prophet wouldn't lie about that sort of thing. From this beginning, millions of souls have been lost forever. So this is a deadly serious subject.

Here's how it's used against Christians: "You Christians are always quoting the Bible to prove the Bible. You assume one part of the book is true just because another part says it is, then you use that "true" part to back up the first part. That's Circular Reasoning!"

And we fall for it. But here's the answer. (It is herein presented in the way the late Dr. Walter Martin presented it on a talk show to a skeptic named Partridge in the mid-1960s. It was succinct and rife with his own godly humor. Most of the account is paraphrased but is true to the actual recording of Dr. Martin, which I have.)

The skeptic started with the argument, saying "I am Confucius," and went from there right down the well-trodden path. He then sat back with satisfaction and said, "You always quote the Bible to prove the Bible, and that's the problem with you Christians!"

"Who told YOU the Bible was a single book?" Martin answered. The skeptic looked at him and said, "Well, it is!" Martin said, "And that's the problem with you philosophers! You don't do your research; you just spout off without checking things. It just so happens that the Bible is not one book, it is a compilation of 66 books by 30-some-odd authors spanning a period of 1500 years!" So, Martin said, if Christians quote Matthew to substantiate Deuteronomy or Deuteronomy to substantiate Ezekiel or Ezekiel to substantiate Jude, we are not quoting one book but instead we are citing wholly independant sources. They are written by people who, despite living in different places and cultures and writing in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek and fifteen centuries apart, all testify to one thing: they all had an encounter with the Living God.

Jesus and the rest of the people in the New Testament are constantly referring to the Old Testament as "The Scriptures." Peter calls Paul's writings "Scripture." (2 Peter 3:16). James 2:23 calls Galatians 3:6 "Scripture." So if James and Peter back up Paul, then Paul is a valid source. And Paul backs up Jesus and the Old Testament in all things.

And on that basis, you, Christian, may say with confidence that the "Circular Reasoning" argument has no validity when used against you in your faith.