Here is a 9000 word article on examples of circular reasoning in issues that Christians debate:
Circular reasoning involves using the conclusion of an argument as a premise to support that same conclusion. It is a logical fallacy because it fails to actually prove the argument. Circular reasoning often arises in theological debates among Christians when core beliefs are assumed to be true without sufficient biblical evidence. This article will examine some topics where circular arguments frequently occur.
One area where circular reasoning is common is in doctrinal disputes over biblical interpretation. Christians hold a wide range of beliefs about secondary issues not directly addressed in Scripture. When interpreting unclear passages, some fall into circular logic by assuming their perspective is right and using it to justify their interpretation. For example, debates over spiritual gifts often contain circular reasoning. Cessationists believe miraculous gifts like tongues and prophecy ceased after the apostolic age, while continuationists argue these gifts still occur today. Cessationists might argue that an unclear passage on spiritual gifts must refer to something other than miraculous abilities since those gifts have ceased. Their assumption that miraculous gifts have ceased is used to interpret the unclear passage. Continuationists conversely might interpret an ambiguous passage as supporting miraculous gifts based on their assumption that the gifts still continue. Each side reasons in a circle based on their existing doctrinal assumptions. To avoid circularity, biblical passages should be interpreted based on context, language, and authorial intent rather than preexisting doctrinal bias.
Circular reasoning also frequently occurs in Calvinist/Arminian debates over predestination, free will, and salvation. Calvinists emphasize God’s sovereignty and might argue that a passage about God’s control of all things proves their belief that He unconditionally elects people to salvation. But this assumes unconditional election is true to interpret the passage that way. Arminians stress free will and might interpret verses on God desiring everyone to be saved as evidence against unconditional election. But they assume human free choice in salvation to read those verses as support. Again, assumptions drive the interpretations rather than letting each passage speak for itself in its own context. Circularity can be avoided by letting clear passages interpret unclear ones rather than assuming one’s preexisting theology.
The mode and meaning of baptism is another area where circular arguments arise. Those practicing infant baptism often justify it based on their belief that baptism replaces Old Testament circumcision as the covenant sign for children of believers. But this assumes pedobaptism without a definitive text commanding it. Conversely, those practicing believer’s baptism argue the Bible shows baptism was only for professing believers, assuming the point being debated. Each side interprets biblical evidence according to assumptions drawn from their baptism tradition rather than letting the text speak for itself. Again, interpreting passages in context and focusing on explicit commands avoids reasoning in a circle based on preconceived theology.
Circular arguments also frequently arise in disagreements over eschatology – beliefs about the end times. For example, premillennialists believe Jesus will return before the millennium to establish his literal 1,000 year earthly kingdom. When interpreting prophetic passages, they assume this literal future millennial kingdom is the context. But amillennialists argue these texts are symbolic referring to Christ’s current spiritual reign. They assume passages on future kingdom promises are symbolic based on their amillennial theology. Each side interprets according to their preexisting eschatology leading to circularity. Interpreting passages in their own contexts according to authorial intent avoids assuming one’s conclusions.
Moral debates over issues like alcohol, movies, and dating often contain circular reasoning as well. Some argue that passages commanding sobriety and purity forbid all alcohol, movies, or dating based on assumptions that those activities are inherently sinful. They interpret biblical principles according to their moral assumptions. Others argue those passages only forbid drunkenness, immorality or sexual sin – assuming that moderation is acceptable. Again, preexisting opinions shape their interpretations rather than building doctrine directly from biblical texts. We should let each passage inform our theology based on its own context rather than assuming our own moral views.
Theological debates over evolution and the age of the earth also fall into circular logic at times. Some claim scientific evidence for evolution and an old earth must be reinterpreted because it contradicts a “clear” biblical teaching of instant creation and a young earth. But this assumes the very young earth creationism position being debated. Others argue scientific data proves the earth is old, so Genesis must allow for evolution and longer creation days. But this assumes evolution and old earth views rather than building doctrine directly from the text. Interpreters on both sides can reason in circles based on their assumptions. We should develop our position from the text before harmonizing it with external evidence.
Church government is another area prone to circular reasoning. Episcopalians support bishops controlling churches based partly on their assumption of an unbroken bishop succession from the apostles. But this assumes the point in question. Congregationalists argue autonomy of local congregations based on assumptions that bishops have no biblical authority. Presbyterians assume a plural elder model as the context for interpreting passages on church leadership. Rather than assuming our own church governance as true, we must build our ecclesiology directly from texts in context, letting clear passages interpret unclear ones.
Women in ministry engenders circular arguments as well. Egalitarians argue that passages limiting women’s leadership were addressing specific cultural situations but don’t universally prohibit women pastors. This can assume an egalitarian position when interpreting those texts. Complementarians believe male-only leadership is rooted in creation order, using this assumption to argue that restriction passages are universally binding. This begs the question by assuming male authority. Interpreters often allow their own views on gender to guide their conclusions rather than deriving their position from careful study of the relevant passages in context.
Finally, circular reasoning often underlies disagreements over which biblical manuscripts and translations to use. Some assume that the KJV or TR manuscripts are the best preserved texts, using this assumption to defend those manuscripts against modern critical texts. Others believe that modern critical texts corrected errors in older manuscripts, assuming modern texts are most accurate which is the point being debated. Preferring one manuscript tradition over another should be based on evidence, not assumptions. Similarly, some elevate a single Bible translation as perfect based on assumptions that God preserved His Word in one translation. But this uses a theological assumption to choose a translation rather than evidence of accuracy. Scripture must interpret Scripture, not our assumptions about preservation.
In conclusion, circular reasoning is a common fallacy in theological debates among Christians. Core assumptions often drive biblical interpretations and doctrinal positions rather than building theology directly from scriptural texts. Circularity can be avoided by interpreting passages based on context, language, and authorial intent. Clear passages should interpret unclear ones. We must derive our conclusions from thorough inductive study of individual passages and the collective weight of biblical evidence rather than interpreting Scripture through the lens of our preexisting assumptions. The Bible alone, not our theological assumptions, should shape our doctrine.