I was at the PYV Summer Camp last week, and one of the interesting parts was the question time at the end (as it always is). One of the questions that was asked – and not, in my judgement, especially well answered – was whether or not the Bible’s claim to be the Word of God is a circular argument, and if it is, isn’t this a problem. The short answer is: yes, it is a circular argument, but no, it isn’t a problem.

Wayne Grudem, in his Systematic Theology, devotes a bit of space to this issue, and I mentioned this in my summary of what Grudem says about the doctrine of Scripture. Here’s what I wrote then:

It is impossible to prove that Scripture is true by appealing to a higher authority (such as historical accuracy or logical consistency) as Scripture, as God’s Word, is already the highest authority one can appeal to. Although it is a circular argument to say that Scripture is the highest authority because it claims to be the highest authority, this does not make it invalid, as any appeal to ultimate authority will base its claim on that authority.

Imagine you lived a few hundred years ago in a little village in a big country. You know you have a king, but you have never seen him and have no idea what he looks like. Then, one day, a powerful looking man dressed in regal attire arrives at your village, with a host of well dressed companions, servants, and soldiers with gleaming swords. This man then claims to be the king. If you were to argue that his claim to be the king was not legitimate because it was a circular argument, your head probably wouldn’t be attached to your body for much longer. You may be right that it is a circular argument, but that doesn’t take away from his kingship.

To continue with the analogy, what else can the king appeal to to claim his kingship? His companions can attest to his kingship, and his soldiers can put on a show of force so that few would want to deny his kingship (deny and die!), but it is the king’s word has the ultimate authority. Any claim to ultimate authority must be based on that ultimate authority. In the case of the Bible, we believe that it is God’s authoritative Word because God claims that it is his authoritative Word. The section in Grudem’s Systematic Theology on this issue says a lot more than I have, and although I can’t remember what it says, I can recommend it to anybody who wants to know more.

Now that that is cleared up (hopefully), I will briefly segue onto the topic of the reliability of the Bible. You could argue that the Bible is just a book and that you could easily write a book that claims to be revelation from God. However, there are good reasons to treat the Bible as more than just a human invention. At the centre of the Bible is the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Serious scholars (both Christian and non-Christian) treat the gospel accounts of Jesus as real historical accounts of Jesus’ life and death (even when they don’t believe the resurrection and miracles actually took place). The apostles preached that Jesus rose from the dead (this was at the very heart of their message) on the basis that they had seen the risen Jesus. And many of them were willing to die for this belief. People may make up things for all sorts of reasons, but nobody would willingly die a horrible death for a belief they know is wrong. There are some good books on this topic that I haven’t read but would like to: The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable by F. F. Bruce and On the Reliability of the Old Testament by K. A. Kitchen appear to be well worth reading.