Circular reasoning can be dangerous and self-defeating. What I want to argue here tonight, however, is what it may or may not have to do with Christianity. Bear with me as I try to prove that we must be comfortable with at least a certain restricted definition or aspect regarding the nature of special revelation as entirely based on circular reasoning. The ultimate defense behind what we believe about God is that men should believe it simply because God says that men should believe it. Is this circular reasoning? Maybe. I’ll try to explain this in the message, I promise. Can we prove biblical inspiration? No. Can a person ever “convince” someone else that God exists? No. Does evidence actually save anyone from sin? No. The miracle of faith, of hearing through the Gospel, is what really saves us. In light of the Faith, what should we avoid then in circular reasoning? And how might we need to become comfortable in our understanding of the reality that unless God grants someone faith (by grace alone) that they'll otherwise never have it? Where might an understanding in all this actually help us in our evangelism, our church methodology and our prayers? I want to talk through this to develop this in our apologetics as believers. There is no escaping the fact that Christianity is at its core a supernatural revelation. It's miraculous. You could see Jesus come out of the grave and go to hell. You simply don’t/can’t trust it (at least savingly) unless you're born again. Most would agree with this on the surface. I want to take it a bit further with you if I can. Where we’re to go with people in discussing the Faith should be evangelistic and not based alone, so as to exclude our apologetics to the lost, on the sure miraculous necessity of its comprehension coming only or immediately (directly) from God himself.

God bless!!!

(If this has been a blessing to you, would you please share it with someone else? Come by Biblecia.com anytime for new stuff).