Consider this: when someone asserts, “You can’t use the Bible to prove the Bible,” they may not realize they’re inadvertently drawing from a Christian perspective. What are they borrowing? The concept of a fundamental unity or single authorship within Scripture. To claim the Bible cannot validate itself implies an underlying assumption of its inspired nature. Without this presumption, there’s no logical basis to treat the biblical canon as a unified whole. Particularly for a non-Christian viewpoint, the Bible should be regarded as sixty-six distinct ancient documents, each standing on its own merit. To argue that they collectively stand or fall together suggests an assumed unified authorship. Thus, the argument becomes paradoxical: the statement “You can’t use the Bible to prove the Bible” inadvertently endorses the unified, inspired nature of the Bible it seeks to dispute.

You Can’t Use the Bible to Evidence the Bible? Introduction
I have heard this statement many times. It can come from Christians or non-Christians, but mainly I hear it from unbelievers: the idea that the Bible is inadmissible as evidence for itself. If I were trying to use the Bible to prove the validity of the Bible (from the perspective of many outsiders), this is considered circular reasoning. This statement is not only incorrect, but it also completely misunderstands its own argument. Ironically, it makes the exact circular assumptions that it accuses believers of.
Three Reasons this is Stupid
1. The Bible is Not One Book
When discussing proving or substantiating the truths of the Gospel message, it’s crucial to approach it as historians, not solely as religious observers. The common argument inaccurately positions Christians as claiming the Bible is true simply because it says so. However, the Bible is not a singular book. The term Bible itself isn’t even found within these texts. Rather, the Bible is a compilation of works created over a thousand years by numerous authors, some connected, others not. The Protestant Bible contains sixty-six books in total.
Focusing on the New Testament, we delve into the core narrative of Christianity, highlighting the incarnation of Christ, his identity, and his deeds. Arguing that one can’t validate the New Testament using its own texts is misinformed and lacks critical reflection. Notably, the term New Testament and its list of books are not mentioned within these texts. The New Testament is a label for a collection of writings that narrate and interpret Jesus Christ’s advent. It comprises twenty-seven books.
From a historian’s perspective, asserting that the Bible cannot be used to validate itself is highly misguided.
Read More
Related Posts:

In the Left’s twisted theology, transgenderism is a sacrament that promises rebirth and renewal but delivers only despair, pain, disfigurement, and death. It sells the lie of salvation through the mutilation of mostly the bodies of young children. While Christ’s body was crushed for our iniquities (Isaiah 53:5) for making atonement for sin, transgenderism leaves scarred bodies in its wake for a fruitless quest that will end with the just judgment of God.

It’s been clear for some time that Christianity’s relationship to American culture has changed dramatically in recent decades.
You may have rolled your eyes at “The War on Christmas” as the rants of out-of-touch, older generations. Maybe the culture warriors’ focus on stopping the removal of nativity scenes in town squares and Ten Commandment monuments in courthouses only briefly caught your attention. You might have thought their work was important but these changes were probably not the signs of a looming cultural disaster. Now, however, it is beyond doubt that these warnings were prophetic and have been nearly all vindicated.
What seemed like overweening nostalgia for better times was actually a perceptive sense of massive shifts away from America’s historic traditions, which were largely the product of an Anglo-Protestant culture. The past 70 years in America have shown that the slippery slope is very real indeed.
Over the past few years, this cultural downgrade has been captured on social media by a picture of three buildings along the Lower Manhattan skyline on Good Friday in 1956. Each features lighted-up office windows in the shape of a cross, depicting the crucifixions of Jesus and the two thieves. Measuring 150 feet tall, these crosses were “sent over the wire by United Press Telephoto and appeared in newspapers around the United States—often front page center,” as Fox News reported.
This a far cry from what you will likely observe in NYC today. Now, instead of seeing purely Christian symbols and themes, NYC skyscrapers light up in the colors of the LGBT flag and other emblems of our 21st-century public morality, which uses many of the outward trappings of Christianity as a skin suit.
This fundamental moral reorientation becomes very apparent when considering how Easter is treated by the spokesmen for the current moral consensus.
Our social media behemoths routinely ignore the day that celebrates Christ’s resurrection from the dead. Google has not put up an “Easter doodle” on its homepage since the year 2000. On Easter Sunday in 2013, Google instead featured a web designer’s rendering of Cesar Chavez, the activist labor titan.
When Easter isn’t being sidelined altogether, it’s being used as a prop to support the latest regime propaganda that strikes at the heart of orthodox Christianity.
The Biden administration issued a short statement on Easter Sunday that was overshadowed by an ebullient and lengthy proclamation that declared March 31 a “Transgender Day of Visibility.”  The now-highest holy day of modern liberalism was created by Michigan transgender activist Rachel Crandall-Crocker in 2009.
Biden’s proclamation affirms “the most fundamental freedom” of trans people “to be their true selves” against “extremists” who “are proposing hundreds of hateful laws that target and terrify transgender kids and their families.” Such supposedly horrific laws include “silencing teachers; banning books; and even threatening parents, doctors, and nurses with prison for helping parents get care for their children.” Contrary to Biden’s assertions, all these types of laws are ones that Christians should unequivocally support in principle. Students need to be protected from reading books filled with filth in public schools and from doctors and hospital systems that push them through the trans meat grinder. That Biden and his cronies think these things deserve to be praised and honored is a window into the soul of the modern Democratic Party.
Steve Sailer has aptly described the Democrats as a “coalition of the fringes,” one which has clearly molded the party into its own perverted image.
Read More
Related Posts:

According to the Reformed understanding, all twelve articles are under the heading “gospel.” This doesn’t mean that there isn’t a narrow sense of the gospel (as sketched above), but it does mean that, when we answer the question of what must be believed, we do not stop at the narrow sense of gospel. We include in it the doctrine of the Trinity, a doctrine of God, a doctrine of creation and providence, of sin, of Christ, of salvation, of the church, sacraments, and last things.
Our doctrine of God is intimately connected to our understanding of man, salvation, church, and worship.
Modern evangelical answers to this question have focused on Christ to the exclusion of these other doctrines, but in Reformed theology they’re all connected. Our doctrine of God is intimately connected to our understanding of man, salvation, church, and worship. The Reformed faith, however, is biblical and catholic, i.e., we believe what the Scriptures teach about God, man, Christ, salvation, etc., as understood by the church in all times and places.
In contrast, for evangelicals, so long as one affirms a personal relationship with the risen Christ, everything else is negotiable. It is not even always certain what an evangelical means by “Christ.” Is she referring to the Christ of Scripture and history, confessed in the Creed, or to the Christ of subjective, mystical experience?
The Reformed answer to the question, “what must a Christian believe?” is not minimalist, but neither is it maximalist. We don’t ask Christians to believe everything possible. We ask them to believe all that is necessary. There are limits to what may be set as a condition of salvation. There is a hierarchy of beliefs. They aren’t all equally ultimate or necessary. There are fundamentalist groups that require adherents to believe that the King James Version of the English Bible is the only acceptable translation, but that’s not a necessary belief. The King James Version is a wonderful piece of work, but it’s just one translation among many.
The Geneva Bible pre-existed the KJV, the Tyndale translation pre-existed the Geneva Bible, and we’ve had many fine translations since 1611. Others would set the length of creation days as a necessary belief. One is certainly entitled to one’s opinion about the meaning of the “day” in Genesis 1 and 2, but historically the emphasis has been on the reality of the creation days and upon the truth that we are created and not the Creator.
Read More