“But the charge will finally be made that I accept all this because the Bible tells me. The Bible tells me that its God and its Christ are absolute and the sole source of interpretation. The Bible tells me that obedience is a covenant obligation because a creation-implication. But whence my belief in the Bible? If my reply is that an absolute God and an absolute Christ need an absolutely authoritative Bible in a sinful world, the logic is granted. Such is surely the case. If sin is what Scripture says it is, a denial of man’s receptivity of heart and mind, if God is what Scripture says He is, an absolute God, and if Christ is what Scripture says He is, the restorer of man to God, then only an infallibly inspired Scripture can help true? If I say that it accords with my experience, I do not escape the charge of circle-reasoning, because admittedly my experience has been moulded under the influence of the Scriptures. If I say that Scripture accords with a Theism that I find more satisfactory than any other philosophy, I again do not escape the charge of circle-reasoning because I have just stated that my Theism, too, comes from the Scriptures. How then shall I escape the charge of circle-reasoning when men ridicule me because as an educator I assume the authority of Scripture?
The answer is that I shall in no wise seek to escape it but boldly affirm it as the only alternative to self-destruction. What I shall do is first show clearly on the one hand that an absolute God, creation, and man’s original receptivity of thought that is Theism is indissolubly connected with and restored by Christ and Scripture, that is, by Christianity; and on the other hand that a finite-God, an uncreated universe and the essential creativity of human thought, that is Anti-theism is indissolubly connected with a denial of Christ’s divinity and the authority of Scripture, that is with Anti-Christianity. Then, when I have done this, I gladly admit and avow that I am a Theist and a Christian because the Holy Spirit has made me so, but I equally maintain that all men should be Theists and Christians because only Theism and Christianity can offer meaning to experience at all. Circular reasoning is the most reasonable form of reasoning for a finite personality. No other form of reasoning is possible.” – from “Essays On Christian Education” Appendix 1 The Education of Man – A Divinely Ordered Need
“H.2.1. You rightly stress that a Christian pursuit of science is presuppositional. To this I would add that a non-Christian pursuit of science is presuppositional as well. After all, science has historically and principially its origin in pre-scientific life and world view (including religious convictions), and this fact holds good for non-Christian science as well. In section C.1. I have mentioned pre-scientific assumptions of, for instance, the theory of universal evolution. To this may be added your demonstrations of the presuppositions of chance and of the autonomy of human reason in the cases of the philosophical and empirical scientific theories, which you have penetratingly criticized. The differences between a Christian and a non-Christian pursuit of science are in this context, among others, that in a Christian pursuit of science the ultimate presuppositions are (a). obtained from God’s Word-revelation, (b). in submission to the authority of God’s Word, and (c). are explicitly stated and answered for, whereas in a non-Christian pursuit of science (a). the ultimate presuppositions are unbiblical, (b). the authority of the Holy Writ is radically rejected, and (c). the presuppositions are more often than not covertly, i.e., only implicitly, present and not accounted for. At any rate, both pursuits are necessarily presuppositional. But the difference of the presuppositions implies that there is basically no neutral pursuit of science. The issues concerning ultimate presuppositions cannot be settled by a direct appeal to facts, insofar as their interpretations presuppose the presuppositions concerned. The ultimate reference points determine the stand taken. What you contend concerning a Christian pursuit of science, namely that a circular reasoning is implied in the mutual involvement of starting point, method, and conclusions, holds good for a non-Christian pursuit of science as well.” – from “Jerusalem and Athens” Part Two 1H On Method
“In the light of what Montgomery says about miracles, what then does he consider the importance of such events? To him, as to other Christians, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is the supreme miracle. His reason for believing this is that, since religious experience is found only in the empirical realm, it must come either by divine written revelation or the entrance of a divine messenger. The writings would have to be internally consistent, which he appears to deny when he deals with Clark’s ideas, and would have to fit the facts of experience, presumably of both believer and unbeliever alike. The messenger would have to prove himself by performing deeds “unable or highly unlikely to be performed by mere human beings,” which might also support the claims of Lourdes, Fatima, and Ste. Anne de Beaupre (cf. Ex 7:11). Bringing book and individual together, he insists that Christ’s resurrection, as recorded in the New Testament, therefore proves that Christ is God. 45 But on his own terms does it? First of all, Christ’s resurrection is simply part of natural law and cannot be shown to be unique until history ends. 46 Secondly, in a completely open universe, where anything can happen except that which contravenes the law of non-contradiction, which Montgomery apparently accepts as more than merely descriptive, the resurrection may have been simply the result of chance, signifying nothing. 47 Since the proof of biblical inspiration is Christ’s resurrection, and the evidence in turn for the resurrection is the New Testament, such circular reasoning is empirically indefensible. On his own grounds, therefore, he has no argument in favor of Christianity. Furthermore, he has virtually destroyed any possibility of history having any meaning at all, for miracles can reveal nothing but their own uniqueness, and even that is never more than probable.” – from “Jerusalem and Athens” Part Four 22-3 What is History?
„In contrast with Kuitert, Zuidema begins his thinking about any and every problem with the Christ of the Scriptures. The Christ of the Scripture identifies himself directly in the Scripture. Belief in Scripture lies, as Calvin points out, above and beyond all reasoning of men. This is the case, not because it is faith but because it is faith in Scripture.
People may tell us that such a position commits us to reasoning in a circle. For you men will say: the “Bible is the Word of God, because it is the Word of God, and because the Word of God is the Word of God.” We reply that in believing the Bible as self-attesting we do not engage in circular reasoning because we do not engage in reasoning at all. The Bible does not stand on the level with the logical principle of identity. In short we accept the Bible on authority.” – from “The New Hermeneutic” Chapter 3 Zuidema’s Starting Point