The Circle Argument - And Review
(The following article appeared in the Feb., 1961, issu of CHRISTIAN WAYMARKS, published at Granit City, Ill., by Christian A Lyles.)
"Once in a while in debate, correspondence or publication of some sort, one party to an argument, usually the negative side will use: the circle argument. He will draw a circle and challenge his opponent to write something in it, or perhaps he will use just the blackboard without the circle but the principle is the same. Of course he knows that the thing called for cannot be produced else he would not call for it. When the thing he asks for is not forthcoming he proceeds to argue that he has thus been proven right. The good thing about the circle argument is that properly set up one can prove almost any thing by it. The bad thing about it is that the opposition can use it also.
"Several years ago in Damascus, Arkansas. Ben M. Bogard, in debate with Curtis Porter, kept constantly calling for the passage of scripture that says, "The Church of Christ." The challenge was, "Write down the passage, just one will be enough; that mentions the church of Christ, singular number." No such passage could be produced, hence none was written down. It did no good to point out that "the churches of Christ" are mentioned and that if several were "the churches of Christ" then one would be "the church of Christ." Some of the hearers of that debate may have thought Bogard won that point.
"In Pontiac, Michigan, a little over a year ago, I heard Sterl Watson and Ervin Waters debate the cup question. Waters had the circle and constantly challenged brother Watson to write in the circle a passage, just one passage would be enough, where cups were mentioned. Since the container" is not mentioned in the scriptures, neither singular nor plural, no passage could be written in the circle. I suppose all of Waters' people went away satisfied that Waters was right else brother Watson would have written something in the circle.
"The circle argument could be extended much farther. Suppose you were asked to write in a circle a passage, just one will be enough, that says the church was established on Pentecost; one that mentions a baptistry; one that mentions a ceremony when baptizing; or singing when assembled together for worship. It will do no good to say these things are taught. A contrary pot wants the things mentioned in so many words — that is if he is against it he wants it so mentioned.
"In addition to the above mentioned items the circle argument is used against Sunday school, graded literature, organized care of orphans and several churches combining their resources in order to do a work bigger than either can do alone.
"You won't have to wait long to see the circle argument used. It can be used by most anybody for most any thing. The best thing to do is carefully consider whether it proves what the user wants it to prove. Sometimes it doesn't."
Some points in the "Circle Argument" article deserve clarification.
The use of the circle (usually drawn on the board with the request that passages be written in it) is an excellent means of showing the lack of authority behind certain practices, but the misuse of it is in demanding specific mention of a thing.
A practice might be authorized in one of two ways — generic or specific. On the other hand, it might not be authorized at all. If authorized, it could be by example, by command, or by necessary inference drawn from an example or direct statement.
When Bogard used the circle he was not calling for authority, he was calling for a specific — an exact expression. When Waters used the circle he was calling for specific mention. Many people fail to understand that a thing does not have to be specified to be authorized.
Others go to the opposite extreme and think that anything is authorized unless expressly forbidden. The truth lies between these extremes.
No practice should be accepted in religion unless authorized in the Bible. Instrumental music in worship is wrong because it is not authorized in the New Testament.
One could use the circle most effectively in calling for authority for mechanical music. However, it would not be fair to demand specific authority — express mention of a piano, for example. General authorization would do just as well. Since mechanical music is without authority, either generic or specific, it should be excluded from worship.
The missionary society is wrong because it is not authorized. It would not have to be mentioned by name in order to be authorized, but it would have to be taught in some sense. I would not hesitate to use the circle in demanding authority for this or anything else under question.
Church buildings, baptistries, and similar items are authorized, though not specified. The command to assemble (Heb. 10:25) necessarily implies a place. No matter whether the place is a tent, cave, building, brush arbor, or shade tree, whether rented, borrowed, bought or provided free, it is a place, and therefore authorized in the generic sense by necessary inference.
Church support of missionary societies, colleges, orphanages, and other human institutions is not authorized in either the generic or specific inference. These organizations are not in the category of meeting houses, song books, baptistries, literature, and Bible classes.
The correct use of "the circle argument" is in calling for Bible authority; the erroneous use is in demanding specific mention. The question of authority lies at the root of most of the problems in the church. Some do not think we need a "thus saith the Lord." They should ponder such passages as the following: 1 Pet. 4:11; 2 John 9; John 12:48; Matt. 7:21. Others do not understand how a thing may be authorized. We should learn to respect divine authority and give more study to when a thing is authorized and when it is not.