Note that this is not a circular argument. We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument! What we have is really a spiral argument. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired. Akin claims he isn't using circular logic but he certainly is. He is also using an argument by assertion tactic by claiming things not in evidence. There are also a number of leaps in logic such as his claim that the Roman Catholic church was the church Jesus founded, that this church was "infallible", that this "infallible" church determined God's word was infallible and that without this "infallible" church we wouldn't have God's word or believe in its infallibility. Each one of these can be disproved, and HAVE been often right here.
Akin claims he isn't using circular logic but he certainly is. He is also using an argument by assertion tactic by claiming things not in evidence. There are also a number of leaps in logic such as his claim that the Roman Catholic church was the church Jesus founded, that this church was "infallible", that this "infallible" church determined God's word was infallible and that without this "infallible" church we wouldn't have God's word or believe in its infallibility. Each one of these can be disproved, and HAVE been often right here. none of these claims have been, can be, or ever will be, disproved, and certainly not on this thread.
For 2,000 years some of the most educated, learned, dedicated people on Earth compiled scripture, interpreted scripture, hand copied scripture, saved scripture throughout the ages. Now, somehow, we are to ignore them and rely on admittedly good people here on FR to prove them wrong.....If I were a betting man, I'd put some heavy duty bucks on their being right.