Recently I was involved in an online discussion about the inerrancy of Scripture. An interesting question was posed when I used Scripture to support the inerrancy of Scripture: is doing so a circular argument? If you are not familiar with the term, a circular argument is simply an argument that assumes the very point it is supposed to be arguing in support of.
I don't find the use of Scripture to argue in favor of the inerrancy Scripture circular at all. Here's why: I believe one must start with the Gospels themselves and determine if they are accurate concerning the life and ministry of Jesus. If this is the case, and as you might expect I believe the four Gospels are indeed an accurate account of the life of Jesus, then Jesus himself is the argument for inerrancy and using what He said about the Scriptures is not circular at all. There are nearly two dozen instances in which Jesus affirms the authority of Scripture.
The Apostle Paul stated the case far better than I ever could in 1 Corinthians 15. The argument for Christianity has and always will hinge on whether or not the resurrection of Jesus Christ occurred or not. If it did not then Christian faith is futile. However, if the resurrection did occur then Jesus is who He claimed to be and His affirmation of Scripture stands.