Sure I do if a person violates the law they pay the wage .If they pay the wage it proves the violated the law . What goes up must come down, spinning wheels spinning round .
What you describe is the law of sowing and reaping. It has
nothing to do with circular reasoning. The two are completely unrelated.
I posted three web links for you to read for yourself; apparently you did not look them up.
Circular reasoning is using your starting premise as proof of your conclusion, which is itself your starting premise, as follows:
Premise 1: Self-edification is bad.
Premise 2: Building up of self instead of building up the church is selfish, self-focused, and contrary to the use of gifts for the common good.
Conclusion: Self-edification is bad.
That, while a simple example, illustrates what you've been doing. No matter what other information you put in between your first premise and your conclusion, if they are essentially the same thought, your reasoning is circular.
How do you define the law of God if not by comparing scripture to scripture(faith to faith) ? Scripture defines scripture. Not Webster's dictionary
True, but we are talking about the definition of a term ("circular reasoning") that doesn't appear in Scripture so you cannot use Scripture to define it.
As for edification, which does appear in Scripture, neither you nor Roger has admitted (I suspect you haven't even investigated) that in every other case where the word is used, it is clearly positive. Since edification is a good thing generally, it cannot automatically become bad when applied reflexively, that is, to oneself. In other words, self-edification is not a bad thing, but a good thing. As long as you start with the premise that self-edification is bad, your conclusion that it is bad is circular and invalid as a basis for further argumentation.
