As I said, i see nothing as circular in his explanation, also with those you refer as Bible based....
The reason as i said your view is “trap in seeing circular” is: you already have preconceived ideas = biased thinking about the other belief...
There is certainly circular reasoning in his argument
if the belief in what God has done he is referring to is
Bible based (A point he has yet to clarify).
I'll do my best to help you see it:
My OP asked how one comes to "...believe this book to be inerrant and of divine origin...". The objective is to know
why should I trust these stories to be inerrant. Remember, all further discussion is focused on this goal.
He replied by saying (among other things) "Without that [the HS]-the Bible is foolishness to the unbeliever..." Making the point that
without the HS, no one will understand the "wonder, mystery, and power of God's word [the Bible]". So, here, he actually answers my question (the objective) by introduction the concept of the HS.
Next, I asked him how to get the HS. His answer was "There are no special chants, tricks, etc... to gain said 'Spirit' other than
Faith in God-belief in what He has dome [done] for you. You don't necessarily have to have the Bible to have Faith.".
So far, we have the objective; why should/how do people believe the Bible to be inerrant. His answer is that you need to HS to understand the Bible. I then asked how do you get the HS. He said you have to have belief in what God has done.
The last point I made (because he never responded) was the contention that belief in what this god has done likely requires belief in the Bible. How would anyone "know" what this god has done without the Bible? So you have to already believe in the Bible in order to have an idea of what this particular concept of God has done in order to get the HS, and the HS is required the understand the Bible. Since the Bible itself is the thing in question (the objective), then its circular.
So it's not what you call a trap in seeing circular because of preconceived ideas. It's a well thought out evaluation of his argument. And I even
still left room for the possibility that I'm wrong by asking him to clarify his point. "Trap" is hardly the word to use.
In logic, there are rules, there is a premise.
A premise is an assumption to be true so as conclusion can be made.
Without a premise: there is no conclusion, of course….
So the critical part is: for everyone first to agree if it is valid premise…
(of course, Christians likes to use bible verse as a premise: what can be a more valid premise for Christians than a bible verse, the bible speaks the truth! )
Of course, if his premise is true, then the whole argument is valid and true. I'm arguing against the premise though and seeing his reasoning for believing that it is true. However, it is a logical fallacy because of this assumption unless he can show another reason besides pure assumption.
To give you an example what I meant:
For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him?
You agree that is a valid premise?
I'm not sure I'm clear on what you mean by "spirit". It may seem like a trivial point to questions that, but there are so many different concepts of that word (even among people of the same religion) that it would be irresponsible of me to assume which one you mean.