Are Christians being logically fallacious?

[igr]

Johan Biemans (jbiemans) #29,   so if it is essential to get it right, how can anybody know they have it right?  On the other hand, if it is not essential to get it right, what is the minimum requirement and who says so?  ta

[Lion IRC]

We often hear Christians dismissing terrorist movements in Africa such as the "Lord's Resistance Army" as not real Christians. This is a No True Scotsman fallacy. Why are they being logically fallacious?

Forget about true Christians. Is there even such a thing as a True Scotsman?

If not (nay) then there's no such thing as the NTS fallacy. Which means nobody is committing any fallacy. The LRA can call themselves 'Christian' and others can freely dispute that claim. People can just argue.

If so (aye) then that means there really is a true definition therefore one Scotsman is the True Scotsman and the other is a pretender.

You frequently hear a lot of anti-religious folks level that NTS fallacy allegation the way we see here. But those anti-religion folks are also frequently seen defending science and rationalism and empiricism.

How then, does the scientistic atheist defend against the claim that homeopathy is science? or astrology is science? Or that intelligent design for example should be taught as a scientific theory?

...oh those aren't true science Lion IRC

[Johan Biemans (jbiemans)]

Johan Biemans (jbiemans) #29,   so if it is essential to get it right, how can anybody know they have it right?  On the other hand, if it is not essential to get it right, what is the minimum requirement and who says so?  ta

I agree.  I think that according to most theologies, it is essential to get right, but it is virtually impossible to know with any good degree that they have it right.  This is problematic.

[lapwing]

[Kalamity]

I agree with jbiemans. And if the means by which one determines true faith (and thus a "real" Christian) is perseverance until death, then one cannot even determine the genuineness of one's own faith.

This seems to be a bit contradictory to the confidence of 1 John. Unless of course you are Calvinist, then a systematic approach would tell you that you cannot know if you are saved (which isn't really the question here).

I embrace both the perseverance that lapwing noted and the drawing of John 6. Which also includes a passage that many draw upon for once saved always saved. I don't see an either or dichotomy. I embrace it all.

It sounds like "true Christian" doesn't really hold any meaning to you at all then. If "once saved always saved" is true, then what does it matter if someone lost their faith ?  Of course, then you could say "well, they were never really saved then if they left the faith".  In which case, we are back to the original problem of knowing who is "saved" and who isn't.  We are back to the definitional problem again.

There are also people who believed themselves to be saved and then lost their faith.  What would you say about them?  And if it can happen to them, how can you be sure it won't happen to you.

I still agree with you.

[Rostos]

I really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really dont know why Atheists look at the actions of "believers" as opposed to what scripture says when judging a philosophy/religion.

One of the greatest mysteries of mankind.

Really ??

Matthew 7:16-20King James Version (KJV)

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

How on earth is that even an argument against what i said?

[Emuse]

I think there is a simple solution as to why believers can't agree on this and that is because the Biblical authors don't agree with one another on this.  Let's take a comment from the author of the letter to the Hebrews ...

"4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit,  5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,  6 if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame."

Hebrews 6:4-6

The author is saying that someone can't be brought back to repentance if they fall away which is to state that someone cannot be brought to a point of repentance if they have repented before and have since fallen away.  He even goes on to say that some of these have "become partakers of the Holy Spirit".  So say that the author is not referring to believers that he considers genuine would involve reading huge amounts into the text that simply isn't there ... and only to stop Biblical authors disagreeing with one another.  Something which doesn't form any part of any standard historical analysis.

If a true believer can't fall away then why issue a warning on something that can't happen?  It would be like me saying, "You can't heal the broken leg of a person who has crashed to the ground after flying just by flapping their arms".  Well, thanks for pointing that out Emuse!  I don't expect I will need to do that any time soon.  On the other hand, if a person can have repented, partaken of the Holy Spirit and so on and still not be a genuine believer ... then what? 

The simplest solution is that the Biblical authors disagreed with one another on this topic.  And why would we even deny that when we know that division arose in the Church early on and in relation to doctrinal issues?  What would we make of someone in 2000 years time who took books from Plantinga, Craig and Swinbourne and simply on the basis of an assumption (these blokes were divinely inspired) tried to make them agree with one another?  Modern believers can disagree so why not ancient ones?  In short, some thought that a genuine believer could be lost whilst others didn't and this is reflected in their writings.

[bdsimon]

It sounds like "true Christian" doesn't really hold any meaning to you at all then. If "once saved always saved" is true, then what does it matter if someone lost their faith ?  Of course, then you could say "well, they were never really saved then if they left the faith".  In which case, we are back to the original problem of knowing who is "saved" and who isn't.  We are back to the definitional problem again.

There are also people who believed themselves to be saved and then lost their faith.  What would you say about them?  And if it can happen to them, how can you be sure it won't happen to you.

I already said that didn't I? It (Christian) doesn't have a real Biblical definition. The Bible (and Jesus specifically) talks about disciples, not Christians.

As I am writing this, I see Emuse has posted a thought on it that highlights what I said above that you missed my point on. There are passages that say you can lose your faith and ones that say you cannot. There are passages that say work it out and others that say grace and faith alone. Again, I embrace it all and recognize that (just maybe) God wrote it that way to appeal to both the Marys and the Marthas in the world.

At the end, I believe that all that confess Jesus as Lord will be saved. And I also believe that there is pretty strong evidence that all will eventually do exactly that.

[Kalamity]

Either that, Emuse, or certain doctrines are based on erroneous interpretations that do not harmonize with the full context of Scripture. And if one finds oneself mired in absurdity when exploring the implications of such doctrines, then perhaps it's time to re-examine one's beliefs.

[Kalamity]

bdsimon, you cannot just gloss over it all like that. Any atheist would be well within their rights to ignore us if we interpret thus.

[Johan Biemans (jbiemans)]

I really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really dont know why Atheists look at the actions of "believers" as opposed to what scripture says when judging a philosophy/religion.

One of the greatest mysteries of mankind.

Really ??

Matthew 7:16-20King James Version (KJV)

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

How on earth is that even an argument against what i said?

Rostos:  Why do atheists judge believers by their actions ?

Johan: Matthew 7:16-20 says that you can know them by their fruits (You can know my followers by their actions).  In other words, atheists can judge believers by their actions because it says so in the Bible.

Rostos: What does that have to do with what I said ?

[AnimatedDirt]

They were in love with the God they believed was there.  Once they realized that it wasn't and they were simply in love with the concept of God, the relationship breaks down because now it is one sided.  It really isn't that hard.

This makes no sense.  None of us today are given proof of God's existence!  If we did, don't you think we would've already shared this life-changing news to you all?

All Christians have a relationship with Christ based on FAITH, not empirical proof.

[Language-Gamer]

I think there is a simple solution as to why believers can't agree on this and that is because the Biblical authors don't agree with one another on this.  Let's take a comment from the author of the letter to the Hebrews ...

"4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit,  5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,  6 if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame."

Hebrews 6:4-6

The author is saying that someone can't be brought back to repentance if they fall away which is to state that someone cannot be brought to a point of repentance if they have repented before and have since fallen away.  He even goes on to say that some of these have "become partakers of the Holy Spirit".  So say that the author is not referring to believers that he considers genuine would involve reading huge amounts into the text that simply isn't there ... and only to stop Biblical authors disagreeing with one another.  Something which doesn't form any part of any standard historical analysis.

If a true believer can't fall away then why issue a warning on something that can't happen?  It would be like me saying, "You can't heal the broken leg of a person who has crashed to the ground after flying just by flapping their arms".  Well, thanks for pointing that out Emuse!  I don't expect I will need to do that any time soon.  On the other hand, if a person can have repented, partaken of the Holy Spirit and so on and still not be a genuine believer ... then what? 

The simplest solution is that the Biblical authors disagreed with one another on this topic.  And why would we even deny that when we know that division arose in the Church early on and in relation to doctrinal issues?  What would we make of someone in 2000 years time who took books from Plantinga, Craig and Swinbourne and simply on the basis of an assumption (these blokes were divinely inspired) tried to make them agree with one another?  Modern believers can disagree so why not ancient ones?  In short, some thought that a genuine believer could be lost whilst others didn't and this is reflected in their writings.

Well there you go, guys: biblical expert Emuse interpreted one of the most debated passages for us with no competence in hermeneutics, Greek, background literature, etc., only bravado. But more seriously, is it any wonder I commented that I know of no atheists on here who have studied the bible a lot. Instead of trying to understand the text, the goal is simply to use it to support conclusions you really want to be true.

[bdsimon]

bdsimon, you cannot just gloss over it all like that. Any atheist would be well within their rights to ignore us if we interpret thus.

What am I glossing over?

[lancia]

At the end, I believe that all that confess Jesus as Lord will be saved. And I also believe that there is pretty strong evidence that all will eventually do exactly that.

There is certainly some reason to believe that. The Bible, in Philippians 2:11, indeed says that all will confess that Jesus is Lord.

The setting of that confession is likely at or after the time when the whole world is brought into submission to the Son, when it will be evident that Jesus has been resurrected. So, at that time when one confesses that Jesus is Lord, it seems reasonable to accept that one also believes in one’s heart that Jesus has been raised from the dead. Thus, the description in Philippians satisfies the requirement specified in Romans 10:9 to be saved.

Philippians 2:11, “and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

Romans 10:9, “that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.”