There has been much perplexity over what a true Christian may be. It also has been said that to claim one is not a true Christian on account of action or disbelief is fallacious and should not be succeeded. In other words, that the No True Scotsman fallacy applies to religion. The fallacy of the No True Scotsman is similar to an attempt to save a belief from falsity from discordant data by giving a reason why that data is insufficient, though the reason given is not reasonable other than it functions to save the belief. Specifically though, in the case of the No True Scotsman ones generalization is redefined only to escape the refutation of the generalization. A simple rendition would be as follows:
The universal statement all x are z is meant to exclude those that which x are not z. A counter example that faces the universal claim is not denied and the universal claim is not rejected, so the assertion excludes the example and others that would follow. It just may be the case a Scotsman would dislike haggis because a Scotsman is not absolutely defined, or at least one sole person does not decide who or who not is a Scotsman. There may be no specific prerequisites to being a Scotsman that states they must eat and enjoy haggis. This only implies that when there are certain prerequisites in order to be in a group or organization, it would not be incorrect of us to say they are not true so and so when they act contrary to their groups or organizations prerequisites. Take for example a case with a vegetarian.
A vegetarian is one who does not intake meat in the slightest. It would be appropriate then to say that one who claims to be vegetarian yet eats meat is not truly vegetarian. That is because vegetarianism has certain prerequisites in order to be adhered to. The same could be said of Christianity.
In order to be considered Christian one must believe that God has created the universe, is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc. They must believe that Christ was incarnate of God to save humanity from sin. That Christ was crucified, buried, and rose from the dead just to ascend to be with the Father and will later return. That Adam was the first person and committed the first sin that Christ came to redeem. If one says he is Christian yet disbelieves one of these tenets of Christianity, it would be appropriate to say he is not truly Christian. That should be all well and make sense. Now say that he believes these things including all the other tenets yet acts contrary to Christianity. Say for example he commits murder.
Another main tenet of Christianity is that man is not to murder his fellow man. Essentially this is to say that a Christian would not claim to follow God yet disobey God. More significantly this also means Christianity is about more than merely accepting the doctrines but acting out the sacraments and living as if those doctrines are really true. Of course there is forgiveness and that idea is as detectable as it sounds, but a habitual sinner cannot possibly call himself Christian. This is even made apparent in scripture: Whoever says, I know him, but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person (1 John 2:4). It is not as if we look at the one who says they are vegetarian while eating meat and conclude they are actually what they say they are, or do we? Of course not. They would be a liar. Yes, no one is sinless from day to day but with Gods aid we can refrain from sin and even then most of us do not commit mortal sins such as murder. Maybe this only means that it is all dependent on the action, or rather the sin. Perhaps it is dependent on our remorse for the sin, or if we even recognizes our misdeeds as sin. Either way, it would not be fallacious of us to call one who claims to be Christian yet doesnt accept Christian doctrines not a true Christian, just as it wouldnt be to say the same for one who acts consistently opposed to Christianity. There are such things as no true Christians.
Kip: All Scotsman like haggis.
Tim: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesnt like haggis.
Kip: Then your uncle is not really a Scotsman.
The universal statement all x are z is meant to exclude those that which x are not z. A counter example that faces the universal claim is not denied and the universal claim is not rejected, so the assertion excludes the example and others that would follow. It just may be the case a Scotsman would dislike haggis because a Scotsman is not absolutely defined, or at least one sole person does not decide who or who not is a Scotsman. There may be no specific prerequisites to being a Scotsman that states they must eat and enjoy haggis. This only implies that when there are certain prerequisites in order to be in a group or organization, it would not be incorrect of us to say they are not true so and so when they act contrary to their groups or organizations prerequisites. Take for example a case with a vegetarian.
A vegetarian is one who does not intake meat in the slightest. It would be appropriate then to say that one who claims to be vegetarian yet eats meat is not truly vegetarian. That is because vegetarianism has certain prerequisites in order to be adhered to. The same could be said of Christianity.
In order to be considered Christian one must believe that God has created the universe, is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc. They must believe that Christ was incarnate of God to save humanity from sin. That Christ was crucified, buried, and rose from the dead just to ascend to be with the Father and will later return. That Adam was the first person and committed the first sin that Christ came to redeem. If one says he is Christian yet disbelieves one of these tenets of Christianity, it would be appropriate to say he is not truly Christian. That should be all well and make sense. Now say that he believes these things including all the other tenets yet acts contrary to Christianity. Say for example he commits murder.
Another main tenet of Christianity is that man is not to murder his fellow man. Essentially this is to say that a Christian would not claim to follow God yet disobey God. More significantly this also means Christianity is about more than merely accepting the doctrines but acting out the sacraments and living as if those doctrines are really true. Of course there is forgiveness and that idea is as detectable as it sounds, but a habitual sinner cannot possibly call himself Christian. This is even made apparent in scripture: Whoever says, I know him, but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person (1 John 2:4). It is not as if we look at the one who says they are vegetarian while eating meat and conclude they are actually what they say they are, or do we? Of course not. They would be a liar. Yes, no one is sinless from day to day but with Gods aid we can refrain from sin and even then most of us do not commit mortal sins such as murder. Maybe this only means that it is all dependent on the action, or rather the sin. Perhaps it is dependent on our remorse for the sin, or if we even recognizes our misdeeds as sin. Either way, it would not be fallacious of us to call one who claims to be Christian yet doesnt accept Christian doctrines not a true Christian, just as it wouldnt be to say the same for one who acts consistently opposed to Christianity. There are such things as no true Christians.
