No true Scotsman

For Arminians and other like-minded Christians who think that a true believer can lose his salvation, Heb 6 is the locus classicus. When a Calvinist counters that an apostate was never really saved in the first place, he’s accused of special pleading.

This rejoinder is proof positive, for the Arminian, that Calvinism is an axiomatic system, with predestination as its first principle, which is immune to existential or exegetical falsification.

At this point the Calvinist is accused of committing the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. Indeed, I even ran across an exposition of this fallacy which uses Calvinism to illustrate the fallacy:

***QUOTE***

The no true scotsman fallacy is a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one’s position. Proposed counter-examples to a theory are dismissed as irrelevant solely because they are counter-examples, but purportedly because they are not what the theory is about.

Example

If Angus, a Glaswegian, who puts sugar on his porridge, is proposed as a counter-example to the claim No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge, the ‘No true Scotsman’ fallacy would run as follows:
(1) Angus puts sugar on his porridge.
(2) No (true) Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
Therefore:
(3) Angus is not a (true) Scotsman.
Therefore:
(4) Angus is not a counter-example to the claim that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

This fallacy is a form of circular argument, with an existing belief being assumed to be true in order to dismiss any apparent counter-examples to it. The existing belief thus becomes unfalsifiable.

Real-World Examples

An argument similar to this is often arises when people attempt to define religious groups. In some Christian groups, for example, there is an idea that faith is permanent, that once one becomes a Christian one cannot fall away. Apparent counter-examples to this idea, people who appear to have faith believe but subsequently lose it, are written off using the ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy: they didn’t really have faith, they weren’t true Christians. The claim that faith cannot be lost is thus preserved from refutation. Given such an approach, this claim is unfalsifiable, there is no possible refutation of it.

http://logicalfallacies.info/notruescotsman.html

***END-QUOTE***

Now Ben Witherington, who’s the foremost Arminian exegete of his generation, recently did a lengthy post on Heb 6. Predictably enough, he defended the classic Arminian interpretation—although he had some striking concessions along the way. But his post prompted the following exchange with a commenter:

***QUOTE***

Aleksandra said...

Just to clarify, is the article saying that Christians who reject their faith can never return? I personally know of a case when a person rejected his faith, wanting to live a life style not compatible with the Gospel. This person actually said they reject Jesus. But only a short time later they came back, and now, years later, he is still hungry for the things of God. According to the Hebrews verses, does God take back such a one? Could it be possible for a person to desire Christ, but for God to not truly forgive them? I'm confused.

********************

Ben Witherington said...

Alexlsandra:

This is an excellent question, and it is quite impossible to answer on the basis of what little you have said about this person. But consider these two possibilities: 1) the first go around the person was not in fact a Christian, did not love the Lord with all their heart etc. They were in a state much like the demons described in the Gospels-- who knew very well who Jesus was and did not dispute it, but this truth had not transformed their lives and behavior, as evidence by this person going AWOL. Mental assent to the Gospel is not the same as being saved. The issue is had they trusted and adhered to, and been transformed by and lived on the basis of that truth? 2) the very fact that this person now has a heart for God, and the other things you mentioned, is evidence that they did not commit apostasy in the first place which is a soul destroying act.

Hope this helps.

Ben W.

http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2008/02/christian-apostasy-and-hebrews-6.html

***END-QUOTE***

Ironically, Witherington’s explanation is the mirror image of the Reformed interpretation. As a doctrinaire Arminian, Witherington has no problem in saying that a true believer can lose his salvation. His conundrum comes with the possibility, or impossibility (as the case may be) of spiritual restoration. After all, that’s how the apostasy section begins. V4 begins with the word “impossible” (Gr.=adunaton). In Greek syntax, that’s the emphatic position. And it frames the entire discussion.

But if you subscribe to libertarian freewill, then why would it be impossible for an apostate to repent and return to the faith? Isn’t the apostate free to do otherwise? Why, in this life, would it not be possible for an apostate to reverse course?

Indeed, Witherington’s colleague at Asbury, Jerry Walls, who has coauthored a standard defense of Arminian theology, subscribes to postmortem evangelism. If, on libertarian assumptions, it’s possible to be saved even after you die, then why would it not be possible to recant your apostasy here and now? Shouldn’t a free agent be free to think better of his rash and reckless defection from the faith?

So, suddenly, the leading prooftext to overthrow the Reformed doctrine of perseverance generates an acute internal tension for Arminian theology. What was allegedly a pressure point against Calvinism turns against the Arminian disputant with a vengeance.

The Calvinist says an apostate was never saved in the first place. And if someone who fell away returns to the faith, a Calvinist will say that he never really committed apostasy. He was a backslider rather than an apostate.

But when he says that, Arminians accuse him of Scripture-twisting. The Calvinist is obviously in bondage to the ironclad constraints of his rationalistic dogma.

Enter Ben Witherington. Backed into a corner by his own theological precommitments, he is forced to say that if someone who fell away returns to the faith, then either he was never saved in the first place or else he never really committed apostasy.

Heb 6 looked like smooth sailing for the Arminian. Indeed, this was the Arminian flagship or battleship in the Arminian armada. Now, however, the Arminian interpretation has run aground the coral reef of Heb 6, and is taking on water at an alarming rate.

I’d urge the S. S. Calvin to rendezvous with the Arminian shipwreck and rescue as many stranded passengers as possible before they drown under a dilemma of their own making.