What's in a name?

The No True Scotsman fallacy comes into play when a term gets redefined to guarantee the truth of a claim...In my opinion, that’s largely what was happening with James during his interactions at Triablogue. The regulars at Triablogue are using a definition of the term “Christian” that includes some very specific provisions about what makes one a True Christian, and James didn’t fit - he’s not a True Scotsman. To be fair, the Triablogue folks didn’t originate their definition - they’re just using one that’s emerged in the last 150 -200 years or so - but they did (particularly in some of the comments) employ it fairly harshly.

http://www.cleverbadger.net/?p=314

CB manages to get things exactly backwards. The immediate point at issue was the empty tomb. McGrath denies the empty tomb. I think he takes the position that the body of Jesus is still rotting in a mass grave or unmarked grave.

Treating the empty tomb as an article of faith didn't emerge in the last 150-200 years or so. This is not a novel, ad hoc definition on our part. If you think a "Christian" can deny the empty tomb, then you're the one who's committing the No True Scotsman fallacy by arbitrarily redefining what constitutes a traditional (and, indeed) Scriptural article of faith. McGrath is the one who's unilaterally moving the border stone to accommodate his own apostasy.

There are people in a state of intellectual flux who like to define "Christian" in very elastic terms because they want to leave all their options open. That way, whatever side they eventually come down on, they can claim that they were acting in good faith.

That, however, is not a principled definition. Rather, it's a purely defensive posture. Classic special pleading.