Pages

Sunday, March 09, 2008

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.

8 comments:

  1. I'd add that Heb. 6 militates against the Arminian's et. al. view of salvation. They believe that true believers (the elect) can 'lose' their salvation. vs. 7-8 offer rather dissapointing news:

    7Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. 8But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned.

    Rather than the Arminian view, the author of Hebrews teaches that the apostate was of a *different nature* than the one who persevered to the end (the true believer, the elect).

    Apostaes are not those who *began* the same as every one else and then *lost* what they *had*; rather, they *never had it to begin with*.

    The two types of soil, representing two types of prefessing Christians, are not set up as *one* type of soil where some continue producing fruit and others stop producing fruit.

    The Arminian cannot show his view in the text of Scripture. Everywhere the apostate is presented as *never* having been like the true believer.

    No fruit is not evidence of *loss* of fruit, it is evidence of *never having any* in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Also, Arminians consistently fail to ask the simple question, "What does 'apostasy' mean to the audience of Hebrews?"

    These are Jews, living in the shadow of 2nd Temple Judaism, either before 70 AD or shortly after. The author is addressing them as members of the covenant already.

    Which covenant? Well, in reality, he's not so much communicating the fact that the New and Old Covenants are different covenants as much as he's communicating the fact that, for the Jew in the first century, there is one and only one covenant between God and Israel and consequently God and the individual Jew. The New is the culmination of the Old, which is just types and shadows. Jews, by virtue of their Jewishness, were already in the covenant, namely via the terms of the Old Covenant.

    So, a Jew would be guilty of "apostasy" if he did not enter the New Covenant. That's the only consistent thing for a Jew to do.
    If he failed to do so, he would be proving he was only a Jew outwardly and never one inwardly, which gets us to Pauline statements to that effect with respect to circumcision availing nothing. It is by faith we are justified, not outward rituals. The Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. The Jews were the recipients of Prophets, angelic visitations, great miracles, etc. They certainly had tasted of the things of God for millenia. Yet the Jews, as a people, apostatized, which is proof that the Old Covenant failed due to its incomplete nature. The New Covenant is a better covenant. It has a better Mediator who, unlike Moses, does not fail to deliver His people from apostasy. It is on hearts of flesh, not of stone, and so forth. The Arminians - and this is important - reduce the New Covenant, at a functional level, to the Old. This is particularly egregious for Baptists who affirm, unlike their Presbyterian brethren, that the New Covenant as a whole is unbreakable. For Baptists to lay claim to an Arminian reading of Hebrews 6 is to abandon Baptist priniciples with respect to the way we argue for regenerate church membership. So, if JCT and Ben are Baptist, this presents a dilemma. If they say the NC is unbreakable, so much for the Arminian interpretation of Hebrews 6. If they say the NC is breakable, so much for Baptist ecclesiology. This strikes me as quite the conundrum.

    And that's the point of the descriptions in Heb. 6. Those descriptions compare quite easily to individuals like Judas Iscariot and groups like the Pharisees. Neither were ever believers. Judas was only an outward follower of Jesus, but he was a devil "from the beginning" and called "the son of perdition."

    ReplyDelete
  3. Steve,
    You pointed out a major contention with Arminians defense of Heb.6, but I don't remember reading how you dismiss the "No True Scotsman" fallacy charged against Calavinist. I think, at best, you showed both camps commit the fallacy. Although I could have misread you. Could you please clarify?

    Thanks,
    B.J.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The "No True Scotsman fallacy" fallacy is so overused the people pointing it out miss the point so often. Whatever value it has has almost been destroyed by its abuse.

    ReplyDelete
  5. bj77 said:
    Steve,
    You pointed out a major contention with Arminians defense of Heb.6, but I don't remember reading how you dismiss the "No True Scotsman" fallacy charged against Calavinist. I think, at best, you showed both camps commit the fallacy. Although I could have misread you. Could you please clarify?

    Thanks,
    B.J.

    3/10/2008 5:19 PM

    ***********

    Hi BJ.,

    Steve may have more to add, but if you read my coment I attempted show how we deal with the NTS fallacy.

    I made the argument that the Bible actually holds the position that true Christians are of a certain kind of ground--the fruit producing ground---and false professors show they are of an entirely different nature---thorn producing ground.

    So, if we point to an apostate and say that he was never a Christian, we are simply pointing out what Hebrews 6 (and other places) says. We are saying that they are the dry, arid, thorny ground. That they have given evidence of the type of ground they always were.

    As I agrued, apostates don't show a *loss* of fruit producing ground, they reveal they *never were* that type of ground.

    It's a fruit-to-root inference. And evidence-indicator. The current fruit is an evidence-indicator of what was *always there,* ie., a cold, unregenerate, stony heart.

    And, Steve did deal with this by pointing out that the Calvinist system is consisntent with its view of special election in saying that apostates *never were* Christians in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi all,

    I don't see how Witherington is committing the NTS fallacy. He is responding to someone who is giving a real life example of another person, and rightfully so, he states that it is nearly impossible to say anything about the person's salvation. His response then is keeping to the exegetical basis that he holds to (you can disagree with him if you want on that) in Heb 6 and listing out the possibilities that are applicable to this real life friend that Aleksandra has. He is not creating an exception with a different piece of scripture.

    "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."

    I dont see how this is a problem. His theological precommitments are based on his interpretation of Heb 6. An application of one's scriptural/theological understanding to a hypothetical model (which in this case is extended to a friend that is briefly described by "Aleksandra") would be what everyone should be doing...Catholic, Jew, Jehovah Witness, Reformed, Arminian. Agree or disagree with Arminianism, I dont see the problem here.

    Anyways, thanks for the post! Keep up the good work!

    -Piperette

    ReplyDelete
  7. Piperette,

    As I explained in my post, in some detail, I was simply drawing a parallel between a stock Arminian objection to Calvinism, and the analogous move on the part of an Arminian exegete like Witherington when he was confronted with a real life example.

    Now, if you want to say that Witherington isn't guilty of the NTS fallacy, then that's okay as long as the Arminian withdraws the same charge respecting the Reformed interpretation of Heb 6.

    Either it's a fallacy for both positions, or it's not a fallacy for either.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yeah, but my point was that the parallel doesn't really work (of course, I could be viewing it all wrong) since Witherington is only listing possibilities, given what his theology believes in application to real person.

    It is a different thing to say that one's theology is dictating another piece of scripture somewhere else. If you want to show that, then the parallel would work, but you'd have to find another citation where the same special pleading is found.

    -Piperette

    ReplyDelete