Responding to the "No True Scotsman" Fallacy

It seems that frequently the issue comes up as to whether someone historical has been behaving in a manner consistent with the Christian worldview.  As an example, Hitler is often raised by the atheist community as an example of a Christian (citing his membership in the Catholic church and certain of his pro-Christian statements).  When the Christian responds that Hitler's actions were in no way consistent with the Christian worldview (and that his pro-Christian statements were virtually certain to be simple propaganda intended to win over the German citizens), the charge is immediately made that the "No True Scotsman" fallacy has been committed.

As a bit of background, the "No True Scotsman" fallacy was raised by Antony Flew in his book 'Thinking About Thinking: Do I Sincerely Want To Be Right?'.  In that book, he had the following to say:

Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."

From this, we can see the fallacy of Mr. McDonald.  It was that he refused to accept that anyone was a true Scotsman if they did something with which he disagreed.  But can this fallacy be applied to Christianity in the same way?

Consider first of all that being a Scotsman is based on someone's birth.  Either you are born in Scotland or you aren't.  Being a Scotsman has nothing to do with ones beliefs or behaviors.  With Christianity, this is not the case.  People are Christians by choice, and it's this choice that allows us to avoid the "No True Scotsman" fallacy leveled by many atheists.

Going back to the Scotsman example, what is the defining criterion that determines whether someone is a Scotsman?  It is whether that person was born in Scotland.  Thus, even if Mr. McDonald in Flew's example rejects a person as a "true Scotsman", that does nothing to change the fact that this person was born in Scotland (and, thus, remains a Scotsman).

Turning to Christianity, is a person's status determined by where they were born?  Clearly not.  Their status is determined by what they believe and how they lead their lives.  If a person truly believes that Jesus Christ is the son of God (the initial condition to be able to consider oneself a Christian), then they can choose to identify with Christ, accepting the salvation freely offered.  After this has happened, the new Christian will be identified by the way they lead their life.  If they follow the teachings of Christ, then they are behaving in a way consistent with Christ's life (they are behaving in a Christian manner).  If they continue to behave in a way contrary to Christ's teachings, they are behaving in an unChristian manner.

While it is not technically our role to decide whether someone is truly saved or not (that judgment belongs to God alone), we can certainly observe their behaviors to determine if they are behaving in ways consistent with the Christian worldview.

In Matthew's gospel, Jesus says this about the behaviors of people:

MATTHEW 7

"You can identify them by their fruit, that is, by the way they act. Can you pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?"

He is saying that if a person truly is a Christian, their behaviors will reflect this fact.  If, however, their lives are characterized by behaviors contrary to the Christian worldview, you can have a very good idea that they are not Christians (no matter whether they say they are or not).

SUMMARY

When Christians observe someone like Hitler and say "a Christian wouldn't do those things", we have not committed the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.  All we're doing is observing his behaviors and noticing that they are in direct conflict with the teachings of Jesus Christ, who is the source of Christianity.  If behaviors are directly contrary to the Christian worldview, then the person willfully living according to these behaviors can rightly be identified as someone who is not a behaving as a Christian.

While it may be technically true that only God alone can determine whether a person is saved, Jesus gave us excellent guidance for how to detect whether a person is truly a Christian.  If their behaviors, words, thoughts and beliefs are consistent with the teachings and life of Jesus Christ, then they are living and acting as Christians.  If not, then they aren't.

And in that case, it is fully legitimate to say "that person is not living a Christian life".  It's as simple as that.