What type of fallacy is this?

[yellow8yellowM]

Catholic: “Since you believe in ‘once saved, always saved,’ then what do you say about a baptized, Jesus-believing person who murders somebody and is not sorry for it?”

Protestant: “Their baptism didn’t take. They were never really had faith in Jesus, otherwise they would not have committed the murders.”

What category of fallacy does the Protestant here fall into?

 

[Armor_of_Light]

Denying the antecedant?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Special-Pleading
(This website is a great resource when you’re trying to argue logically, because it helps keep you from misstepping.)

Specifically, in this instance the protestant is denying the validity of the Baptism (which they assume as valid for all other people) simply because the person did not live up to their understanding of how a baptized person would live.

Additionally, you could also argue that their view of Baptism negates free will: (follow me here, and someone point out if I make a fallacy)

By claiming that a person who is commits a bad act wasn’t properly baptized, they are implying that a person who is properly baptized could never commit that act. Therefore, they are claiming that a person who is properly baptized does not have the capacity to chose to kill someone. Therefore, since they are rendered incapable of making this choice by baptism, their baptism removes free will. (That is, is removes the complete ability of us to make our own choices, regardless of how right or wrong they may be)

 

[Armor_of_Light]

I’d also say that the negation of free will in the OSAS view is a fallacy, but OP…are you looking to lump the argument into one of the logical fallacies for definition purposes?

 

[revert_jen]

It might be “begging the question” AKA “circular argument.” This is a re-wording of the argument: “If a person is truly saved, they can’t lose their salvation. You know they’ve been truly saved, because they don’t lose their salvation.”

The biggest practical problem with this (as opposed to the purely logical problem) is that it doesn’t help anyone. Instead of worrying about losing their salvation, people can now worry about whether they were ever saved in the first place.

–Jen

 

[agnes_therese]

Also known as “change the premise when the outcome isn’t what you wanted.”
OR
“No, I meant to say heads, not tails!”

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Catholic: “Since you believe in ‘once saved, always saved,’ then what do you say about a baptized, Jesus-believing person who murders somebody and is not sorry for it?”

Protestant: “Their baptism didn’t take. They were never really had faith in Jesus, otherwise they would not have committed the murders.”

What category of fallacy does the Protestant here fall into?

It’s a hard fallacy to classify because it isn’t really a fallacy. As some have noted, begging the question - assuming something that isn’t proven - comes closest, since Protestants presume there is such a thing as “if a Christian turns to sin then they were never saved in the first place”.
Technically, a person could have never really believed in Jesus and pretended to be a Christian and then turned to a life of sin, but that does not mean genuine Christians cannot ever turn to a life of sin. And this is precisely where you can run the Protestant in circles, because they cannot draw any line on how many or what sins “prove” someone was never really saved. King David committed murder and adultery, but he was a genuine follower of God beforehand and after he repented.