The No True Christian Fallacy

[Angrboda]

At its heart, the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is one of equivocation, using a single term in multiple senses in linked clauses of an argument.

Since who is a Christian is defined by beliefs, not actions, if you try to put limits on the term according to this or that Christian's behavior, you're likely to invoke the fallacy by implication, as you're now appealing to two different senses, the sense in which a Christian is someone who believes certain things, which is the default, and Christian as in the sense of "being Christian" or "behaving in a Christian manner." Thus you're appealing to two different senses of "Christian" in a way that is logically invalid. So even if all the pieces of Tibbs outline aren't necessarily there, in the cliched example, I don't think they necessarily have to be to sustain the charge.

I don't get the point of the OP's entire set up. It seems like a prelude to attempting to engage in the fallacy with weak philosophical justifications.