I had forgotten the word "bifurcation" and was looking it up when I stumbled on excellent descriptions of the logical fallacies behind the whole "apostles are saved differently than we are" arguments. The argument is based on three logical fallacies. First, it starts with the assumption it attempts to prove (circular reasoning). Circulus in demonstrando. This fallacy occurs when one assumes as a premise the conclusion which one wishes to reach. The Bible never actually says that apostles are saved differently than we are, so the fallacy approaches the text with the assumption and interprets it that way. The Bible never says that apostles are NOT saved differently, either, which is also used as support for the conclusion. Both of these are "argument from ignorance". Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance". This fallacy occurs whenever it is argued that something must be true simply because it has not been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it has not been proved true. Having established the premise based on logical fallacies, the burden of proof that anything is otherwise is then placed upon the people challenged (calvinists), which is closely associated with argument from ignorance. Shifting the burden of proof. The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise. When nobody can "disprove" the logical fallacies, victory is claimed, but it is based entirely on fallacies lacking any substance.