(MiG Tournament) Exclusivism is Sound Christian Doctrine

Thanks to Logic_on_Rails for his rigorous opening round. We now enter into rebuttals. I will also remind the readers that additional arguments are permitted during this round.Inerrancy of ScriptureMy opponent enters into very treacherous territory by holding a view that Scripture can be wrong. This permits my opponent to decide for himself anything he wishes about Christianity. He can cherry pick the verses that are wrong and the ones that are right granting him license to invent any doctrine he desires.Moreover, this approach weakens his position. The only conceivable reason my opponent would insist the Bible is wrong about some things is because the Bible contradicts his position. The Bible teaches exclusivism, ergo, he must argue that the Bible is wrong.This debate is about Christian doctrine, and as such, we must have a standard to which we can point. If the Bible is not the objective standard of our theology, then we might as well just make up anything we want. Forget exclusivism or inclusivism, why not universalism? Why not treat the whole of Scripture as a big metaphor and just live in whatever way makes us feel "nice?"The only standard we are given as to when the Bible is wrong is when something appears to conflict with "The Good." This poses a serious problem, because the Bible claims that God is good, i.e., the standard of goodness itself. If the Bible is right about that, then God is good and we must presume that God had a sufficiently good reason for his commands in Deuteronomy. If the Bible is wrong and God is not good, then my opponent's criticism no longer applies.Con ends up begging the question here. He doesn't provide an alternative ethical framework by which to judge God's actions and yet he wants us to just accept his plea to ignore my scriptural evidence for exclusivism. Of course, he'll use scripture in his own arguments, which seems a double standard to me.Implications of Inclusivism and ExclusivismMy opponent criticizes exclusivism for how many people are likely to enter into hell. Unfortunately, Inclusivism has the very same problem. While inclusivism does seem to result in an increase of saved souls (though this is only presumed and not really proven), it does not result in all souls being saved. I could easily throw Hinson's criticism back at Con and say, "Surely an even more loving God would just save everyone." If Con wants to eliminate exclusivism due to a contradiction with God's goodness, then he must also eliminate inclusivism for the same reason.As much as my opponent can't bring himself to reconcile God's love with the idea of eternal Hell, there are those in the world that cannot reconcile God's justice with the idea of everyone going to Heaven. This reveals an appeal to emotion on the part of my opponent, because he wants us to feel like exclusivism just isn't right. However, the fact that God is loving doesn't make the idea of eternal Hell objectively incompatible. My opponent has more work ahead of him if he wants to make such a case.My opponent also criticizes exclusivism on the basis of degrees of belief, as though exclusivism leaves too much ambiguity. This is just not the case. In my opening round, I described in exhaustive detail just how salvation works from start to finish. The fact is exclusivism teaches that salvation comes by faith in Jesus. There is no ambiguity, unlike inclusivism, which turns out to be completely arbitrary. Exclusivism has the benefit that the believer can be assured of their salvation, which is never the case when one must earn their salvation.Consequently, this is inclusivism's major flaw. It denies the Biblical claim that we are justified by faith alone. The whole premise of inclusivism is that people earn their salvation—unwittingly—via their inadvertent emulation of Christ. This implies that even Christians earn their salvation according to how well they emulate Christ, which completely contradicts Paul's explicit words, "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." (Eph. 2:8-9, emphasis mine) Justification by faith is a fundamental Christian doctrine, and to dismantle it is to undermine all of Christianity.Rebuttal to Positive Arguments for InclusivismMy opponent—apparently deciding that 2 Peter 3:9 is not in error—uses this verse to claim that God wishes that all people will be saved. Unfortunately, he completely ignores the context of the chapter and the letter as a whole. Peter's audience was dealing with "scoffers" (v. 3) that kept questioning the return of the Lord. (v. 4) Peter reminds them that the Lord operates in his own time (v. 8) and that God continues to delay that none should perish (v. 9). But "none" does not "no person ever." Rather, "none" refers to God's elect. In other words, God patiently waits so that none of His elect should perish and that all of His elect should be saved. Thus, this scripture fails to single-handedly support inclusivism.John 14:6 is one of those passages that simply cannot stand on its own since Jesus is clearly using figure of speech. When Jesus says he is "the way," one must look elsewhere in scripture to understand what this means. Thankfully, my opening round took care of this. His death on the cross justifies us. His life reveals God's plan of salvation to us. His Lordship exonerates us. But all of it means nothing if it is not followed with repentance, which is a demonstration of faith in Jesus. Jesus is the way, but my opponent engages in non sequitur when declaring that the "way" equates to "Jesus' ways of living."Con's use of Matthew 7:21 receives the same criticism. We must again ask what the will of the Father is. My opponent just injects his own thinking into this one verse instead of extracting the Father's will from elsewhere in scripture. The will of the Father is to elect His people, give them the gospel call, renew their spirit that they might see the Kingdom of Heaven, and justify them through faith in Christ.Exclusivism is ParsimoniousAnother argument in my favor is that inclusivism adds unneeded assumptions. If God is omnipotent, and if God is an active participant in bringing His elect into salvation, then what does inclusivism actually provide that exclusivism doesn't? If God wants an indigenous person in Africa to be saved, He is perfectly capable of bringing the gospel to that person. He is, after all, omnipotent.If inclusivism doesn't actually guarantee that more people are saved than exclusivism, then one must turn to Occam's Razor and ask which one complicates doctrine with frivolous assumptions. I contend that inclusivism, with its works-based philosophy, brings too much baggage to the table. On the other hand, exclusivism brings parsimony with its simplicity and equal capacity for bringing God's elect into Heaven.ConclusionMy opponent's case appears to be nothing more than an elaborate house of cards. His scriptural support relies on taking scripture out of context or relying on ambiguity of terms. Worse, his case is undermined by his own view of Biblical errancy. His reasoning behind why the Bible can be wrong is circular, and he hasn't given us an extra-Biblical, objective "Good" by which to make these judgments. His criticisms of exclusivism apply just as much to inclusivism, yet inclusivism brings even more problems, making exclusivism the best fit exegetically and parsimoniously.My opponent and I agreed that we both share burden of proof for our respective positions. On balance, I hope the readers can see that exclusivism is the more reasoned doctrine.