(MiG Tournament) Exclusivism is Sound Christian Doctrine

KRFournier presents a continued challenge, as expected. Let us not waste words – we have much to discuss.Biblical Errancy?Biblical errancy most certainly is a dangerous field to wade into, as my opponent notes. This is a most difficult subject to address, although it is somewhat of a more minor issue in this debate. Inerrancy basically means “Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact.” [1]Let’s formalise my argument against inerrancy:1. God exists and is morally perfect2. Hence, God would not command acts such as genocide unless he had morally sufficient reason to do so3. According to OT texts [see R2 Deuteronomy references] God did command acts like genocide4. God did not have a morally sufficient reason to commit such acts5. Hence, the entirety of the Bible is not trueJust to be clear on [3]:"1 When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you" 2 and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally [emphasis mine].[a] Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. " [Deut 7:1-2]Now, I hate to discuss the issue of biblical inerrancy, but it must be addressed. I’m sure KR agrees with 1. Basically, morally perfect beings don’t commit acts such as genocide without sufficient moral reason, which I believe God did not have. As I stated last round, when in conflict God’s moral perfection ought to prevail over biblical inerrancy.Obviously defeating every argument for ‘morally sufficient reason’ would take too long. Briefly put, firstly, the issue of whether everybody in the community ought to have been killed, especially children, who haven’t reached the age of accountability. Secondly, notwithstanding this, the fact that God commands slaughter by others hand is horrifying; think PTSD and what war can do to people. To quote Nietzsche, “He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster” [2] Finally, what’s to prevent a person claiming a divine command of genocide against whom they consider non-believers? Morality. The fact that genocide is an utter horror, that it is not the act of a morally perfect being – of God. Relating back, God does not commit horrid acts. Torment in Hell is a horrid act, and not one of befitting a moral agent like God. When in conflict, the goodness of God prevails over biblical inerrany’s support of immoral acts, like eternal torment. In this manner, scripture which supports that which isn’t what God would do according to His nature ought not to be considered reliable. Furthermore, scripture I’m quoting doesn’t seem to conflict with God being morally perfect, although Pro may attempt to prove otherwise.Of course, what God would do is the crux of this debate! Let’s not waste any more time on side issues!Implications of Hell and ExclusivismPro attempts to attack inclusivism on the grounds that some people still go the Hell, and that I’m arguing for universalism, not inclusivism.In R2 I outlined the case of ‘anonymous Christians’ deserving to go to Heaven because of their actions emulating Jesus somewhat. That’s not to say that everybody who goes to Hell under exclusivism is an anonymous Christian, as Pro presupposes. If everybody were to enter then there’s a lesser incentive to act righteously in our time on Earth. It’s this time that we’re judged on, and some people simply don’t deserve everlasting bliss for despicable acts. That’s not to say that they ought to suffer eternally though, which brings up the point of annihilationism. Annihilationism resolves the moral issue of eternal torment for finite crimes quite nicely. [3] One doesn’t suffer if they’ve been annihilated.The point is that inclusivism allows more people into Heaven, people who haven’t committed despicable acts yet lack explicit knowledge of Jesus. However it stops there – God must have a deterrent for heinous acts committed by us in our time, which is why Hinson’s criticism of inclusivism on universalist grounds can be rejected.As to Con’s statement that “The whole premise of inclusivism is that people earn their salvation—unwittingly—via their inadvertent emulation of Christ” , it’s deceptive. Inclusivism acknowledges that the main way is still faith in Christ, but that there are other ways, such as one’s actions, that can gain one entrance to Heaven. Again, supporting moral actions is beneficial, so why not allow just actions to make a difference in entering Heaven? Obviously Christians earn their salvation through belief in Christ. Emulation is a matter of importance when one doesn’t have the chance to gain explicit knowledge of Jesus. I ask again, why would God create a situation in which he knows that a person has no chance of gaining faith in Jesus and condemn them to Hell? God, by his nature, would create alternative ways to enter Heaven. Positive Arguments for InclusivismWhat’s most important here is that if scripture seems to outline 2 (or more...) different methods of entry into Heaven then why shouldn’t there be 2? Sure, one side might be better proven than the other, but that doesn’t discredit the 2nd in and of itself. Unless there’s a reason to discredit the 2nd way, then why not let it stand?For instance, Matt 25: 34-40 wasn’t challenged. Of course, I grant that refuting the stated implications every single piece of scripture is onerous and unreasonable, yet this is a particularly powerful piece.On 2 Peter 3:9 , I would still maintain that it supports inclusivism to a certain extent. On John 14:6 and Matt 7:21, I’ve tried to discuss the flexibility of scriptural interpretation and how multiple ways into Heaven can occur given God’s perfectly moral nature. For instance, Con concludes talking about Matt 7:21 by saying “ The will of the Father is to elect His people, give them the gospel call...” , but at the crux of this is the point that not everybody seems to receive the gospel call! Given God’s nature, one must doubt that God’s purpose is precisely as outlined by Pro, hence my initial points about Matt 7:21 still stand.Exclusivism is ParsimoniousMy simple question on this point is why a state of affairs currently exists where God isn’t using his omnipotence to let the Gospel be known worldwide. If this is because there’s already a sufficient entry to Heaven due to inclusivism then this problem is resolved.As to Occam’s Razor, firstly, it’s not always reliable, secondly, the situation differs as more people are saved under inclusivism.ConclusionThe issue at hand is whether inclusivism or exclusivism makes more sense. Given God’s moral perfection, it seems plainly at odds with his nature to not let into Heaven, given his designing of a situation which prevents them from ever having the chance to learn of Jesus! Of course, one does mitigate this with annihilationism vs. the traditional concept of Hell, yet it’s still quite the problem.I hope it’s clear that inclusivism is the preferable doctrine, and I look forward to KRFournier’s final round.Sources[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] - Beyond Good and Evil", Aphorism 146 (1886).[3] - To readers, there’s simply not the space in the debate to discuss annihilationism in depth + everything else.