(MiG Tournament) Exclusivism is Sound Christian Doctrine

Let begin by thanking Man-is-Good for his continued efforts running this tournament and KRFournier for his powerful opening. Despite what doctrinal disagreements we may have I’d like to reiterate that we share many positions.I’ll argue for inclusivism based on a variety of things. While R2 is not for rebuttals, some of my arguments will naturally clash; they are not ‘rebuttals’ per se. Just quickly, God is obviously omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent , among other qualities. That is a terrible oversimplification, yet this must be understood.Let’s begin.Implications of Hell and ExclusivismHell, in the traditional sense (we’ll leave universalism and annihilationism aside), is not something to be scoffed at (Revelation 20:11-15). Conscious, eternal torment is an infinite punishment, given for a finite crime. Then there’s the issue of those saved and bliss. Heaven is a place of total bliss (Revelation 21:4) , yet could a loving person be truly happy knowing that their loved ones are suffering in unimaginable anguish? Paul himself lent credence to this argument (Rom 9:2-3) – “I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people.”Aside from making a case for annihilationism, it should be clear that Hell is a terribly severe punishment, one that affects even those in the bliss of Heaven. An omnibenevolent God, a God who is love (1 John 4:8) and mercy (James 5:11), would never consign anybody unnecessarily to Hell, for then he would not be omnibenevolent. The question then is do people get consigned to Hell under exclusivism but not inclusivism, and would an omnibenevolent God be in the right to consign them?To quote Ed Hinson, “...the faithful practitioners of the world’s great religions are ‘anonymous Christians’ who are responding in faith to the work of the Holy Spirit and would follow Christ if circumstances were such that they would have revelation of the gospel and opportunity to respond to it.” [1]This is a crucial point. Exclusivism, as defined in R1 - the position “only [my emphasis] faith in Jesus Christ of the Bible leads to salvation or heaven.” But what about the millions, if not billions who never have had the chance to follow Christ through mere lack of exposure? To paraphrase Hinson, surely a loving God would not design the world in such a way that people must know about Christ to escape eternal damnation, but have no ability to acquire such knowledge. Remember, God is all knowing, and would know if his design was essentially consigning somebody to Hell based on a lack of knowledge.And then there’s degrees of beliefs. What degree of belief counts? Can there be even a shred of doubt on one’s faith? Various questions abound when discussing faith in Jesus specifically, and it’s very difficult to determine whom should and shouldn’t enter Heaven on such a basis; do we let in the man who momentarily wavers in his belief, despite ardent preaching and altrusim his whole life? Degrees of belief complicate simply faith in Jesus being fine to enter Heaven. But the ideas of Jesus, living (as best we can) as he did, living a moral, just life, these are virtues to judge on. If one’s life and his actions are naught to faith, then is that not a disincentive to act righteously in our lifetime? The man who holds to the ideals of Jesus and spreads them despite not knowing of Jesus’s existence due to his upbringing... must he be consigned to eternal damnation? Furthermore, is such a course of action that of an omnibenevolent God? I won’t pretend to know the inner workings of His mind, but I humbly suggest that the action is most certainly not of an all loving being.Biblical Innerancy and ScriptureThe studious reader would note that scripture is a large part of this debate. What’s important to establish is that the bible is not inerrant. This is of course a debate in itself! I’ll simply state that Deuteronomy 7:1-2 , Deuteronomy 20:16-18 are not acts of a omnibenevolent figure. I understand the grave nature of my statement. Let me quote C. S. Lewis to explain:“The ultimate question is whether the doctrine of the goodness of God or that of the inerrancy of Scriptures is to prevail when they conflict. I think the doctrine of the goodness of God is the more certain of the two.” [2]My point is thus – scripture is most certainly crucial to this debate, but were scripture to conflict with what is The Good (as Plato might say) in God, we must support The Good. Now I don’t mean to undermine Pro here, yet his case is heavily reliant on scripture. Mine is somewhat less so. While I do not contest his quoted scriptures too much, there are some which to rest one’s case on is not sound.Arguing for InclusivismI’ve noted problems with exclusivism (namely, eternal torment being based on a lack of faith in figures one never got the chance to learn about) , briefly discussed why the nature of God can be more important than scripture, but I haven’t talked about why we ought to support inclusvism, at least not enough yet.]God desires the salvation of all (2 Peter 3:9). Now, we established above that faith in Jesus is a way to get into Heaven, but it’s a condition such that millions will be consigned to Hell. We also established difficulties with what belief is necessary (ie. De re and de dicto) . Look at John 14:6 , then take a look at Matt 25: 34-40 . There is no clash that can’t be resolved. In the part of Matt cited the followed the ways of Jesus, believed in the good, and yet it’s clear that they did not know it. One need merely listen to the words of the King here. As to John 14:6 , it says “Jesus answered ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’” Note how it is the way, the truth and the life. These aren’t statements of belief in a figure, these are statements about how one should live their life. When Jesus says ‘No one come to the Father except through me’ he’s discussing his ways, benevolent ways of living. It’s important not to take every verse in an absolute sense; John 14:6 tends to be an exclusivist favourite for instance. What’s important here is that we see John 14:6 and Matt 25: 34-40 both outlining ways into Heaven. There’s no need to discredit one of them. Faith in Jesus may be a sufficient condition for salvation, but it’s not a necessary condition. That said, I do want to emphasise the great importance in believing in Jesus. To those reading this debate, you have read about and have access to the knowledge of Jesus. To deny him and be accepted is not the same as the man who toils his whole life never hearing of Christianity.To finish this section, let’s look at Matt 7:21:“Not everybody who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,; will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.”If that is not a strong cry for inclusivism, then I fear my words are falling on deaf ears.ConclusionAs per the rules, rebuttals are next round, so I’ll address Pro’s case in more detail then.I ask though, what benevolent figure would wish anybody to Hell, a place of eternal torment? Not many, if any. So, to those whose circumstances prevent them from gaining knowledge of Jesus, should God consign them to eternal torment, especially considering that He knows that they are born without a chance of knowledge? No. Look at Rom 9: 2-3 for the anguish of those who should have bliss in Heaven.Look at Matt 25: 34-40 and Matt 7:21. They cry for other ways than explicit faith. Faith in Jesus should get one into Heaven, but it’s one of many ways to enter, not the only way. A sufficient, but not necessary condition.Sources[1] - Ed Hinson and Ergun Caner, The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics: Surveying the Evidence for the Truth of Christianity, Harvest House Publishers, 2008[2] - http://www.davidbergan.com...