(MiG Tournament) Exclusivism is Sound Christian Doctrine

Thanks to KRFournier for more well thought out responses. In this last round I’ll try and sum things up, although such a task is difficult given such a controversial subject.Biblical Errancy?The whole reason this issue exists is that there exists a small degree of errancy in the Bible, and this means that contradictory scripture teachings (such as exclusivism and inclusivism) can be resolved more easily. However, it also has the effect of placing an emphasis on philosophical rather than theological concerns.On Con’s attack of P4, his argument is somewhat doubtable. Con cites God as the standard of goodness (which he is of course!) , yet questions me when I question the bible’s authority. That’s what the entire errancy issue is about! Is it possible that the Bible may not have been recorded perfectly, done as it was by humans, or were they ‘inspired’ (a technical term in this instance)?As to Deuteronomy, I agree on the keeping promises bit, and also the need to judge the wicked – KR’s attempt at justifying the passage. However, the methodology with which this is done is what is in question! It was not God himself who smote his enemies, rather he commanded his followers to do so. This supposedly was by God’s command despite his knowledge of things like post traumatic stress disorder, the things war can do to people (see my Nietzsche quote) etc. I also claimed a need to prevent false divine claims, and that this was grounded in morality, like an opposition to genocide. Also, most crushingly, God supposedly killed all the children, despite them not being at an age where they could be held accountable for their actions. In a case like Deuteronomy it’s clear that the text is wrong, because as I’ve maintained this debate and as C.S.Lewis says “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.” Given the conflict, we ought to prefer God’s goodness. Similarly, if scripture were to conflict with God’s goodness (as eternal torment of souls included under inclusivism but not exclusivism would) then God’s goodness prevails as opposed to the inerrancy of scripture. That’s all that biblical errancy entails for this debate – a focus on more philosophical issues. I don’t deny that the bible is mostly inerrant, but is has some errors, by human hand and misunderstanding though, not God.Implications of Inclusivism and ExclusivismHas my logic so far on ‘more saved’ been a double edged sword? No, because I’m not arguing on the simplistic basis that more saved is better. I’m arguing for a select increase based on a specific case – those who don’t gain knowledge of Jesus whom act in ways similar to Jesus and his teaching. This actions based method isn’t allowable for those whom get the chance to know Jesus; I’m not that disregarding of evangelism.Now, I know that Pro’s argument to my question “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?” is that that person wasn’t elected. Now, it’s true that I haven’t explicitly mentioned election so far this debate, yet the whole issue is why God would condemn somebody to Hell. So, if not being elected consigns you to Hell then why would God not elect everybody? If he doesn’t elect everybody then he necessarily consigns them to Hell. As a morally perfect God would not just have people live their lives before automatically going to Hell (or as Pro would say, thus sayeth Logic_on_rails) it seems the only alternative is inclusivism.I understand that I didn’t explicitly mention this aspect of election before, although the general theme and idea (identical as it is to my argument for inclusivism!) is the same, so I believe this to not be a ‘new argument’ .Finally, let me restate that allowing actions to be a manner of getting into Heaven (or be simply a contributing factor of sorts) provides an incentive for people to act morally in our lifetimes. If people are aware that actions don’t make a difference to entrance towards Heaven then worse actions will result in our lifetimes. For this reason as well as those mentioned above, inclusivism ought to be preferred. In this case it provides that deterrent to immoral actions in our lifetime.Positive Arguments for InclusivismAs Pro did, I’ll leave 2 Peter 3:9, John 14:6 and Matthew 7:21 for readers to decide on. We’ve both made our arguments for the respective verses having the meaning we claim they have, and they stand as stated. Readers can judge this for themselves without needing reminding. Now as to Matt 25: 34-40"Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'"Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'"The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'"KR will probably chide me for ‘taking my own view of things’ , but I see that end being symbolic of being welcomed in spite of a lack of explicit knowledge. The righteous did not know whom they were serving and helping, yet they helped anyway. Furthermore, The King clearly supports their actions, and states for people to ‘take their inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world’ . Remember, these are people without explicit knowledge of God who nevertheless acted justly.Is it my own view? Perhaps, but the Bible is not always perfectly literal, so interpretation is required to a point. Make of that what you will.Exclusivism is ParsimoniousThe issue of God’s Elect is covered in the implications section, with the moral perfection of God not being compatible with condemning people to Hell before their very existence (‘at the beginning of time’) . As to inclusivism saving more people, it’s obvious – people without specific knowledge of Jesus yet sufficiently live up to his teachings and ways can enter Heaven. These people might be small in number, but they are not none in number as Pro would contend, hence inclusivism saves more people from unwarranted consignment to Hell.ConclusionEntry to Heaven via knowing Jesus is most certainly supported by scripture. However, there’s some scriptural evidence and a slew of moral arguments for entry via inclusivistic means. Do we need to discredit this second method and on what grounds, if any, could we disregard this second method?The case for inclusivism is based on those who go to Hell, and whether they deserve it. Should people be consigned to eternal torment prior to their existence (or annihilationism, depending on your doctrinal beliefs) ? There are many cases where perhaps annihilation of a person who wasn’t elected is perfectly justified, but as long as there are those who don’t deserve to be annihilated by a morally perfect being, there is a place for inclusivism, and that’s why I affirm that the Bible teaches inclusivism.Let me extend my thanks to my opponent, KRFournier, for a challenging, thought provoking debate. I would like to think that readers will walk away from this debate with a new appreciation for the arguments on both sides of this contentious issue. I trust that voters will carefully consider their votes, and not be biased in their judgement.