(MiG Tournament) Exclusivism is Sound Christian Doctrine

I appreciate my opponent's thoughtful responses. It seems that much of our differences stem from our view on the authority of scripture.Biblical InerrancyMy opponent continues to press this issue despite my criticism that, in so doing, he undermines his own case. As I pointed out previously, Con's position allows him to be arbitrary in his doctrine, cherry picking versus that he needs to make his case yet arguing that mine are in "error." Furthermore, it exposes that exclusivism is taught in scripture rather than inclusivism, hence the need to call the Bible wrong.Con's syllogism clarifies his approach to scriptural authority although I never really was confused about his reasoning. Premise 4 is the very thing I was calling arbitrary when I pointed out that the Bible identifies God as the standard of goodness. Yet my opponent uses his own standard to judge scripture, and therefore begs the question. This debate is about doctrine, which comes from God. If the Bible is not authoritative, then what is? Con's approach is tantamount to begging the readers to accept Logic_on_rails as the final authority. "Thus sayeth Logic_on_rails?"The problem is that there is plenty of philosophical tension in the Bible, and my opponent attempts to resolve it on his own terms rather than considering that he does not have all the data. The Bible says God is good yet God orders genocide. In his haste to feel better about this antinomy, my opponent concludes that Deuteronomy is in error, all the while ignoring the text immediately following the passage he hyper-focuses upon. We are later told that God gave the order because He had made an oath to give the Israelites that land. (v. 8) But that's not all, He was also casting judgment upon the "those who hate him." (v. 10). Keeping promises and judging the wicked are also actions of a morally perfect being, so what exactly makes God's command in conflict with his own character?What becomes clear is that my opponent wants inclusivism to be true because he just doesn't like exclusivism, just as he does not like God's decision in Deuteronomy. It conflicts with his personal moral sensibilities, and he erroneously inflates his personal moral sensibilities into an objective standard. I submit that such reasoning is not an attempt at logical deduction as much as it is rationalizing away his heebie-jeebies.Implications of Inclusivism and ExclusivismIt was not my intention to say that my opponent was secretly arguing for universalism. I think we both agree that universalism is a very dubious doctrine as it renders the gospel completely superfluous. My point was that if exclusivism is lesser than inclusivism based on the number of souls saved, then universalism is greater than both using the same logic. I am exposing my opponent's sword as having two equally sharp edges. Whenever he strikes a philosophical blow at exclusivism, he cuts inclusivism just as deeply. Therefore, his attempts to show inclusivism as somehow "better" don't cut the muster.I understand that Pro is trying to argue that the sword has only one edge—that my criticism has no weight—but his only support for this is a bare assertion: "that inclusivism allows more people into Heaven." Such a baseless claim cannot be taken for granted given that God is omnipotent and omniscient. If God knows the future, has elected His people from the beginning of time, and has all power over this universe, then there is no reason to assume that exclusivism results in fewer saved souls.In fact, election is core feature of this debate. It answers Con's 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?" The answer: that person was not elected. My opponent has not argued against election at all in this debate, and it will be unfortunate if he only chooses to reject it in his last round, thereby denying me the chance to rebut.Jesus was well aware of the implications. "For many are called, but few are chosen." (Matt. 22:14) "For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few." (Matt. 7:14) The Bible makes no effort to be warm and fuzzy about this issue. It is a harsh reality to face, and the fact the Hell is eternal makes evangelism all the more necessary. Unless, of course, you subscribe to inclusivism, in which evangelism is really optional and you can just trust that people will find their own alternative way into Heaven.Rebuttal Against Positive Arguments for InclusivismI didn't combat Matt 25:34-40 because my opponent only mentioned it in passing, so it's a bit unfair to hold that against me. He claimed the passage "[cries] for other ways than explicit faith," but didn't bother explaining how or why. So, now that he brought it up, let's take a look at it.Jesus is telling a parable of what judgment day will be like. Unfortunately for my opponent, it does not contradict the salvific order. This is a picture of Jesus separating his people (the sheep) from the rest (the goats). (v. 32) Those whom the wicked did not feed or clothe (v. 42) are the Christians who the world ignored and rejected: those to whom the Gospel belongs and through whom the Gospel is shared. (v. 46). Yet again, my opponent has taken vague imagery and interpreted it according to his own tastes rather than against the whole of scripture.Con just repeats his previous exegetics of 2 Peter 3:0, John 14:6, and Matthew 7:21, restating that they imply that there is more than one way to Heaven. I already showed how the vague language of these verses is inadequate to prove inclusivism and the rest of scripture teaches contrariwise. I'll say no more and let the readers judge. Suffice to say, my opponent has an uphill battle in showing that the Bible truly teaches multiple modes of salvation. Moreover, he hasn't explained why his scripture references are not in error and why mine are.Exclusivism is ParsimoniousCon asks why God, in his omnipotence, hasn't gotten the Gospel to the entire world. In this, he ignores the doctrine of election. God need only get the gospel to His Elect. Since my opponent has not refuted election, his objection has a ready answer.My opponent also repeats his baseless assertion that inclusivism saves more people, which he still has not succeeded to substantiate in any useful way.ConclusionNote the difference in approaches between us. I painstakingly laid out an entire systematic theology on the nature of salvation citing plenty of scripture along the way to substantiate that case. I showed how the Bible as a whole tells a special story about the redemption of God's people for Himself. Step by step I showed how Christ is integral in that process. In return, my opponent takes a liberal view of scripture in order to sweep exclusivism under the rug, and the handful of scripture he does employ uses vague language taken out of context. Wayne Grudem writes, "I do not think that a true system of theology can be constructed from within . . . the "liberal" theological tradition." [1] (Emphasis mine)My positive case for exclusivism is supported by scripture and carries no more damning philosophical implications than inclusivism. My opponent's case is rooted in wishful thinking, and he makes himself the authority on Christian doctrine in the process. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that the resolution is affirmed.I'd like to thank my opponent for this rigorous discussion and the readers for their thoughtful, responsible votes.Sources Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000. p. 17