(MiG Tournament) Exclusivism is Sound Christian Doctrine
| Started: | 7/29/2012 | Category: | Religion |
| Updated: | 9 months ago | Status: | Post Voting Period |
| Viewed: | 1,304 times | Debate No: | 24906 |
 Pro This debate is part of round 4 of Man-Is-Good's Debate Tournament.
Sources  Con Many thanks to KRFournier for the debate. Thanks to MIG for the tournament. Points of note Just to be perfectly clear to the reader, we're obviously presuming the existence of God in this debate. Furthermore, I'll tend to be arguing based on the traditional conception of Hell (I don't agree with this totally, but KR does, and exclusivism doesn't benefit based on the traditional conception... that's for later though) being presumed . One other point is that it's best for the reader not to get stuck on semantics here. For instance, a debate over the purpose of doctrine is likely to be a side issue in this debate. Finally, I have one thing to state - although R2 is not to be used for rebuttals, it is possible that my arguments may lend themselves to countering KR's naturally. Basically, my intent will be to provide arguments that contradict with KR's, although these won't be rebuttals per se. I hope the above doesn't confuse anybody. Let's have a good debate! |
 |
|
Pro I'd like to begin by thanking Man-is-Good for persevering in his management of this very long, drawn out tournament and Logic_on_Rails for patiently working to find a resolution we'd both enjoy debating.
I contend that the above Order of Salvation is doctrinal and irreducible. There is no scriptural warrant to remove any of the above steps. Since all steps are required, and since those steps include faith specifically in Jesus Christ, it follows that exclusivism is proper doctrine. In particular, the steps of the gospel call, conversion, and justification require faith in Jesus. Exclusivism, as we will find, is inescapable.
Con 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 Exclusivism Hell, 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 Scripture The 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 Inclusivism I’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. Conclusion As 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... |
 |
|
Pro 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. Con 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 perfect 2. Hence, God would not command acts such as genocide unless he had morally sufficient reason to do so 3. According to OT texts [see R2 Deuteronomy references] God did command acts like genocide 4. God did not have a morally sufficient reason to commit such acts 5. Hence, the entirety of the Bible is not true Just 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 Exclusivism Pro 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 Inclusivism What’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 Parsimonious My 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. Conclusion The 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. |
 |
|
Pro I appreciate my opponent's thoughtful responses. It seems that much of our differences stem from our view on the authority of scripture.
Con 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 Exclusivism Has 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 Inclusivism As 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 Parsimonious The 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. Conclusion Entry 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. |
 |
| KRFournier | Logic_on_rails | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: |  | - | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 3 | 0 |
| KRFournier | Logic_on_rails | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 3 |
| KRFournier | Logic_on_rails | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 5 |
| KRFournier | Logic_on_rails | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 3 | 0 |
| KRFournier | Logic_on_rails | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | | - | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 4 | 2 |
I give sources to Con. Pro's source was great, but Con used more to support his point of view. So two points Con.
However, I am forced to give arguments to Pro. KR's case was based more on Biblical evidence, whereas Con's case was based more on philosophy. Philosophy is a great tool but since the Bible teaches us about salvation, then Scripture, not philosophy itself, must be used to argue against Pro's case.
As Pro pointed out believing the Bible is errant weakens Con's case (after all, if you can't trust one part, then you really can't trust anything it says). Pro used the Hinson quote against Con, that an even more loving God would send everyone to Heaven, but I felt that Con's rebuttal to that was reasonable. regarding people who don't believe in Jesus but haven't committed despicable acts. However, Con is using his own basis for despicable acts. God may have sufficient reason for the acts that Con considers unloving. Con asserts that God doesn't, but he never really adequately supported that.
Finally, Con did not adequately address the fact that the Bible says we can't earn our way into Heaven, so why can someone earn their way in without faith in Christ (especially when the Bible says that faith is necessary for salvation)? Finally, why would God create a situation in which someone would not be saved? This objection equally works against Con's assertions. So three points to Pro.
End result: Three to two, Pro.
Every reason Con gave for Biblical inclusivism was consistent with the positive case KRF gave for exclusivism. Such is the nature of this type of debate but nevertheless Con gave me no positive reason to think that inclusivism is the doctrine to be exegetically taken from what scripture teaches.
It's thought that the scripture is inerrant, but not any one's interpretation of it... thus we ought to carefully approach the scriptures a gauge which is the most probable interpretation, both internally & externally.
Externally KRF showed inclusivism is sound. And internally, KRF gave many lines of reason for thinking inclusivism it the exegetical stance.
Well done... although I didn't like that KRF used bold words too much. Nobody likes bold words- they're offensive.
I have argued this issue repeated over the years with a strong Christian believer. He seems to me to concede that the Christian God has a dark side. Interesting to see this debate on the issue.
I am a firm believer that all actions determine a person characters, not just their beliefs. Under the logic provided by the case for Exclusivism, someone can simply say they believe in a higher power and be accepted by god. But how can this be true, if they have not contributed enough towards the belief to believe that they are deserving of the results?
I basically think of the story of the little red hen, when I think of Exclusivism, VS Inclusivism.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
I feel KRF offered a very good case for exclusivism, but, in my opinion, Logic's were more soundly aquitted to the source of the actual bible. He qoutes several references that seem to indicate that according to the written text, the Justifying the means of acheiving the results, requires a working will towards the progression, thus I give sources to logic as well.
Good job to both debaters, and good luck throughout the rest of the tournament.
Towards the end times, when the Liar Christ would have declared his reign, Jesus (Peace on Him) would return and help believers in battle. Later he would reign on earth, live as a normal human being and finally die.
This was actually a really hard one for me to judge.
1. I believe in Jesus (Peace on Him) as a messenger of God. He was not God; nor literal Son of God.
2. Salvation lies in following the path shown by Jesus (Peace on Him). Merely taking his name will not lead to guaranteed salvation. On other hand, if we follow the Prophets of God (Peace on them), they will guide us safely to heaven as good shepherd (God willing).
3. Salvation does not come from death of Jesus (Peace on Him) at cross. Salvation comes from our following the commandments and God's mercy.
4. Automatic salvation was not teaching of Jesus (Peace on Him). It was a teaching invented by Church. We follow Christ Jesus (Peace on Him) and not the church.
5. We believe in miracles of Jesus (Peace on Him) and innocence of Mother Mary (Peace on Her) based on testimony of Allah through Quran and Prophet Muhammad (Peace on Him). Rejecting the message of Prophet Muhammad (Peace on Him) is equivalent to rejecting the message of Christ Jesus (Peace on Him); since the two messages are identical.
===RFD===
When Con says that bible contains errors, he walks into a huge problem. On what basis does he believe salvation depends on faith in Christ Jesus (Peace on Him) in the first place. There is no doubt that Pro and Con agree with each other on this issue. However it is not clear on what basis Con accepts that. This renders the Con's case weak.
Con's prime case was based on justice. This was not really addressed by Pro, who avoided the issue and relied on scriptures to argue it must be just. In my opinion if it can be established by The Holy Bible that people who never hear about Jesus (Peace on Him) will go to hell, then that must be part of Christian doctrine. If Con thinks that it is wrong, then clearly he has a problem with the doctrine. However that does not mean the doctrine can be changed to suit somebody's opinion.
I think the mistake made by Con was that he should have argued for the exception from The Holy Bible itself. Since he did not even try to do that, it appears that he agrees that Pro's analysis of bible is correct. I am not an expert of the Holy Bible, however I have read the Holy Quran. People who accept the message of Prophets (Peace on them) will go to heaven. People who reject the message (The Kaffirs) will go to hell. As far as I know there is no mention of people who never receive the message. Since the Holy Quran contains confirmation of earlier revelation, it is likely that same situation applies to The Holy Bible also. This would have left space for Con to argue that inclusivism 'might' be possible. He could have backed it up with the philosophical arguments.