Appeal: fallacy spotted
From Jay Dyer vs Pastor P Debate Orthodoxy vs Protestantism, Sola Scriptura and Church History.
- #134449:16upheld Jay Dyer epainos: fallacy spotted (+2)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 2 points.
“You're clivocating [equivocating] on blessing because God can bless anybody at any place. That doesn't mean that that's the right canon of scripture.”
Diogenes: He splits the sense of "blessing" — God's favour on a work versus divine ratification of a canon — which is exactly the slide his opponent's argument depends on.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jay Dyer's consistent method is internal critique pressing for non-circular justification rather than bare assertion of divine favor; naming the equivocation on 'blessing' here is a continuation of that same standing critique already visible in his prior remarks about the Great Awakening, not a new or inconsistent move. Pastor P's argument throughout this stretch relies on 'God blessed the King James/Textus Receptus lineage' as proof that this is the correct canon; Jay correctly identifies that Pastor P is sliding between 'blessed' meaning general divine favor on a work or people (which could be granted to any tradition, including the Orthodox preservation of scripture Jay cites in the next breath) and 'blessed' meaning specific divine ratification of a canon decision — two different senses conflated to smuggle in the conclusion. This is equivocation genuinely present in the opponent's argument, not a strawman of it.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "fallacy spotted". Pastor P had used "God blessed" the King James Version/great awakening as proof his canon and text are correct, while Jay notes God can "bless" people and works generally without that settling which canon is correct - so treating general divine blessing as proof of doctrinal correctness trades on two different senses of "blessing." This correctly names an equivocation actually present in Pastor P's repeated appeal, not a caricature of it.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jay Dyer has consistently maintained that historical/providential "blessing" claims do not establish which canon or tradition is correct, and this line is a direct, on-topic application of that standing objection, precisely naming the equivocal use of "blessing" that underlies Pastor P's repeated appeals to the King James Bible's spread and the Great Awakening. Jay has held from the opening that appeals to "God blessed this" (canon, translation, revival) are not themselves arguments for canonical or doctrinal correctness, and has repeatedly pressed Pastor P for a non-circular justification of his canon. Here Pastor P has just demanded whether Jay denies God blessed the King James translators, treating that concession as if it settled the canon question; Jay's reply correctly identifies that Pastor P is trading on two different senses of "blessing" — God's general providential favor toward a person, nation, or work versus the very different claim of divine ratification of a specific set of books as canonical scripture. Since God's favor can fall on countless works and peoples without thereby certifying any of them as the correct canon, naming this slide is a genuine equivocation catch on an argument Pastor P actually made (repeatedly, using "blessing" as his chief evidence throughout this stretch of the debate), not a mischaracterization of his position.
Appeal this callout
Appeals come only from the debaters themselves. Sign in with Google to start; you'll then prove which debater you are, once.