Appeal: direct answer
From Jay Dyer vs Pastor P Debate Orthodoxy vs Protestantism, Sola Scriptura and Church History.
- #13751:14:33upheld Jay Dyer epainos: direct answer (+1)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 1 point.
“There's no way that the Trinity can split itself or damn one of the persons or something like this. It's absolutely impossible. So that would lead to either Nestorianism or some form of Arianism. The death of Christ is the severance of his human soul from his human body and his descent into Hades…”
Diogenes: Asked for the Orthodox reading, he gives a positive account with its terms defined and names the specific errors the alternative collapses into, rather than merely denying his opponent's view.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S0 declared at the opening that Christ's death is the severance of soul from body, not the Father punishing the Son, and that the Trinity cannot be divided; this answer directly restates and elaborates that same standing position in response to a direct question, with no departure. S0 was asked directly by a caller for "the orthodox interpretation of the Garden of Gethsemane," and he gave a substantive positive account: death as severance of human soul from body, descent into Hades (harrowing of Hades), and ascent into the heavenly holy of holies, while naming the specific heresies (Nestorianism, Arianism) the alternative reading would entail. This is exactly the Christological position he declared in his opening statement (Trinity cannot be divided, no person punished by another; Chalcedonian two-natures Christology) and he defends it with defined terms rather than mere denial, satisfying "direct answer."
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument", on the same ledger as the callout. Jay states a plain premise (the Trinity is indivisible, so one person cannot punish or be severed from another) and draws the conclusion that any view requiring the Father to punish or split from the Son collapses into Nestorianism or Arianism, then offers his own account (death as separation of soul from body, descent into Hades) as the alternative. This is offered directly in answer to the caller's request for "the orthodox interpretation of the Garden of Gethsemane," and it coheres with his stated first principles on Trinitarian indivisibility and Chalcedonian Christology recorded earlier in the debate, so it is a genuine argument rather than a mere assertion.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S0 declared from the opening that Christ's death is the severance of his human soul from his body (not the Father punishing the Son) and that the Trinity is indivisible; the called line restates and applies this same position directly to the question asked, with no departure. S0's stated first principles include Chalcedonian two-natures Christology, divine impassibility, and indivisibility of the Trinity, plus the claim that Christ's death is the severance of soul from body (not Father punishing Son) — this is exactly the position of record from his opening statement. Here, directly asked by the caller (S10) for "the orthodox interpretation of the Garden Of Gethsemane," he answers on point: he gives the positive account (severance of soul from body, descent into Hades) and names the specific heresies (Nestorianism, Arianism) that the alternative would entail, rather than dodging or merely negating. This is a textbook direct answer that also carries explicit-argument qualities, consistent with everything he has held since the opening.
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.