Appeal: evidence
From Jay Dyer vs Pastor P Debate Orthodoxy vs Protestantism, Sola Scriptura and Church History.
- #13851:25:14upheld Jay Dyer epainos: evidence (+2)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 2 points.
“… let's say we're at the council of Ephesus and Saint Cyril is condemning Nestorius. What's the basis for Nestorius being condemned?... Ephesus says, we don't see this in the scriptures. We don't see this in the teachings of the fathers, and we don't see it in the teachings of the canons, which have been received from the previous councils.”
Diogenes: Asked what threshold makes a bishop a heretic, he answers with a worked historical case and the three stated criteria used in it, giving a mechanism that can be checked rather than an appeal to bare church authority.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S0 declared from the opening that apostolic authorship, canon, and doctrine are known through the continuous historical witness and tradition of the church (fathers, councils, liturgy), not through ad hoc individual certitude; this answer is a direct, consistent application of that same framework, citing a specific historical mechanism rather than departing into a bare appeal to authority. S0 was asked what threshold makes a bishop a heretic, and rather than simply asserting church authority, he gave a worked historical case (Ephesus vs. Nestorius) with three named, checkable criteria — consistency with scripture, with the patristic consensus, and with the canons of prior councils — which is precisely the kind of mechanism the "circle with a mechanism" standard credits as evidence rather than bare appeal to authority.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "evidence". In answering the caller's question about how a bishop is judged heretical, Jay does not just assert that the church's authority is self-validating; he names a concrete historical mechanism — the council of Ephesus checked Nestorius's teaching against scripture, the received teaching of the fathers, and the canons of prior councils — giving a checkable historical process rather than a bare circular appeal to church authority.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S0 has held since the opening that apostolic tradition and the consensus of church fathers/councils, checkable through history, are the mechanism by which doctrine and canon are known; this line applies that exact framework to a specific historical case rather than departing from it. S0's opening and recurring method rests on the consensus of the church fathers, church councils, and continuous historical witness as the mechanism for knowing doctrine and canon; this line is a direct instantiation of that method, citing the specific historical case (Council of Ephesus, Cyril vs. Nestorius) and the three checkable criteria (scripture, fathers, prior canons) used to adjudicate heresy. It is a genuine evidentiary answer to Significo's question about what threshold makes a bishop heretical, not a bare assertion of authority, and is consistent with everything S0 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.