Appeal: evidence
From Jay Dyer vs Pedro from Crucible Debate: Sola Scriptura and Protestantism.
- #142525:04upheld Jay Dyer epainos: evidence (+2)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 2 points.
“I will give you the example of second Chronicles 29, where we have the story of King Hezekiah organizing the liturgy, right, the entire liturgical process on worship of God, not on the basis of explicitly written text.”
Diogenes: He answers Pedro's demand for evidence of authoritative unwritten tradition with specific, checkable texts (Matt 23's seat of Moses, Isaiah's "law and the testimony," 2 Chron 29) rather than assertion.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S1 opened by arguing that sola scriptura as defined by the Reformers is false because oral tradition was always co-authoritative with written scripture, citing continuity with apostolic and pre-apostolic practice; this citation of 2 Chron 29 is a direct application of that same standing argument, not a departure. Jay Dyer here backs his recurring thesis (that oral tradition/practice, not just written text, carried authority even in Old Testament times) with a specific, checkable citation (2 Chron 29, plus Matt 23 and Isaiah elsewhere in the same passage) rather than bare assertion. This is a textbook instance of distinguishing claim from evidence via a citable source, consistent with his opening framework and held throughout.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "evidence". Dyer cites a specific, checkable scriptural passage (2 Chronicles 29, Hezekiah's reorganization of temple liturgy) to support his claim that authoritative practice existed on the basis of tradition rather than an explicit written mandate. This is part of a larger pattern in his opening of piling up concrete textual citations (the book of Jasher, the seat of Moses in Matthew 23, etc.) to back a stated thesis, rather than merely asserting it.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jay Dyer's opening thesis was that sola scriptura as classically defined is false because oral tradition was always authoritative alongside written text, even in OT times; citing 2 Chron 29, Matt 23, and Isaiah's "law and testimony" as concrete textual instances of this claim is a direct continuation of that same line, not a departure. He cites specific, checkable scriptural passages (2 Chron 29's liturgical organization absent a written mandate, Matt 23's "seat of Moses," Isaiah's "law and the testimony") to support his claim that authoritative oral tradition predates and coexists with written scripture. This is a clear instance of citing checkable evidence rather than bare assertion, fitting the philosopher point for "evidence."
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.