Appeal: evidence
From Jay Dyer vs Pedro from Crucible Debate: Sola Scriptura and Protestantism.
- #15001:20:46upheld Jay Dyer epainos: evidence (+1)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 1 point.
“I could give you a list of multiple ones like Hugh Y. Wybrue, Williams and Anstall, etc, who talk about the fact that the earliest days of the church did not have a canon of scripture, and yet they had, whatever writings they had in the various seas, the ability to worship in a pattern, a liturgy…”
Diogenes: He closes by naming a checkable mechanism for his authority claim — surviving apostolic liturgies traced through named liturgical historians — rather than resting on the bare assertion that the Church is Spirit-guided.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jay has held since the opening that Church-liturgical continuity, evidenced by named liturgies and historians, is the mechanism by which apostolic authority and the canon are known; this line is a direct instance of that standing claim, not a departure from it. Jay's continuity thesis (continuity with the apostles attested by succession, liturgy and lectionary as the test of authority, the Church determining the canon over six centuries) has been his stated framework since the opening. Here he supports the liturgical-continuity claim not with bare assertion but by naming specific liturgical historians (Hugh Wybrew, Williams and Anstall) whose work is checkable, which is exactly the kind of citable, verifiable support the "evidence" category rewards, and it fits the "mechanism" the rubric credits (continuity via named liturgies/lectionaries) rather than a bare circular appeal to the Spirit.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "evidence". Rather than simply asserting that liturgical practice predates and helped shape the canon, Jay names specific checkable scholarly sources (Hugh Wybrew, Williams and Anstall) for the claim that the earliest churches worshipped liturgically before any canon existed. This distinguishes the bare claim from cited, verifiable evidence, which is the merit the rubric calls "evidence."
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jay has held since the opening that the Church's authority and the canon's formation are demonstrable via historical continuity (succession, liturgy, councils) rather than a bare pneumatic assertion, and this line is a straightforward continuation of that evidentiary method, not a departure. Jay's declared method rests continuity-with-apostles claims on checkable historical attestation (succession, liturgy, lectionary), and throughout the debate he repeatedly cites named scholars (F.F. Bruce, Lee MacDonald, Philip Schaff) as checkable sources for his historical claims; naming Wybrew and Williams/Anstall here for the liturgical-continuity claim is consistent with and a clear instance of that pattern, distinguishing his claim from citable evidence rather than resting on bare assertion.
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.