Appeal: explicit argument
From Jay Dyer vs Pedro from Crucible Debate: Sola Scriptura and Protestantism.
- #15392:16:04upheld Jay Dyer epainos: explicit argument (+1)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 1 point.
“… that's like saying me and a Mormon believe in the phrase Jesus is God, so we're straight, we're all good... When the Mormon explains what he means Okay. We totally disagree over the meaning of Jesus is God, right?”
Diogenes: Against the claim that the remaining differences are merely verbal, he shows with a parallel case that agreement on a formula is compatible with total disagreement on its meaning, which is exactly why the Filioque cannot be waved away.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jay has held throughout that formulaic agreement (on the Trinity, Christology, etc.) does not settle substantive theological disagreement, consistent with his opening emphasis on doctrinal precision (Trinity, simplicity, Filioque) as prior and non-negotiable; here he lays out a parallel case explicitly to defend that same standing point against Pedro's claim that the two sides are "just mincing words.". The passage states a clear premise (shared wording can mask total disagreement on meaning), a supporting parallel case (Mormon "Jesus is God"), and a conclusion (so agreement on the Trinity formula doesn't erase the Filioque dispute) — a properly formed explicit argument.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument". Pedro had just suggested that if both sides affirm "one being, three persons" they are "solid" and any further dispute is just "mincing words." Jay lays out a clear premise-and-conclusion rebuttal: shared verbal formulas do not guarantee shared meaning (illustrated by Mormons also affirming "Jesus is God" while meaning something different), therefore agreement on the Trinitarian formula does not settle the Filioque dispute over what "person" and procession mean. This is a reasoned point, not a bare assertion.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jay's consistent method is to insist that shared theological vocabulary can mask real doctrinal disagreement (he does this throughout with terms like "canon," "tradition," and here "one essence, three persons"), and this line is a direct application of that standing position, not a new or inconsistent claim. Jay states a clear premise (shared formulaic agreement is compatible with total disagreement on meaning, illustrated by the Mormon "Jesus is God" parallel) and draws the conclusion that the shared Trinitarian formula with Pedro does not resolve the Filioque dispute, which is a plainly stated explicit argument answering Pedro's "we're just mincing words" claim.
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.