Appeal: framework objection
From Jay Dyer vs Pastor P Debate Orthodoxy vs Protestantism, Sola Scriptura and Church History.
- #197019:54upheld Jay Dyer epainos: framework objection (+2)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 2 points.
“So by every time that he cites the canon of scripture by going to the bible, he's de facto presupposing that the Orthodox Church has the correct tradition by going to the books that they put together.”
Diogenes: He names the presupposition hidden in an appeal to "the Bible" (which canon, and who fixed it) and says that question has to be settled first.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S0 declared in his opening that the canon and apostolic authorship are known only through the church's continuous historical witness, not through private or ad hoc reasoning; this line is the direct, concluding statement of that very declared framework, not a departure from it. The second half of Jay's opening (15:07 onward) is devoted precisely to establishing that the canon of scripture "is a historical fact determined by the church," not something knowable a priori by an individual reasoning ad hoc from "the Bible" alone; the quoted line at 19:54 is the capstone of that argument, naming the presupposition (that an appeal to "the Bible" already assumes a settled canon fixed by a specific ecclesial tradition) and asserting that the canon question must be resolved before scripture-citation can function as an authority. This matches the definition: a named presupposition, reasons given, and identification of what must be settled first. It is also the seed of the same objection Jay presses relentlessly for the rest of the debate (Carthage, Trullo, the Byzantine/received text, etc.), all of which I have already credited as continuations of this framework objection.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument", on the same ledger as the callout. Jay states the premise plainly (the 27-book NT list was fixed historically by church councils/tradition, which he elsewhere identifies concretely as Trullo reaffirming Carthage, itself reaffirmed at Nicaea II) and draws the conclusion that anyone who appeals to "the canon of scripture" is thereby relying on that tradition's determination. This is the capstone of the case he built through his opening statement and is exactly the point he goes on to press at length in the later Carthage exchange, where Pastor P never gives a principled answer for accepting that tradition's New Testament list while rejecting its Old Testament (deuterocanon) inclusions.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S0 declared in his opening that "the canon of scripture is a historical fact determined by the church" and not something known via ad hoc individual reasoning (15:07), and this closing line of that same opening statement applies that declared position directly, naming the presupposition (that appeal to "the Bible" already assumes a settled canon) and identifying what must be settled first (which tradition fixed that canon) — a position he holds without departure throughout the debate. This is the founding statement of the framework objection Jay repeats throughout the debate (e.g. at 30:55-34:54, 46:54, 49:16): that appealing to "the Bible" without justifying the canon presupposes the very tradition in dispute. It names the hidden presupposition and states what must be settled first (whose tradition fixed the canon), meeting the definition cleanly.
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.