Appeal: equivocation
From DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Pastor Jonathan Shelley | Tradition Vs Sola Scriptura.
- #228314:50overturned Jonathan Shelley psogos: equivocation (+2)
The council overturned the call, so no points were given away.
“… we only appeal to that which is divine, to that which is eternal, to that which is unchanging.”
Diogenes: Shelley moves from John 1's eternal Word (a divine person) and "Thy word is settled in heaven" to the written Scripture, and then rejects tradition as changing. The premise holds of the Logos, but the conclusion needs it to hold of the written text, which Jay's opening had already distinguished from the Word.major: The shift in meaning of "word" carries his main argument for Scripture's unique authority and is central to his case, though it is not flagrant.
- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Shelley opened by declaring Christ the infallible head and final authority, with his word identified as the written Scripture, and has held that throughout, including that the word of God is eternal; the called line restates that position rather than departing from it. In the opening Shelley cites "In the beginning was the Word" and "Thy word is settled in heaven" (the eternal Word, a person), then says "we only appeal to that which is divine, eternal, unchanging" and applies it to Scripture against changing tradition. The key term "word" is used for the Logos in the premise and for the written text in the conclusion, and the conclusion follows only through that shift. Later he admits "word" has different contexts and distinguishes the physical book from the eternal word, which confirms the two senses. The elements are met, though the wording is loose and the move is not heavily developed here, so the call stands.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found nothing worth calling. The line is a framework premise in his opening: only the divine, eternal and unchanging is appealed to, and church tradition keeps changing. It is not a move against a live point. The identification of the written text with the eternal word is shaky, and the equivocation on "word" does surface later in the debate. At this line he has not yet shifted senses, so no fault or merit shows.
- Plato overturn: On the record: Shelley declared at the opening that Christ is the head and final authority, that his word is infallible, and that Scripture is that word. He has held since that the word of God is eternal and identified with the written text, so the called line restates his position and does not depart from it. The line restates Shelley's declared Biblicist identification of the word of God with Scripture, which he held from the opening to the end. It does not slide between two senses of a key term. Shelley treats "word" as one thing, Christ and Scripture together, and does not use the Logos sense in the premise and the text sense in the conclusion. Jay's objection that the sense shifts is a disagreement over the framework, not a fault shown in this line. At the called line the two senses are not shown to split, so the elements of equivocation are not met.
- Thesmothetes overturn: By the rule: an element of the label is missing from the record. The quoted line does not use "word" in two senses. It restates Shelley's declared Biblicist identification of the Word with Scripture, which he held from the opening onward. Jay's distinction between the Logos and the written text was a framework dispute, and Shelley never conceded it. When Jay pressed it later (around 33:25 to 34:13), Shelley said "I don't believe you can separate these two," placing the eternity in the words, not the physical book. The record does not show a shift of sense at this line.
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.