Appeal: fallacy spotted
From DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Pastor Jonathan Shelley | Tradition Vs Sola Scriptura.
- #23001:07:04upheld Jay Dyer epainos: fallacy spotted (+2)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 2 points.
“Internally consistent with what? That's what's that's what's in question.”
Diogenes: Jay sees that Shelley's "internal consistency" test for canonicity presupposes the set of books against which consistency is measured, which is the very canon in question, so it cannot independently identify it.major: It targets one of Shelley's two supposedly objective criteria for the canon, on the central issue in the debate, and Shelley did not answer it.
- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Dyer opened by declaring that Scripture itself points beyond the text to oral tradition and that Shelley has no basis for the Protestant canon; he has held that since, and this line presses the same canon objection, so it does not depart from it. Shelley offered "internally consistent" as a test for which books are scripture. Consistency is measured against some set of books, and which set counts is the canon in question. Dyer named that circularity in plain words, and it is a real fault in what Shelley said. The line is brief, but the fault it names is genuine, so the call stands.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "fallacy spotted". Shelley offers "internally consistent" and "historically received" as tests for the canon. Jay asks what the consistency is measured against. The standard for consistency is the canon itself, so the test presupposes the very set of books in question. This is a fair point about the circle in what Shelley actually said, and it matches Jay's earlier objections at 23:21 and 23:27.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Dyer declared at the opening that Scripture points beyond itself to oral tradition and that Shelley has no normative basis for the Protestant canon; he has pressed that canon challenge throughout, and this line is that same challenge applied to the "internal consistency" test, so it does not depart from it. Shelley offered "internally consistent" as a test for which books are Scripture. Dyer's question, "Internally consistent with what?", points to a real circularity. Consistency with the rest of Scripture presupposes the canon that is in dispute. Shelley's reply was a tu quoque, which did not answer it. The fault is in what Shelley actually said, so it counts as a fallacy spotted.
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.