Appeal: internal critique
From DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Pastor Jonathan Shelley | Tradition Vs Sola Scriptura.
- #23262:33:33upheld Jay Dyer epainos: internal critique (+2)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 2 points.
“You said you could not be wrong about this. That means infallible.”
Diogenes: Shelley said he hears the divine voice in the 66 books and, asked whether he could be wrong, said no, while also saying that no man is infallible and that only Christ and Scripture are. Jay draws the stated conclusion that, on this point, Shelley claims an infallibility he elsewhere denies to every man.major: It draws a stated conclusion from Shelley's own answer on the central canon question, and Shelley's reply (knowing that 2+2=4 doesn't make one infallible) only partly answers it.
- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Dyer opened by declaring that Scripture points beyond the text to oral tradition and that Shelley has no basis for the Protestant canon, and he has held both throughout; this line presses that canon challenge by drawing a consequence from Shelley's own words, so it does not depart from his position. The record bears the elements. Shelley's premises were that he hears the divine voice and, asked whether he could be wrong, said "No". He also said that no man is infallible. Dyer states the derivation: "could not be wrong... means infallible". That is a conclusion Shelley rejects, drawn from premises he holds, with the link stated. Shelley's reply (two plus two) is a distinction he offers, and it does not remove the derivation. His later recast at 157 does not erase what he said at 153.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "internal critique". Shelley had said the apostles and the church are not infallible, and that he hears the "divine voice" and cannot be wrong about the canon. Jay asks "Could you be wrong?", gets "No", and states the consequence: not being able to be wrong on this point is infallibility on it. This draws a conclusion Shelley rejects from Shelley's own recorded claims. Jay overstates by dropping "on this point", and Shelley's reply about two plus two has some force, but the derivation is stated and fair enough to stand.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Dyer declared at the opening that Scripture points beyond itself to oral tradition, and that Shelley has no basis for the Protestant canon. He has pressed that challenge throughout, and this line applies it by exposing Shelley's reliance on his own judgment, so it does not depart from that position. The record supports each element. Shelley said that no one but Christ and Scripture is infallible, and that the apostles and tradition can err. He also said he hears the divine voice in the 66 books. Asked whether he could be wrong about it, he said no, and he later said "I know the truth on this." Dyer states the derivation openly: "could not be wrong" means infallible. That brings out a tension between Shelley's stated premises, which is what internal critique requires. Shelley's later claim that the exchange was about the canon being wrong does not match the 153:20 answer. It is the same inference the earlier 67:49 internal-critique ruling accepted.
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.