Appeal: explicit argument
From Fr. Ananias and Jay Dyer vs Matt Slick: Orthodoxy vs Protestantism Debate.
- #25891:32:20upheld Matt Slick epainos: explicit argument (+2)
The council upheld the call: Matt Slick earned 2 points.
“… then you require logically limited atonement that Jesus only canceled the sin debt for the elect…”
Diogenes: Slick states premises (the sin debt was canceled "at the cross", not at baptism or belief; a canceled debt cannot be charged), a dilemma (canceled for everyone means universalism, which is heresy), and the conclusion with its link stated: limited atonement.major: It is a clear, fully stated argument from a cited text and bears on the central soteriology charge, though its exclusion of a third option and its leap from "us" to "the elect" are open to challenge.
- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Slick declared at the opening that Scripture is the inspired standard and that Calvinism is what it teaches. He has held that throughout, and the called argument from Colossians 2:13-14 to limited atonement fits it. Slick states the premises: the text says the debt was canceled at the cross, and a canceled debt cannot be charged. He then offers a dilemma: canceled for all is universalism, so it was canceled for the elect only. He states the link in "you require logically limited atonement". That is premises, a conclusion and the stated link, so the elements of explicit argument are met. A hidden premise is that "all" in the verse means every individual, but he states the disjunction himself and does not leave it to the listener. A further option (that the cancellation is conditional on faith) is dismissed by assertion, which weakens the argument but does not defeat its explicit form.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument". Slick states his premises: Col 2:14 says the debt was canceled at the cross, a canceled debt cannot be charged, and canceling it for all would mean universalism. He then draws limited atonement and says how the steps connect. He also rules out the "canceled for all but received by belief" option in the same turn, though only by asserting that cancellation doesn't depend on belief, so the argument is stated but not airtight.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Slick declared at the opening a very high view of Scripture as the inspired standard and that he can defend Calvinism from it; he has held that throughout, and this exegesis of Colossians 2:13-14 is exactly that defence, so the line does not depart from his position. Slick states premises (the debt is canceled at the cross, not at baptism or belief; a canceled debt cannot be charged). He then offers a dilemma: if the debt is canceled for all, that is universalism, and if not, the cancellation is limited to the elect. He states the link and draws the conclusion, limited atonement. This is a real explicit argument, though it leaves out a third option: the cancellation could be applied through faith. That gap does not undo the structure.
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.