Appeal: false claim
From Fr. Ananias and Jay Dyer vs Matt Slick: Orthodoxy vs Protestantism Debate.
- #25972:12:43upheld Fr. Ananias claim: false claim (+1)
The council upheld the finding: Fr. Ananias gave away 1 point on Alētheia, the tally of checked facts.
The claim, as Thucydides noted it: All the church fathers and the church's consensus understood the debt in Colossians 2:14 as a debt paid to death, not as a penal substitutionary payment.
Diogenes: Thucydides (verifier): unsupported. At 132:43 Fr. Ananias says "all the fathers and the consensus" took the debt as "the debt paid to death" and names no father or text. The fathers' comments on the cheirographon vary. Chrysostom treats it as our own agreement or bond of obedience, and others treat it as the law or the record of sins. A few do link it to Adam's debt to death. I did not open the texts in this check, so this rests on my recollection of the patristic comments. No single patristic consensus on this verse excludes the substitutionary language that appears in Athanasius and others. "All the fathers" is an unsourced overstatement, and S4's own premise at 131:13 is only that Chrysostom "may" mean it.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Fr. Ananias declared at 06:02 that citing Scripture begs the question until the canon and its interpretation are justified. He has held that throughout, and he has appealed to patristic consensus against Calvinism since 14:28. The called line applies that stance to Colossians 2:14, so it does not depart from his position. He says all the fathers and the church's consensus read the debt as a debt paid to death. He names no father or text. S4's own premise at 131:13 was only that Chrysostom "may" mean it. The fathers' readings of the cheirographon vary, and some use substitutionary language. "All the fathers" is an unsupported overstatement. Thucydides did not open the texts, so his finding rests on recollection. Even so, the claim is universal and unsourced, and the universal is the part in doubt. It is minor.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "bare assertion", on the same ledger as the callout. Ananias makes a sweeping, contested claim that all the fathers read the debt in Col 2:14 as a debt paid to death. He names no father or text. The questioner's one example, Chrysostom, is only offered as "possible". Slick had already disputed the supposed consensus and said the fathers contradict each other. Ananias then relies on the claim to dismiss Slick's reading as ahistorical.
- Plato overturn: On the record: Fr. Ananias declared at the opening that citing Scripture begs the question until the canon and its interpretation are justified, and has held that framework objection and the claim that Calvinism is ahistorical throughout; the called line restates that claim and does not depart from it. The line restates Ananias's standing claim that Calvinism is ahistorical, here applied to Colossians 2:14. The verifier did not open the texts and works from recollection. It also concedes that some fathers link the debt to death, and the exegesis of "all the fathers" is contestable. That leaves it close, and the rubric overturns a close call. Earlier, similar sweeping patristic claims by this speaker (14:28, 133:44) were also overturned.
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.