Appeal: homologia
From FULL SAVAGE DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Indiana Brunner: Protestant Bible Wrong???.
- #58118:06upheld Jay Dyer against Indiana Brunner agonisma: homologia (+1)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 1.2 points.
“I mean, wait a minute. Is his body created?”
Diogenes: A short chain of questions, why is he falling toward the ark, is it a physical object, would you bow before Christ's flesh, ends with Brunner granting "Yes. I'm bowing before Jesus" after the body is agreed to be created, conceding the very principle that created matter may be venerated.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S0 has held since the opening that created matter can legitimately bear and be venerated for the presence of the sanctified/divine, and this Socratic sequence is a direct application of that thesis, not a departure; S1 has held that physical objects carry no doctrinal weight absent explicit apostolic teaching, and his in-sequence admission that he bows before Christ's created flesh is a real concession under that framework, even though he immediately tries to cabin it with a hypostatic-union distinction. This is a genuine Socratic chain, not a bare line: S0 presses from "why fall toward the ark" through "physical object with images" through "image of the living God is Jesus" to "you bow before his physical body," and S1, rather than dodging, answers "I would bow before Jesus in the flesh. Yes," then affirms the body "was formed in the womb," i.e., created, and restates "I'm bowing before Jesus." That is a forced admission of the specific propositions Jay was pressing (physical/created things can rightly be bowed to), which is the mechanism homologia requires. S1 does immediately pivot to a Christological distinction (flesh vs. deity) to try to block the broader relics-generalization, so the wider argument is not settled here, but the narrow concession itself is real and was extracted by argument, not merely asserted — enough to count as a decisive local move.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "clarification", on the same ledger as the callout. Rather than assume what Brunner means by bowing before Jesus "in the flesh," Dyer presses him to specify the metaphysical status of Christ's body before drawing his conclusion, which Brunner then answers directly ("his body was formed in the womb in Mary's womb"), setting up the subsequent point that bowing before Jesus is bowing before a created thing.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jay has held throughout that physical/created matter can be legitimately venerated (per Incarnation and uncreated-energies doctrine); Indiana has held that veneration/doctrine of physical mediation needs explicit apostolic warrant and has been skeptical of analogizing OT/relic veneration to NT practice. This exchange is Jay pressing that very framework against Indiana's resistance, not a move off either speaker's record. The chain (ark → images → Christ's flesh → "is it created?" → "I bow before Jesus in the flesh, yes"/"yes his body was formed in Mary's womb") is a real multi-turn exchange, not a single good line, and it does culminate in Indiana explicitly and repeatedly granting that he bows before Jesus' created flesh ("I would bow before Jesus in the flesh. Yes"; "Well, I yes. I'm bowing before Jesus"), which is the very principle (veneration of created matter) his anti-relic position resists. Indiana does not simply collapse, however: he immediately tries to limit the concession by raising the hypostatic-union question ("are we separating Jesus' flesh from his deity?"), so the fit is closer to a forced concession paired with an attempted distinguo than a clean, total homologia.
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.