Appeal: explicit argument
From FULL SAVAGE DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Indiana Brunner: Protestant Bible Wrong???.
- #58421:53upheld Jay Dyer epainos: explicit argument (+2)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 2 points.
“… if he's just teaching a spiritual presence, that's identical to the Old Testament conception of the sacrament. So there would be nothing offensive or weird about that. Why didn't he stop them from walking away?”
Diogenes: A clean argument from the text: the recorded offence and desertion need explaining, and a merely spiritual reading leaves nothing to be offended by.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S0 has held throughout that scripture and tradition together support a strong sacramental/real-presence reading against a symbolic-only Protestant reading; this argument is a direct application of that standing case to the John 6 text, not a new or shifting position. This is a plainly structured argument: if the teaching were merely spiritual/symbolic (matching the Old Testament sacramental pattern), the offense and departure of the disciples would be inexplicable; since they were in fact offended and left, the teaching must be more than merely spiritual — premises and conclusion stated openly.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument". Dyer lays out a clear premise-conclusion structure: if Jesus meant only the already-familiar Old Testament symbolic sense, the teaching would not have been offensive; the text says many were offended and walked away; therefore something more than mere symbolism was being taught. The argument rests on a checkable textual detail (the disciples' departure in John 6), which he presses Brunner to account for.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S0 has held since the opening that Scripture read with tradition supports real, not merely symbolic, sacramental participation; this argument from the John 6 text is a direct application of that stance, not a new or shifted position. This is a clearly stated argument: premise (a merely spiritual/symbolic reading would be identical to the Old Testament sacramental conception and thus unremarkable), inference (the recorded offense and departure need explaining), conclusion (implying the teaching intends more than symbolism). It has plain premises and a conclusion, consistent with S0's declared method of appealing to New Testament precedent for his sacramental thesis.
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.