JY Lewis (caller) · Philosopher
1 callout
- Jay Dyer vs Pastor P Debate Orthodoxy vs Protestantism, Sola Scriptura and Church History at 1:15:48upheld
The council upheld the call: JY Lewis (caller) earned 1.2 points.
homologia (+1.2)
“… how do you determine the validity of what they're saying when they believe the contradictory thing that you believe?”
Diogenes: A single precise question — the bishops of Carthage held conciliar and episcopal authority, which Pastor P rejects while keeping their canon — extracts the admission "maybe what I'm saying is subjective and so be it," conceding the point Dyer had pressed for an hour.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Pastor P's consistent position throughout the debate has been to resist the charge that his selective acceptance of Carthage's rulings (New Testament canon yes, conciliar/episcopal authority and Old Testament Deuterocanon no) is arbitrary or subjective, repeatedly insisting instead on divine blessing as an objective warrant. JY Lewis's precise question — how to adjudicate validity when the same bishops he selectively trusts held contradictory views on conciliar authority — draws the explicit admission "maybe what I'm saying is subjective and so be it," which is exactly the concession Jay had been pressing for through the entire Carthage exchange; that Pastor P immediately falls back on asserting divine blessing does not erase that he granted the specific point of subjectivity in response to a direct question.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument", on the same ledger as the callout. JY Lewis lays out the reasoning plainly: the bishops at Carthage held to the authority of councils and bishops to settle such matters, a premise Pastor P rejects; therefore the caller asks how Pastor P can accept their specific ruling on the canon while denying the very authority-framework on which they operated — the same "arbitrary picking and choosing" inconsistency Jay had pressed earlier, now independently formulated with its own premises and conclusion.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Pastor P has insisted throughout the debate that truth is not relative and that his canon rests on objective providential blessing rather than subjective judgment; this caller's targeted question is what finally draws from him the explicit admission that his own criterion may indeed be subjective, a real departure into conceding the force of the standing objection rather than merely restating his position. The caller's precise question — Carthage's bishops held conciliar/episcopal authority that Pastor P otherwise rejects, so how does he validate keeping their canon decision while rejecting that authority elsewhere — immediately produces the admission "maybe what I'm saying is subjective and so be it." That is a genuine, explicit concession of the very point pressed (that his criterion is not objectively grounded), not a hedge that asserts nothing; the follow-up caller question ("how come those same bishops accepted different canons...") shows this was a real, continuing exchange, not a drive-by line.