Appeal: clarification
From Protestant vs. Orthodox: Scripture and Tradition (Gavin Ortlund + Stephen De Young).
- #15726:33upheld Gavin Ortlund epainos: clarification (+1)
The council upheld the call: Gavin Ortlund earned 1 point.
“Sola scriptura simply means they're fallible. So the intention of sola scriptura is not a rejection of the church, not a rejection of tradition, but a measuring of them by the superior standard of scripture.”
Diogenes: He defines his own thesis precisely and disowns two common caricatures before any objection is raised, narrowing the target to what he will actually defend.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S2 opened by pledging to explain sola scriptura precisely and ward off caricatures, and this quote is exactly that pledge being executed in direct response to the moderator's opening question "What is sola scriptura, and what is it not?"; it is consistent with, not a departure from, his stated method throughout. The label "clarification" per the rubric means asking for a definition or clarification rather than assuming one; here S2 is giving a definition, not asking for one, so the specific label is a poor fit. But the underlying philosopher-point is real: this is a direct, substantive answer to the question actually asked by the moderator, so it should be relabeled rather than struck.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "direct answer", on the same ledger as the callout. Asked plainly "what is sola scriptura, and what is it not," Gavin states the thesis in clean premise-conclusion form: church, councils, and tradition are valuable but fallible, so sola scriptura's function is to measure them against the superior, infallible standard of scripture rather than reject them. This directly answers the question posed and matches the framework he defends consistently through the rest of the debate (e.g., his later Nicaea I vs. Nicaea II distinction, his Turretin citation), so it is not an empty slogan but a working definition he actually uses.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S2 opened by defining sola scriptura as 'scripture is the only infallible rule' while explicitly allowing inference/deduction and valuing fallible church/tradition — this line is that same founding definition, not a departure. This passage is Gavin defining sola scriptura precisely and pre-emptively ruling out two caricatures (nothing outside Scripture is explicit; Scripture is the only authority at all). That is not a clarification in the rubric's sense (asking the opponent for a definition), but it is exactly the philosopher-point behavior of stating premises and a conclusion plainly to fix what he will defend for the rest of the debate — an explicit argument, which he holds to throughout (later distinguishing 'fallible interpretations' from 'infallible scripture' at 53:xx and defending the same modest claim against Fr. Jonathan and De Young's objections). The referee's description of the passage is accurate even though the label chosen doesn't fit the strict definition of 'clarification.'
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.