Appeal: concession
From Protestant vs. Orthodox: Scripture and Tradition (Gavin Ortlund + Stephen De Young).
- #157832:51upheld Stephen De Young epainos: concession (+1)
The council upheld the call: Stephen De Young earned 1 point.
“I I accept and appreciate doctor Ortland's [Ortlund's] clarification in terms of propositional revelation, and I and I think that's good.” quote corrected
Diogenes: Having proposed a characterisation of Ortlund's view of revelation and been corrected, he drops it rather than pressing the caricature.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S3's opening and sustained position is a defense of holy tradition as the Spirit's guided life in the church alongside scripture's pride of place; nothing about that framework is altered here—he simply drops a specific characterization of Ortlund's view of revelation once Ortlund clarified it, which is consistent with, not a departure from, his standing. S3 proposed at [24:38-25:22] that Ortlund's reformed view treats revelation as propositional statements versus Orthodoxy's view of revelation as the person of Christ manifest in time and space, explicitly flagging this as something Ortlund "might" correct. Ortlund did correct it at [25:44], saying he "wouldn't at all say it's a difference of propositional versus some alternative" and pointing to narrative-character emphasis in Reformed biblical theology. At the quoted line, S3 explicitly accepts that clarification rather than continuing to press his original propositional/narrative contrast, and moves the conversation forward. This is a clean instance of conceding a point after being shown a mischaracterization was corrected.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "concession". S3 had initially characterized Ortlund's view of revelation as emphasizing propositional statements over the person of Christ, and flagged this as a possible point of difference. After Ortlund clarified that he does not see propositional versus narratival/christological revelation as an opposition, S3 explicitly accepts and appreciates that clarification, correctly restating what was clarified rather than repeating his original characterization.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S3's standing throughout is that Holy Tradition/the Holy Spirit, not the text alone, is the locus of infallible authority, checked collectively by the church over time; this small concession on a secondary point about propositional vs. narratival revelation does not touch or depart from that core position. S3 had proposed, tentatively and self-flagged as possibly a misrepresentation, that Ortlund's view of revelation was propositional as against the Orthodox emphasis on manifestation/Christ-as-truth. Ortlund gave a clarifying reply denying that dichotomy and citing Reformed biblical theologians (Ridderbos, Vos) who stress scripture's narrative character. S3's line at 32:51 explicitly accepts that clarification rather than pressing his original characterization — a genuine, if minor, concession on a real prior claim he himself had made.
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.