Appeal: evidence
From Protestant vs. Orthodox: Scripture and Tradition (Gavin Ortlund + Stephen De Young).
- #158038:24upheld Gavin Ortlund epainos: evidence (+2)
The council upheld the call: Gavin Ortlund earned 2 points.
“I've talked about its appearance first in heterodox contexts, like the book of Mary's repose. That's the first time it comes up, and it's in a gnostic text... People who are listing bodily assumptions to heaven, and it's always Enoch and Elijah to the tune of dozens of times in the first four centuries of the church, never once is Mary included…”
Diogenes: He answers the "did it happen" question with checkable specifics — a named earliest source, its provenance, and a pattern of positive counter-testimony — rather than resting on bare absence of a text.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S2 has consistently argued that claimed traditions must be measured against historical/patristic evidence, citing the Marian assumption dispute earlier as a test case; this line is a continuation of that same evidentiary method, not a new departure. The verifier confirms the named source, its provenance, and the patristic pattern cited are accurate, satisfying "evidence" — checkable specifics rather than bare assertion — consistent with S2's standing method throughout the debate.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "evidence". Rather than merely asserting that the bodily assumption of Mary is a late accretion, Ortlund cites specific, checkable historical data: the earliest surviving text (the gnostic "Book of Mary's Repose"), and the recurring pattern in patristic lists of bodily assumptions (Enoch and Elijah, repeated "dozens of times" over four centuries) that conspicuously omit Mary. This distinguishes claim from evidence in a verifiable way.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S2 has held since early in the debate (and repeats later regarding icon veneration) that his rejection of certain Orthodox doctrines rests on checkable historical evidence rather than bare silence, and this line is a clear instance of that standing method, not a departure. Ortlund's stated method is to ground his historical claims about "late accretions" (Marian assumption, icon veneration) in specific checkable sources rather than assertion, and this passage — naming the Liber Requiei Mariae, its gnostic provenance, and the documented pattern of Enoch/Elijah lists never including Mary — is exactly that practice, confirmed accurate by the verifier against the scholarly record.
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.