Appeal: evidence
From Protestant vs. Orthodox: Scripture and Tradition (Gavin Ortlund + Stephen De Young).
- #158345:42upheld Gavin Ortlund epainos: evidence (+2)
The council upheld the call: Gavin Ortlund earned 2 points.
“… each side will appeal to apostolic tradition to ground their view in the date of Easter controversy... The third century dispute about the rebaptism of those baptized by heretics, same thing. Both sides appealing to apostolic tradition. Irenaeus, he appeals to apostolic tradition for some eccentric views that very few of us would accept today, like Jesus dying as a middle aged man…”
Diogenes: He supports the "garbled transmission" premise with three specific, datable, checkable cases in which appeals to apostolic tradition conflicted or demonstrably failed, rather than asserting fallibility in the abstract.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S2 has held since the opening that oral/traditional claims are subject to a fallible transmission process (the "telephone game"); this line supplies concrete historical cases for that standing claim rather than departing from it. The verifier confirms all three cited disputes (Quartodeciman controversy, rebaptism controversy, Irenaeus on Jesus' age) are real and checkable, satisfying "evidence" as distinguishing claim from checkable specifics; this is consistent with S2's standing framework throughout.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "evidence". Ortlund supports his claim that appeals to "apostolic tradition" are unreliable by citing three specific, checkable historical cases: the second-century Quartodeciman/Easter date dispute, the third-century rebaptism controversy, and Irenaeus's claim (in Against Heresies) that Jesus died in middle age — in each case naming a concrete historical dispute rather than merely asserting the general point.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S2 has held throughout the debate that his critique of appeals to "apostolic tradition" rests on checkable historical instances rather than bare assertion; this line is a further, confirmed instance of that same practice. Consistent with his standing method of grounding claims in checkable historical particulars, Ortlund here supports his "telephone game" / fallible transmission premise with three specific, datable, verifiable disputes rather than an abstract assertion, and the verifier confirms all three check out against the patristic 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.