Appeal: evidence
From Protestant vs. Orthodox: Scripture and Tradition (Gavin Ortlund + Stephen De Young).
- #158550:17upheld Stephen De Young epainos: evidence (+1)
The council upheld the call: Stephen De Young earned 1 point.
“… you had falsified documents from church history that the Roman Catholic church was using to support its claims. You had falsified and just generally falsely attributed works from church fathers that were being used to support papal claims.”
Diogenes: He grounds his account of sola scriptura's rise in a concrete and verifiable historical situation — the forged and misattributed documents behind papal claims — rather than in a bare assertion about Reformation motives.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S3 has consistently supplemented his pneumatological account of holy tradition with concrete historical claims throughout the debate (e.g., archaeological synagogue iconography, the Jerusalem Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls); this line continues that pattern by grounding his account of sola scriptura's origin in a specific, checkable historical claim about forged documents. The claim is a concrete, checkable historical assertion (verified accurate against the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals and Donation of Constantine) rather than a bare assertion, and it is offered to explain rather than merely assert his account of the Reformation context — a clean fit for the evidence label.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument", on the same ledger as the callout. De Young lays out a plain premise-to-conclusion historical case for why sola scriptura arose specifically in the sixteenth century: forged documents and falsely attributed patristic works were being used to prop up papal claims, so the reformers had practical reason to anchor themselves in texts (the Hebrew Old Testament, Erasmus's Greek New Testament) known to be untampered-with by Rome. This premise then supports his subsequent conclusion that the practical rationale for sola scriptura, as he frames it, no longer applies in the same way now that better historical and archaeological tools exist to sort authentic from forged sources.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S3 has consistently argued that holy tradition and church reception, not isolated propositional deposits, are the touchstone, and here he is making a historically-grounded aside about why sola scriptura made practical sense in its own era — consistent with, not a departure from, his framework. De Young cites specific, checkable historical facts — forged and falsely attributed patristic and papal documents (verified by the check as the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals and Donation of Constantine) — to ground his claim about why sola scriptura arose in the sixteenth century, rather than resting on a bare assertion. This is a clean instance of distinguishing claim from checkable evidence.
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.