Appeal: evidence
From Protestant vs. Orthodox: Scripture and Tradition (Gavin Ortlund + Stephen De Young).
- #15911:00:47upheld Gavin Ortlund epainos: evidence (+1)
The council upheld the call: Gavin Ortlund earned 1 point.
“I would say I'm agreeing with some of the other councils at that time, Hyria [Hieria], to some extent, the council of Hyria [Hieria], but even more so in the West, the council of Frankfurt... the difference between Frankfurt and Nicaea 2 is a lot of politics…”
Diogenes: Against the charge of private judgement he names actual competing conciliar bodies of the same era and points to political causation, making his rejection of Nicaea II a historical claim that can be checked rather than a personal preference.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S2 has held since the opening that scripture and the early church, not later ecclesial consensus alone, are the standard for adjudicating councils, and has repeatedly backed this with named historical evidence (Turretin, Chemnitz, Epiphanius, patristic aniconism); this line continues that same evidentiary method by naming specific competing councils and a checkable political cause for their divergence. The claim is a concrete, checkable historical assertion about named councils and political causation, verified accurate against the mainstream historical record, offered to substantiate rather than merely assert his rejection of Nicaea II's infallibility — a clean fit for the evidence label.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "evidence". Gavin doesn't just assert that politics rather than theological merit separated Nicaea II from the councils that rejected it; he backs the claim with checkable specifics immediately following, naming Empress Irene's political maneuvering and the "torture and mutilation of the bishops and monks on the other side" as concrete historical grounds for distrusting the outcome, rather than resting on the bare assertion.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S2 has held since the opening that later church pronouncements including councils are fallible and must be measured against scripture and the apostolic deposit; citing rival, contemporaneous councils and their political context is consistent development of that same standing argument against treating Nicaea II as infallible. Ortlund names specific, checkable historical councils (Hieria, Frankfurt) and a checkable causal claim (political factors around Empress Irene and Frankish-Byzantine rivalry) rather than resting his rejection of Nicaea II on unsupported personal preference. The verifier confirms this matches the mainstream historical record, so 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.