Appeal: direct answer
From Protestant vs. Orthodox: Scripture and Tradition (Gavin Ortlund + Stephen De Young).
- #15941:10:36upheld Stephen De Young epainos: direct answer (+2)
The council upheld the call: Stephen De Young earned 2 points.
“… the answer to that question from an orthodox perspective is the last twelve hundred years of history in which those findings have been affirmed and reaffirmed and reaffirmed not just by other councils, but in practice by what we perceive to be the whole church.”
Diogenes: Asked point blank what grounds the confidence that Nicaea II rather than Frankfurt was Spirit-guided, he gives a stated criterion — sustained catholic reception in practice over time — rather than retreating to a bare assertion that the Spirit guides the church.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S3 has held since his opening statement that the church's collective, time-tested reception under the Spirit's guidance (not any single council or individual) is what marks a council as Spirit-guided, citing the NT canon's gradual recognition as his model; here, pressed directly on how he knows Nicaea II rather than Frankfurt was so guided, he applies that same standing criterion rather than dodging or asserting bare authority. A direct question ("what is the specific grounding for that confidence... how do you know?") is met with a stated criterion (sustained catholic reception and reaffirmation over roughly twelve centuries) consistent with his framework laid out at the opening, which is a direct answer even though S2 goes on to press whether that criterion is sufficient.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "evidence", on the same ledger as the callout. Pressed on how one can be confident Nicaea II rather than Frankfurt carries the Spirit's guidance, De Young does not simply restate that the church is infallible because the Spirit guides it; he names a checkable mechanism, sustained, unbroken reception and reaffirmation of the council's findings by the whole church across twelve hundred years, tying it to his stated first principle (John 16:13's corporate "you"). This gives an answerable historical criterion rather than a bare circular appeal, even though Gavin goes on to contest whether that reception was in fact universal.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S3's opening position holds that no individual is infallible but the church's corporate reception, guided by the Spirit over time, is — this answer is a direct restatement and application of that same standing framework to the specific Nicaea II/Frankfurt question, not a new position. Ortlund asks pointedly "How do you know?... where do you find that confidence to know for sure that's the holy spirit's guidance rather than an innovation" regarding Nicaea II versus Frankfurt. De Young answers with a stated, applicable criterion — sustained catholic reception and reaffirmation over roughly twelve hundred years — rather than deflecting or repeating a bare circular assertion. This is a direct answer to the question as posed, and it also supplies the kind of mechanism (continuity of reception) that the framework calls for.
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.