The Eastern Orthodox Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ in 33 AD

"This fact, however, does not preclude the Baptists, Presbyterians, Christian Orthodox, 7th Day Adventists, Pentecostals or even Catholics." It does not preclude us, and yet we are apostates and heretics? Interesting. I wonder if you could supply me with a meaningful definition of these words which encompasses us being both still a part of the Church and apart from it at the same time. My previous round was set up as a way for us to easily identify where exactly in time you believe the Orthodox Church became heretical. I will ask again for this to be cleared up. This is very important to the argument on both sides, as it directly pertains to the claim made in the title of the debate. For instance, I can point to the year that the Reformed church came into existence. Can you do the same with the Eastern Orthodox Church? As it stands, you seem to want to make this a theological debate, where many points which are superfluous to my claim need to be addressed. I am not sure we have the space or time for that, nor am I sure how exactly it reflects on the claim. It doesn't take up much space to lay out a thousand points of difference between our churches, it will take much more however for me to refute each one point by point. Please keep in mind this is not a debate about whose church is closer to your interpretation of Scripture, but a debate about a historical reality. I will attempt however to address your points as briefly as possible while I await your reply which more directly addresses the matter at hand."We do not require the banner or title of “Eastern Orthodox” to be a Christian."I already said as much in the introductory paragraph of the previous round, and that isn't what this debate is about. Here is another quote to state the position more clearly:"Faithful to its vocation to assist the salvation of all, the Church of Christ values every "spark of life," however small, in the dissident communities. In this way it bears witness to the fact that, despite the separation, they still retain a certain link with the unique and life-giving center, a link that is — so far as we are concerned — "invisible and beyond our understanding." There is only one true Church, the sole bestower of sacramental grace; but there are several ways of being separated from that one true Church, and varying degrees of diminishing ecclesial reality outside its visible limits." - Vladimir Lossky [1]"The church of Christ is rooted in the scripture"Christianity existed without an official canon for longer than the United States has been a country, Christianity is the source of Scripture, not the other way around. But this debate is not about sola Scriptura. However, I will state quite unequivocally that there is no doctrine of the Orthodox Church which goes against Scripture. The questions you pose in bold, giving summaries of Scripture beneath, do not in anyway conflict with anything I have said. In the quote provided to you by bishop Kallistos Ware and in the definition of ecclesiology given, it should be clear enough we do not view the Church as merely a physical place, nor does the outward entity called the Orthodox Church reflect all of the actions of the Church in the world. As stated, the Church is a living entity which we serve. It acts in the world in ways we do not understand. I also said we view Christ as the sole head of the Church, so I do not follow the points you are trying to make here. Your perception of what the Church is does not change what the Church says it is in its own words."The EOC doctrine teaches that unsaved mankind is not a slave to sin."Claims such as this require a source. I am guessing your assertion here comes down to a misunderstanding of the concept of sin as well as a rejection of free will, which again, are separate issues from the claim made in this debate."The EOC does not teach the doctrine of election, that God knows his followers and elects them to salvation."This is a complicated topic which would require more room than there is in this debate to address, but I will quote from the Confession of Dositheus, which is universally accepted in the Orthodox Church, briefly:"We believe the most good God to have from eternity predestinated unto glory those whom He has chosen, and to have consigned unto condemnation those whom He has rejected; but not so that He would justify the one, and consign and condemn the other without cause." - 3rd Decree [2]"The EOC doctrine of progression to “godhood” is the most flagrant heresy."At least you didn't capitalize 'godhood'! This, again, is a highly misunderstood concept which does not address my claim. But, I will address a couple of the points you are making here."If God is infinite, how much do I need to progress to become like him? An infinite amount. No matter how much progress I make, I will never reach the fullness of God."Indeed! "Intrinsic divinity is never ascribed to humankind or any part of the creation, and no created thing is confused with the being of God. Most certainly, humans are not accorded ontological equality with God, nor are they considered to merge or co-mingle with the being of God as He is in His essence." [3]"In the Orthodox Church, salvation is understood as theosis, the infinite process of becoming more and more like God." [4]"The EOC heresy of non-inherited sin directly denies the work of Christ and thus refuses on of the core tenants of Christianity"You mean, a core tenet of Roman Catholicism.Ez. 18:20 - "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself." [5]"However, the EOC teaches that Christ is not “The Way”, but rather “He is the revealer of the way”, making it our responsibility to save ourselves by walking in his footsteps."This is a complete misrepresentation of Orthodox doctrine. Do you have a source for it?"We cannot save ourselves."Can you cite me an Orthodox theologian saying we can?"Considering that the Church underwent a schism, which separated it from the Church in Rome, we can easily conclude that such a notion is refuted by history itself."Finally, we are on topic! Am I to take from this that you consider the Roman Catholic Church the Church that was founded by Christ in 33 AD? This seems curious, could you expound on this? Is it the Great Schism of 1054 we should be focusing on here?"The Orthodox church changed it's stance on contraception, divorce, Primacy of Peter, Mary's perpetual virginity, and Mary's sinlessness."First of all, I will again ask for sources on this. Can you show precisely how a point of doctrine was changed 180 degrees, and not merely clarified? Secondly, some of these things are not doctrine, but left to individual bishops to decide (particularly contraception and divorce). Thirdly, the Orthodox Church is not static, there is a process by which doctrine can be expounded upon (not "changed") - these are called Ecumenical Councils, and require consensus within the body of the Church. I ran out of room to address your point about Holy Tradition, so I will end by saying I hope we can get back to the topic of the debate. The Reform Church was established in the 16th century. When was the Orthodox Church established? You say we follow the traditions of men, when you appear to follow the traditions of Zwingli and Calvin. Sources[1] introductory note to the article of Patriarch Sergius of Moscow, "L'Église du Christ et les communautés dissidentes," Messager de I'Exarchat du Patriarche Russe en Europe Occidentale 21 (Paris, 1955), 9-10[2] http://www.crivoice.org...;[3] http://www.antiochian.org...[4] http://orthodoxwiki.org...; [5] http://www.biblegateway.com...; [6] Leonid Ouspensky and Vladimir Lossky, The Meaning of Icons