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

I extend my gratitude to the opponent for establishing the resolution. I furthermore extend my thanks to the voting audience for patiently considering the arguments. This debate was no doubt poorly formatted. My opponent raised objections to my angle of attack, yet provided no limiting action within round one. Assuming therefor, that my burden is to defy the claim that the EOC is the one, true, holy, Apostolic Church, I set out to discredit the institution through the very principle upon which it was supposedly founded; The Holy Scriptures. Why my opponent objected to this tactic is a mystery. Surely we cannot debate the topic of ordained stewardship without directly appealing to the source. I make no apology for a thorough dismantling of the EOC doctrine through the authority of scripture. It is a natural course of action, one that my opponent should have prepared for and possibly used himself. Closing Rebuttals: Pro stated: Throughout, Con has tried to change what this debate is about. This is not a debate about who has the correct interpretation of Scripture. Rebuttal:Since the EOC is claiming to have authority based on the scripture, I see no other logical approach than to take this debate to the scriptures. My opponent instead demanded that we change the context of this debate to "Baptist vs. EOC" or "Catholic vs. EOC". While I see a limited merit in such an approach, the premise would assume that one of the two institutions is correct. As I have argued, none of the earthly institutions are correct. I understand that my opponent was surprised by this. That is the nature of the beast. I respectfully suggest that my opponent adopts a higher degree of adaptation. Pro stated: Con says that my summation of his main argument being that there is no such thing as a 'visible Church' is a "straw man", but then goes on to tell me in his rebuttal that there is no such thing as a visible Church. I am not sure what to make of this. Rebuttal: As I have explained before, the true Church of Christ is composed of his sheep only. The condemned, unsaved "wolves" clearly cannot constitute any portion of the "body of Christ". They are, by definition, outside of the Church. Therefore, I established this premise: If the EOC is the true Church, then one part of your burden is to show that 100% of the global congregation is saved. Since the EOC cannot establish the salvation state of every person within its ranks, it cannot claim to be the one, true Church. By the same logic, I cannot claim that a Diamond is 100% pure if any portion of it contains impurity. A portion of the diamond may be pure, but not all of it. This can be applied to the context of the debate. A portion of the EOC congregation may have saving faith, but that does not constitute a 100% pure EOC Church. The Church of Christ only consists of believers, the EOC does not. A simple and rational dismissal. Pro stated: In his attempt to drive this point home, he cites Scripture which was produced and edited together by members of this same Church which he says is merely a 'man-made tradition'. Rebuttal: If my opponent has an issue with the ESV translation, he should have objected earlier. Specifically, this is a point to be established in the round 1 guideline. Despite my opponent’s failure to raise a valid objection, I will certainly not shy away from using the King James Version in any future debates. Pro stated: He insinuates that St. Athanasius was a heretic. The same St. Athanasius who was absolutely instrumental in assembling the Scripture he holds to be the source of his beliefs. Rebuttal: St. Athanasius did not write the Gospel message. Not a single verse is attributed to this man. He may have been present hundreds of years later to make some suggestions on the arrangement and chronology, but the full canon had already been inspired. This is like Al Gore claiming he invented the internet. Here are the authors of scripture: Moses, Joshua, Eleazar, Ezra, David, Solomon, Agur son of Jakeh, King Lemuel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Matthew, John Mark, Luke, Apostle John, Luke, Paul, James, Simon Peter, John, Jude[1] Pro stated: Con evidently believes the Bible was assembled by the Holy Spirit acting through men (to which I wholeheartedly agree), but he denounces one of the same principal men involved in this process as a heretic. Rebuttal: Straw Man. I did not say that the Bible was assembled by the Holy Spirit. I said it was written by the Holy Spirit. The manner in which some ancient heretic "assembles" it has nothing to do with its conception. That’s like claiming that a librarian shares in the authorship of all the books in the library. Pro stated: "Con says "the Church was established by the mouth of Christ" (which I agree with), but then says that Scripture alone is necessary for salvation, even though Scripture itself nowhere says that it alone is sufficient for that. Jesus never commanded that his teachings be committed to a book, even less for us to use this book as a source for everything we need to know for salvation. Rebuttal: God commanded John, verbatim, to write down prophecy. The Apostles claimed several time to have been moved by the spirit to write the Gospel. The Apostles call it "scripture" because it was "scribed". Additionally, no other scripture was written after the end of prophecy. We know that the Gospel was completed by the traditions of Hebrews 1: Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. No more prophets. St Athanasius was not equipped to ordain scripture. Period. Pro stated: "But when He was alone, those around Him with the twelve asked Him about the parable. And He said to them, "To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables. " - Mark 4:10-11 Rebuttal: Exactly. The twelve had been given the mystery of the kingdom, not the EOC or St. Athanasius. Christ provides a clear limit to understanding here. Twelve Apostles, no more. Pro stated: Which brings us to the importance of apostolic succession. What does it mean that Christ built his Church upon the faith of one of his apostles? (Matt. 16:17-19) Closing remarks: Round 2 to 3- Opponent drops arguments for what constitutes a Church and the marks of the true Church. Round 3-4 - Opponent drops argument of Heresy on Prayer to the Dead Opponent drops argument of Heresy on Prayer to the Saints Opponent drops argument of Heresy on Election Opponent drops argument of Heresy on inherited Sin. Opponent drops argument of Heresy on salvation by works. Round 4-5 - Opponent drops premise on Calvin Opponent drops premise on the great schism in 1054. Opponent drops argument of broken succession through 153 Popes. I can conclusively show that my opponent dropped at least nine arguments. I furthermore show that my opponent was therefore unable to refute charges of broken succession and heresy. This effectively destroys his position. I have shown that the EOC is not the unbroken succession of apostolic succession. I have shown that the EOC is guilty of Heresy and that they are not the ordained stewards of the word of God. My burden is met. My opponent has failed his burden with absolute certainty.