How do I defend Original Sin? Debating with Eastern Orthodox

[Genesis315]

You are simply incorrect on this point. Seeing that you seem rather unacquainted with Orthodox theology (otherwise you would be naming specific theologians rather than criticizing the whole of Orthodoxy with vague generalities), it seems rather outrageous for you to tell the Orthodox how we should understand our own councils.

In Decree 6, Patriarch Dositheos makes a distinction between the ancestral sin and sin (the editor conveniently adds the adjective [actual], which is more accurate to modern phrasing):

We believe the first man created by God to have fallen in Paradise, when, disregarding the Divine commandment, he yielded to the deceitful counsel of the serpent. And as a result hereditary sin flowed to his posterity; so that everyone who is born after the flesh bears this burden, and experiences the fruits of it in this present world. But by these fruits and this burden we do not understand [actual] sin, such as impiety, blasphemy, murder, sodomy, adultery, fornication, enmity, and whatever else is by our depraved choice committed contrarily to the Divine Will, not from nature. For many both of the Forefathers and of the Prophets, and vast numbers of others, as well of those under the shadow [of the Law], as well as under the truth [of the Gospel], such as the divine Precursor, and especially the Mother of God the Word, the ever-virgin Mary, did not experience these [sins], or such like faults. But only what the Divine Justice inflicted upon man as a punishment for the [original] transgression, such as sweats in labor, afflictions, bodily sicknesses, pains in child-bearing, and, finally, while on our pilgrimage, to live a laborious life, and lastly, bodily*death.

Modern Orthodox scholars like Meyendorff or Romanides are largely reacting against the historical trend in Latin theology to posit that original sin is itself actual sin or a sin of nature (as opposed to the approach taken by more modern theologians to treat it as a privation), ideas which are foreign to our tradition, which has always identified the original sin with a certain privation from our original state rather than as being actual sin, since actual sin in the thought of the Eastern fathers like St. Maximus the Confessor is acting not in accordance with nature. The remission of the ancestral transgression spoken of by Dositheos refers not in this sense to the remission of actual sin, but of the reordering of the noetic faculties. Without acquiring in this life well-being (as St. Maximus would call it), one cannot share in the eternal well-being which is paradise, and the restoration of the noetic faculties through baptism is the only way known to the Church to begin acquiring well-being. This is how St. John Chrysostom could write that infants are baptized even though they are undefiled by sin (surely you would not like to call St. John Chrysostom a rabid Latin-hating Pelagian, would you?), because they lack the gifts of the Holy Spirit which save us, while yet bearing no actual sin. The unbaptized participate in the soul-killing fruits of Adam’s transgression by sharing in fallen human nature, on which account they are in need of baptism for salvation, but they are not implicated with Adam as cotransgressors.

You are also incorrect to read Dositheos as advocating for satisfaction as it is understood in Latin theology (and hence also incorrect to compare absolution certificates to indulgences, as one cannot have indulgences without the system of satisfaction from Pre-Reformation Latin theology) but that is an issue for another thread.

I spoke generally about Orthodoxy because a pan-Orthodox Council is a reflection of the position of the various Orthodox Churches at that time. While the portion you quote lists some of the temporal effects of original sin, the portion I quoted lists eternal punishments for the hereditary transgression. I think they should be read together as a consistent whole.

The Catholic Church also doesn’t treat original sin as an actual sin either–it is one contracted, not committed. This is explicit in the Catechism of the Catholic Church par. 404 (some might argue the Council of Trent said otherwise, speaking in terms of “guilt,” but it did not speak of “culpa,” that resulting from a personal fault actually committed, but “reatus,” which is more like a debt, including an inherited one).

It is good to know that the “soul-killing” aspect of original sin, as you describe it, is actually still an Orthodox doctrine–although, you’re the first living Orthodox person (except for an Old Calendarist writer, Valdimir Moss, who I think is non-canonical–and he criticizes the rest of Orthodoxy from departing from this in modern time) that I have read or heard express it (as you noted, you are no-doubt more well-read than me when it comes to modern Orthodox writers). Just looking around the internet, I can’t find any bishop or Patriarch writing about it, but only the temporal effects and inclination to sin. Same with the popular theologians you mention. In fact, some Orthodox parents desire to have their children baptized as soon as possible is often discussed as due to Western influence. The EO apologists one usually comes across on the internet consistently also deny it and raise it as a point of departure between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. One is certainly led to believe from publically and easily available sources that the “soul-killing” aspect is no longer part of Orthodox doctrine (admitted, the EO of course have no objective authority to confirm that this is in fact an Orthodox doctrine, so it’s all a bit of a shell-game anyway trying to track down what exactly is Orthodox doctrine).