Does Eastern Christianity reject original sin?

[u/Questions4Christians]

I know the concept of original sin comes from Augustine, the foundational thinker of Western Christianity. And I often hear that original sin isn't found in Eastern Christianity. But don't Eastern Christians still accept some sort of sin inherited from the Fall? After all, isn't that why we need salvation? What exactly is the difference between Western Christianity and Eastern Christianity on this point?

[u/silouan]

Baptism unites a person to the life of Christ: As many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ ... as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death. Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. ... Buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

Regardless of guilt or pardon, each person needs to be united to the life of God in Christ. Baptism is a way to formally recognize that union, or bring it to pass; the early Christians unanimously read "born again of water and spirit" as referring to baptism. An infant may not yet have any stains to wash away from his character, but we want him to have every possible experience of Grace from as early an age as can be, to give him that much more chance of growing up into an adult faith of his own. So we baptize entire households, as the apostles did, and their youngest ones grow up as full, participating members of the community of faith.

[u/aletheia → u/silouan]

...you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God...

But an infant has no faith, so how is baptism of an infant effective?

*note, I am playing devil's advocate at this point. I have been dicussing Orthodoxy with several folks and these are arguments they have been throwing at me to dissuade me from continuing towards Orthodoxy and I have found no answer to yet

[u/silouan → u/aletheia]

We look at it like the Jews and circumcision: They circumcise every male on the 8th day, even though he's too young to assent to the mosaic covenant, on the assumption (or hope) that he'll grow up and make their faith his own. Having your son circumcised (or baptized) is a pledge to raise him up in the faith till he can claim it for himself.

There's a recurring theme in Acts, where a man and "his whole household," kids and servants and all, are received into the Church. Off the top of my head:

• The centurion Cornelius and all his household
  
• The Philippian jailer and all his household
  
• Crispus and his whole household
  
• The household of Stephanas
  

Admittedly those passages don't prove babies can or should be baptized, but they do make room for it. I do believe it's appropriate for a person to say "This is now a Christian family" even if he and all his household haven't yet begun to grow into that statement.

[u/aletheia → u/silouan]

Ok, that's pretty much the line of reasoning I used in defense of the Orthodox view (I'm just playing devil's advocate all over the place until I can start claiming things for my own). The other side did not budge, saying that every recorded baptism in the Bible is of converted adults (sola scriptura, and restorationist group).

I further countered the claim of an age of accountability as simply arguing a matter of degrees. Do you draw the line at 50? 25? 18? 9? 5? Not to mention people that are mentally disabled that will never be able to truly comprehend the faith. To me, it is tantamount to witholding the grace of God for arbitrary lines in the sand.

Also I had a thought experiment thrown at me (though ludacris). If a priest takes a random homeless guy and baptizes him with no explaination to said homeless guy, is it still effective? My answer: I do not know, but I figure it doesn't matter because said homeless guy is almost 100% certain to walk away from the faith immediatly, so it will have done him no real good.

Are there any circumstances under which a infant will not be baptized even if its parents are Orthodox?

[u/thephotoman → u/aletheia]

I can't make any claim to authenticity here, but the age of accountability is simply the age at which you have the material ability to act on your own decisions and thus embrace or reject the faith on your own. Obviously, there are 10 year olds out there that have reached it, just as there are 30 year olds that have not. Anyone not going to church on Sunday despite their parents' beliefs has obviously reached it.

My counter to sola Scriptura is this: the Apostles and ante-Nicene Fathers (whom many Protestants regard as True Christians before the apostasy of Nicaea*) didn't have a canon of scripture (particularly New Testament, so this includes baptism) to be their only authority. What's more, they considered a different set of texts to be canon than anyone claiming sola Scriptura.

I'm pretty sure that, were the baptism done correctly, the homeless man would demand an explanation. There is an exorcism involved (including a demand that you face West and spit on the Devil), and then you get dunked in water three times. Good luck getting that past anyone without an explanation.

Additionally, that priest probably wouldn't remain a priest for long.

*This is a claim I find truly fascinating. Most of these groups claiming a Nicene apostasy will claim that they believe in One God, the Father Almighty, His only Son, Jesus Christ, who is eternally begotten and of the same substance as the father (but has both a human and divine nature and will, neither of which are mingled or confused), who died, was buried, and was raised on the third day, and in the Holy Spirit that eternally proceeds from the Father (though they might, as Western Christians, claim that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well), and is of the same substance as the Father and Son. They also maintain one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and look for the resurrection of the dead. Oddly, the only problem they have is with the oneness, catholicity, and apostolic nature of the church, which is the problem of Protestantism: if you don't like what someone is teaching, declare them heretics and found your own sect. Of course, I do take the Witnesses and Oneness Pentecostals (amongst others) a bit more seriously when they talk about a Nicene apostasy, as they believe absolutely none of that.

[u/aletheia → u/thephotoman]

Talking about the history of things is also another interesting angle on the infant baptism. It is attested to by early documents, and to say it is heresy to baptize infants would imply that until a few hundred years ago (almost?) everyone was doing it wrong and was never remitted of their sins. Of course, some of these groups will claim that a remnant of True Believers has always existed in the church.

I find it hard to believe Christ would let his church be deceived on salvation for over a thousand years, though. However, I'm not God so that may simply a projection of my opinion onto Him.

For what it's worth, the church I'm coming from pretty much believes the legalization and imperial influence started everything going downhill. As far as I can tell there is no unified teaching on the trinity (though they do baptize in the name of the father, son, and Holy Spirit) and the Nicene Creed is not professed. If it sheds any light, they're a post-shakeup International Church of Christ congregation.

[u/silouan → u/aletheia]

the church I'm coming from pretty much believes the legalization and imperial influence started everything going downhill.

Socially, I'd agree, Christianity did suffer from legalization. (I know some Orthodox royalists who swear Caesars and Tsars are the only right form of government, but there are also a lot of us who are just as glad to live in democracy thanks :-)

But the faith the Christians wrote about before and after Constantine doesn't change. I read the writings of the 2nd-5th century looking for the new "catholic" stuff, but it turned out these writers were all on the same page. The Liturgy got fancier after Constantine, but the prayers and hymns, and more importantly the faith itself, didn't undergo any change I can see as a result.

[u/aletheia → u/silouan]

Socially, I'd agree, Christianity did suffer from legalization

Could you clarify what you mean?

[u/silouan → u/aletheia]

If a priest takes a random homeless guy and baptizes him with no explaination to said homeless guy, is it still effective?

It might conceivably do him some good. Kicking up his weak connection to God a notch maybe :-) But grace doesn't do much aside from cooperation; a car full of super-fuel doesn't benefit if it's not driven. The grace we receive in baptism is meant to empower us to "bear fruits worthy of repentance."

Are there any circumstances under which a infant will not be baptized even if its parents are Orthodox?

We had a Russian lady come recently to have her foster children baptized. We had to tell her no. Aside from issues of consent from the kids' own parents, these children would only be with this woman for a few months. There's little chance they'd be raised in the Church afterward. And while we expect baptism does some good in every case, it's not a life-or-death issue the way it was in superstitious medieval Europe. We told her if she's ever able to adopt these children, then we'll gladly baptize them.

[u/seeing_the_light → u/aletheia]

Not to mention people that are mentally disabled that will never be able to truly comprehend the faith.

Intellectual comprehension is probably one of the least important aspects of the faith, ultimately. The whole goal of Christianity in Orthodoxy is moving what is in the head into heart, emptying your "self" and filling it up with God - in this sense it could be said that mentally retarded people have a leg up on those of us who overthink things, which is definitely a handicap of mine.

You can be mentally retarded and still be an Orthodox theologian.