I think it would be good to keep discussion rolling on this group a little bit: 1 thread a week isn't really all that much.

So the new topic I thought of was the doctrine of original sin.

Hopefully everyone here is aware that there are various nuances of perspective on this doctrine.

On one hand, there was the perspective proposed by the British theologian named Pelagius in which Mankind was believed to have not at all, in nature, been affected by the sin of Adam. Rather, personal sins were introduced into human society by imitation of the immoralities of these first humans. Man could be saved simply by his own efforts in choosing to imitate Christ rather than Adam.

Some of the Eastern Fathers, particularly Athanasius the Great, proposed a perspective of original sin in which the first sin resulted in a breach of communion with God and a loss of sanctifying grace resulting from the loss of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The descendents of Adam were understood to have inherited this spiritual death and also the corporeal decays including sickness and bodily death.

In the West, a number of other ideas were advanced beyond this core structure proposed by the Greek Fathers. The first among them is the idea that our inheritence is not simply a loss of communion with God and sanctifying grace, but that the sin of Adam is passed on to us as a moral/spiritual "stain", in like manner to personal sins. Baptism developed thus developed a new dimension in which infants were understood to have been "washed from the stain of original sin". Augustine of Hippo developed another idea along similar lines (called "hereditary guilt") in which infants inherited the guilt of the sin of Adam, as if their own. Augustine proposed, as a "logical" conclusion of this, that infants who die without the waters of Baptism are thus resigned to hellfire. Finally, particularly among Christians of the "Reformed" tradition, was the doctrine of total depravity. Humans were understood to be so inherently warped and changed from their original nature because of the inherited sin that they were incapable of doing anything godly outside of intervening grace.

Anyway, I simply wanted to summarize the various popular concepts surrounding the doctrine of original sin so we can get onto discussing it. I personally try to stick to the core Athanasian framework of loss of grace and communion with God removed from the various conceptions developed in the West.

I think it's important to realize the nuances in different patristic approaches to the topic, as summarized by our friend DVE above. We also need to be aware that things aren't as clear cut as "Western" vs. "Eastern" approaches to the topic.

John Cassian, a Latin-speaking Father of the Church, seemed to regard Augustine's approach to original sin and grace to be a severe over-reaction to Pelagianism. He seems to represent a good portion of the Western Church. More recently, one searches in vain to find any notion of "original guilt" in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or even in the good old Baltimore Catechism!

On the Eastern side of things, one will find in Simeon the New Theologian, Gregory Palamas, and some other Byzantine Fathers, a notion of original sin that sounds awfully Augustinian, or at least differs very little from common Western accounts. Ditto for the modern Orthodox catechisms and confessions prior to the First and Second World Wars. It's easy to blame the latter on Roman Catholic or Protestant theological influences (the so-called "Western Captivity of Orthodox Theology") but it's a bit harder to explain the former (unless far more of the Augustinian corpus than just a few excerpts from 'De Trinitate' had been translated into Greek at that time).

To summarize, I agree with DVE that there are differing patristic approaches to the topic of original sin, and that Augustine goes a bit too far, but I think that the differences between East and West have been over-simplified and over-stated in modern Orthodox theology, especially under the influence of John Romanides. Historically things are considerably messier and more interesting than some theologians would like us to believe. 

If you confess with your mouth and believ in your heart that Jesus Christ is lord you are saved.  Not quite as wordy, but kind of reminds me of another thing Jesus said when asked about which commandment most important he said love the lord your God with all your heart mind and soul and your neighbor as yourself. In that you have the entire meaning of christianity, in actuality the rest is just something for us to enjoy trying to show how smart we are.

My situation is a bit unique. I tend to believe in total depravity, because I truly don't believe that we as humans have it in us to do genuine good without the grace of something greater than us -- God, Allah, Yahweh, Spirit, etc. But being someone who is interested in converting to Roman Catholicism, I know that line of thinking isn't entirely in line with the Cathechism. Any more thoughts?

My understanding of the issue is that Augustine would have happily killed Pelagius if given the chance.  Augustine is given credit for the Doctrine of Original Sin.  Between Augustine and Jerome, it's hard to say who had more against Pelagius.  After all, Pelagius had some very radical ideas.  He believed that women should be taught to read and discuss the bible.  How much more radical can you get.    Pelagius was not as easy going as people would think, just because he didn't ascribe to original sin.  He was a radical reformer who condemned just about anything and anybody.  He was not loved by the Roman aristocracy which came to be his downfall.  Augustine tried on two occasions to have Pelagius excommunicated from the Roman Church and failed. On both occasions, Pelagius successfully defended his teachings.   It wasn't until Augustine got the ear of the Emperor, who Pelagius had condemned, that he got his way.  After the Roman Emperor condemned Pelagius, the Pope followed suit.  So, in effect, we have a political solution to a theological issue. 

Pelagius followed the Celtic perspective on humanity.  He believed that all things come from the creator and are “defacto” good.  We can become evil later, but that is our own doing, not because some fictitious guy named Adam did something wrong.  Augustine was grounded in a literal reading of Genesis.  And because of that he quite literally painted himself into a corner.  If Genesis is read as factual history, which it isn't, there exists a firm foundation for the theory of original sin.  If we look at Genesis for what it is, a folk tale and morality lesson, original sin goes up in smoke and with it all the theology they have attached to it.  If there is no original sin, then what is the purpose of Baptism except as a cultural right of passage into the brotherhood of Christians?

Augustine did not lead an exemplary early life.  He played around and messed around.  We are left paying for his sins.  You can't look at early church history and not come away knowing that the early church was molded into an image consistent with the patriarchal model of the Roman Empire.  We can see that in how the "Pastoral Letters" of Paul were written to conform with this patriarchal system.   It is in these letters, written long after Paul’s death,”  that they put women and slaves permanently in their respective places.  Why?  Because that’s what Rome wanted.  Rome also liked the idea of original sin.  What better way to keep the mob in line then to tell them they were condemned at birth to hell and that their only salvation lay in following the rules of the state religion.

i voted for the last opinion since i totaly agree with what our brother has well expressed and then i'll only add that,cming frm a very strict catholic background and now in the waldesian church,augustine has only been the greatest plague christians may ever had since he aplied his personal experience based on a terrible messing up with sex to every kind of subjects and always hinting at sex as the only and the greatest of all possible sins or ther real root,thomas tried after him to correct the latter's fundamentalism bt didn't manage to do it at all,so this is why even when i was a teen and it happened in the 80ies,we were still told in churches and schools that masturbation led to blindness or other terrible illnesses,and it reminds me of the choice of many african conservative catholic and reformed priests who now tell their church members from the pulpit that using condoms spreads aids,just the contrary to manipulate poor illitterate people to their own fundamentalist advantage.may the lord help us and forgive them.peace to ALL.ANDREW