Ialmisry:
From your Melanchthon quote #35:
"35] Here our adversaries inveigh against Luther also because he wrote that "Original sin remains after Baptism." They add that this article was justly condemned by Leo X. But His Imperial Majesty will find on this point a manifest slander. For our adversaries know in what sense Luther intended this remark that original sin remains after Baptism. He always wrote thus, namely, that Baptism removes the guilt of original sin, although the material, as they call it, of the sin, i.e., concupiscence, remains. He also added in reference to the material that the Holy Ghost, given through Baptism, begins to mortify the concupiscence, and creates new movements [a new light, a new sense and spirit] in man. 36] In the same-manner, Augustine also speaks, who says: Sin is remitted in Baptism, not in such a manner that it no longer exists, but so that it is not imputed. Here he confesses openly that sin exists, i.e., that it remains, although it is not imputed. And this judgment was so agreeable to those who succeeded him that it was recited also in the decrees. Also against Julian, Augustine says: The Law, which is in the members, has been annulled by spiritual regeneration, and remains in the mortal flesh. It has been annulled because the guilt has been remitted in the Sacrament, by which believers are born again; but it remains, because it produces desires, against which believers contend. 37] Our adversaries know that Luther believes and teaches thus, and while they cannot reject the matter they nevertheless pervert his words, in order by this artifice to crush an innocent man."
1) This is what the Lutherans taught and believed, along with the Roman Catholics, and Orthodox.
If that were so, then Melanchthon wouldn't have needed the lenghty defense to the Vatican, and the Greek doctoring of the text for the EP, now would he? btw, Melanthon also doctored the Augsburg Confession so that John Calvin could sign. If you can read Latin (I'm not in the mood to translate right now p. 170):
http://books.google.com/books?id=D3krAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA202&dq=Kolde+Die+augsburgische+konfessionBtw, in case you didn't notice, Melanthon's words (which I've put in larger print) contradict your cherished Confession of Dositheos:
And it may not be said, that any sin is not washed away through Baptism, which may have been previously committed; but to remain, though not imputed. For that were indeed the height of impiety, and a denial, rather than a confession of piety. Yea, forsooth, all sin existing, or committed before Baptism, is blotted out, and is to be regarded as never existing or committed.
2) EP Jeremiah II affirmed this in his reply as I quoted.
As the Greek version of the Augsburg confession doesn't say men are guilty of original sin, or mention original guilt, you quote is left dangling by this thread of yours. I recall the book have notes. Any on this quote (as I said, my copy is not handy, being in storage).
Attention to all reading this thread: Please note how I have not been given an answer on why unbaptized babies would be damned.
yes, you have:
Why would your 1672 Council say unbaptized babies are damned?
That has already been posted:
Iamisery:
No, Orthodox did accept the concept of inherited guilt. Please pay attention to the quote.
I do. It doesn't say anything about inherited guilt. Nowhere in the article you quote:
...And, therefore, it is necessary even for infants, since they also are subject to original sin, and without Baptism are not able to obtain its remission. Which the Lord shewed when he said, not of some only, but simply and absolutely,...And forasmuch as infants are men, and as such need salvation; needing salvation, they need also Baptism. And those that are not regenerated, since they have not received the remission of hereditary sin, are, of necessity, subject to eternal punishment, and consequently cannot without Baptism be saved; so that even infants ought, of necessity, to be baptised. Moreover, infants are saved, as is said in Matthew; {Matthew 19:12} but he that is not baptised is not saved. And consequently even infants must of necessity be baptised...And the effects of Baptism are, to speak concisely, firstly, the remission of the hereditary transgression, and of any sins whatsoever which the baptised may have committed. Secondly, it delivereth him from the eternal punishment, to which he was liable, as well for original sin, as for mortal sins he may have individually committed. Thirdly, it giveth to such immortality; for in justifying them from past sins, it maketh them temples of God. And it may not be said, that any sin is not washed away through Baptism, which may have been previously committed; but to remain, though not imputed. For that were indeed the height of impiety, and a denial, rather than a confession of piety. Yea, forsooth, all sin existing, or committed before Baptism, is blotted out, and is to be regarded as never existing or committed. For the forms of Baptism, and on either hand all the words that precede and that perfect Baptism, do indicate a perfect cleansing. And the same thing even the very names of Baptism do signify. For if Baptism be by the Spirit and by fire, {Matthew 3:11} it is manifest that it is in all a perfect cleansing; for the Spirit cleanseth perfectly. If it be light, {Hebrews 6:4} it dispelleth the darkness. If it be regeneration, {Titus 3:5} old things are passed away. And what are these except sins? If the baptised putteth off the old man, {Colossians 3:9} then sin also. If he putteth on Christ, {Galatians 3:27} then in effect he becometh free from sin through Baptism. For God is far from sinners. This Paul also teacheth more plainly, saying: “As through one [man] we, being many, were made sinners, so through one [are we made] righteous.” {Romans 5:19} And if righteous, then free from sin. For it is not possible for life and death to be in the same [person]. If Christ truly died, then remission of sin through the Spirit is true also. Hence it is evident that all who are baptised and fall asleep while babes are undoubtedly saved, being predestinated through the death of Christ. Forasmuch as they are without any sin; — without that common [to all], because delivered therefrom by the Divine laver, and without any of their own, because as babes they are incapable of committing sin; — and consequently are saved. Moreover, Baptism imparteth an indelible character, as doth also the Priesthood. For as it is impossible for any one to receive twice the same order of the Priesthood, so it is impossible for any once rightly baptised, to be again baptised, although he should fall even into myriads of sins, or even into actual apostacy from the Faith. For when he is willing to return unto the Lord, he receiveth again through the Mystery of Penance the adoption of a son, which he had lost.
http://catholicity.elcore.net/ConfessionOfDositheus.html
Mark these two items:
1) You don't damn unbaptized babies unless they are guilty of something.
They are missing something, being linked to the Old Adam but not the New Adam.
2) Ialmisry, what do you think baptism removes, when even in your quote it is admitted concupiscience, mortality (in short all the things the Neo-Orthodox currently say original sin is) still remain.
Neo-Orthodox. LOL. You and Mardukm should get together.
Since all the quotes in the last post (except for the brief assement of EP Jeremias "There are very few direct critical remarks - more exactly only concerning "faith and good works" and very decisive about "tradition". In the concluding remarks of the document the orthodox opinion is clear and unambiguous expressed: "All here said, my beloved ones, is - as you very well know - based upon the inspired Holy Scripture, according to the interpretation of the Fathers of the Church, explanation and sound teachings. We are not allowed to trust our own interpretation and understand and interpret the words from the inspired scripture without consent with the Fathers of the Church, who are recognized by the holy synods, inspired by the Holy Spirit ... " In most cases the criticism is formulated indirectly as an invitation to further discussions not going into details about the Lutheran formulation - but by formulating in full the Orthodox attitude to the questions.") was a quote from a Lutheran, who have no import for the Orthodox, I'm not sure why you would be asking me to defend the Lutheran position.
As to your other question, I remember going into some detail on this (I think of the IC which spawned this one). In short sin/death (same thing) is remitted.
I can guess your next question, but I will let you ask it anyway.
Here is Mastrantonis's full paragraph concerning EP Jeremiah's reply on original sin:
""Your second article contains the assertion that every man is guilty of original sin. We also affirm that this, indeed, the truth. The Psalmist says in the 50th Psalm: "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me." And the Lord says in the Gospels concerning the purging away of such original sin: "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.""
Seems rather brief to make much of. Having the original Greek would be nice, as we know the Augusta Graeca doesn't include such an assertion (but one make the case, which you obviously are, that it is implied) that everyone is "guilty" of original sin. Again, my Mastrontonis is not available, so I have to admit I am at a disadvantage here.
So I have shown 2 solid quotes affirming Orthodox held to the traditional concept of inherited guilt.
LOL. You have a confession against heretics which doesn't have inherited guilt in it, and a response to a heretic creed, said response claiming an assertion not in said creed, and the clause in question teaching inherited guilt only if read that way (my suspicion is the traditional concept of the transmission of ancestral sin is what is refered to, but I'd have to have Jeremias correspondance to affirm that).
Yeah, rock solid.

Why haven't you come up with any pre-1517 quotes. They should be plentiful. After all, we are the Church of Tradition.
The Russians taught this as well.
Really? Can you show me it in Mohyla's catechism (also approved in its corrected form by the Synod of Jerusalem).
I ask you to show me 2 solid quotes (Council or EP) that show the Orthodox to have not held to the concept of inherited guilt.
The Synod of Jerusalem is not Vatican I, nor is Jeremias' correspondence Pastor Aeternus. And why the EP? The bishop of Moscow can do just as well, and in fact did (Longer Catechism of St. Philoret):
164. What came of Adam's sin?
The curse, and death.
165. What is the curse?
The condemnation of sin by God's just judgment, and the evil which from sin came upon the earth for the punishment of men. God said to Adam, Cursed is the ground for thy sake. Gen. iii. 17.
166. What is the death which came from the sin of Adam?
It is twofold: bodily, when the body loses the soul which quickened it; and spiritual, when the soul loses the grace of God, which quickened it with the higher and spiritual life.
167. Can the soul, then, die as well as the body?
It can die, but not so as the body. The body, when it dies, loses sense, and is dissolved; the soul, when it dies by sin, loses spiritual light, joy, and happiness, but is not dissolved nor annihilated, but remains in a state of darkness, anguish, and suffering.
168. Why did not the first man only die, and not all, as now?
Because all have come of Adam since his infection by sin, and all sin themselves. As from an infected source there naturally flows an infected stream, so from a father infected with sin, and consequently mortal, there naturally proceeds a posterity infected like him with sin, and like him mortal.
169. How is this spoken of in holy Scripture?
By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. Rom. v. 12.
http://www.pravoslavieto.com/docs/eng/Orthodox_Catechism_of_Philaret.htm#ii.xv.iii.i.p41Read St. John Cassian.
Just because Meyendorff, Schmemen and other Neo-Orthodox strive to peddle Orthodoxy as inherently different than the "West", doesn't mean anyone here in the this forum must follow that path. To his credit, Kallistos Ware is more cautious to deny inherited guilt is a part of Orthodoxy.
Bishop Kallistos seems to be reverting to his Anglican roots, in more ways than one.
The West had your Council of Orange:
http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_orange.htmlwhich condemns us, as has been discussed.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20612.msg324821.html#msg324821http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,21719.0.htmlhttp://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,11327.0.htmlhttp://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,18639.msg274027.html#msg274027http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20580.msg307661.html#msg307661