Orthodoxy's "ancestral sin" versus Calvinism's "total depravity" Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand, one of the major differences between Eastern Orthodox and Protestant theology is "ancestral sin."

Note:

Although Roman Catholicism's definition of original sin and Orthodoxy's view of ancestral sin are very similar, they do have subtly important differences.

These differences stem from the translation of the New Testament Greek text into Latin.

The consequences of the Fall spread to the whole of the human race. This is elucidated by St Paul: 'Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned' (Rom.5:12). This text, which formed the Church's basis of her teaching on 'original sin', may be understood in a number of ways: the Greek words ef' ho pantes hemarton may be translated not only as 'because all men sinned' (Greek translation), but also 'in whom [that is, in Adam] all men sinned' (Latin Translation). Different readings of the text may produce different understandings of what 'original sin' means.

If we accept the first translation, this means that each person is responsible for his own sins, and not for Adam's transgression. Here, Adam is merely the prototype of all future sinners, each of whom, in repeating Adam's sin, bears responsibility only for his own sins. Adam's sin is not the cause of our sinfulness; we do not participate in his sin and his guilt cannot be passed onto us.

However, if we read the text to mean 'in whom all have sinned', this can be understood as the passing on of Adam's sin to all future generations of people, since human nature has been infected by sin in general. The disposition toward sin became hereditary and responsibility for turning away from God sin universal.

St. Augustine obviously took the Latin road in interpreting this verse, and consequently developed and elaborated on the nature of original sin. All of the Protestant Reformer's theology concerning the fall of man was rooted in the Augustinian school of thought, and consequently is slightly more similar to Catholicism than Orthodoxy.

What I'm trying to wrap my mind around is how this difference in interpretation reciprocally translates to rebirth in Christ.

The hinge-verse for me is:


  ...As one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s
  act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. For as
  by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s
  obedience many will be made righteous...so that, as sin reigned in
  death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life
  through Jesus Christ our Lord (Rom.5:18-21)


Orthodoxy teaches that through birth we inherit Adam's fallen nature, but not his personal guilt. Likewise, in rebirth (baptism) we inherit Christ's redeemed nature.

Calvinism adheres to the doctrine of total depravity, leaning heavily on Augustine's view of original sin. According to this belief, man inherits not only a fallen nature, but Adam's personal guilt as well.

What are the doctrinal consequences of these differences in light of Romans 5:18-21?

This question is intended to specifically focus on how the Orthodox definition of "ancestral" sin differs from the John Calvin's Augustinian (Catholic) view of the fall of man.
It's probably important to emphasize here that Calvin, as far as I know (and I think we are in agreement on this point), did not believe "Original Sin" to have been completely absolved by the birth of Christ. Indeed it was also in Romans(9:18-23) that one of the early Calvinists' favorite quotes appears:

Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. 19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? 22 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction? 23

That is (for this type of Calvinist), whilst the doorway to absolution had been opened by the death of Christ, this did not mean that many (or even most) of the human race were part of the elect: they were still endowed with an original imperfection. At least one seventeenth century theologian (really wish I could remember where I read it!) argued that the pots "prepared for destruction" served to demonstrate the goodness and the beauty of God, because the apprehension of goodness depended on the presence of its opposite.

This brings us to the next question. There have been many different views on the matter of original sin. My memory of Luther, for instance, is that the best humans strive to be perfect, but it is only through the grace of God that this is ever actually achieved. Redemption, for Luther, seems to be open to those willing to work at it, so long as God is also willing. Absolution from the sin of Adam and his punishments is therefore, in theory, possible for any member of the human race. It is probably clear form this, that doctrines of Orignal Sin have an interdependency with doctrines of Free Will vs Determinism.

There are some other interesting passages relating to this that you may want to consider. Whilst many would argue that the discussion of the Jeremahic Covenant (in particular Jeremiah 31:29) is really a discussion of contemporary Jewish law and the practice of holding children accountable or punishable for the sins of their parents, it can also be read as a discussion of the right of men to a moral existence independent of that of their parents:

As I have watched over them to pluck up, to break down, to overthrow, to destroy and to bring disaster, so I will watch over them to build and to plant," declares the LORD. 29"In those days they will not say again, 'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, And the children's teeth are set on edge.' 30"But everyone will die for his own iniquity; each man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth will be set on edge

It is, therefore, also a comment on Original Sin - the sin that was endowed upon the human race by their first father, Adam, and their mother, Eve.

As for the specific doctrinal consequences - to attempt a succinct answer, we are going to have to at least start off with the question "differences for whom (which Protestant theologians, which Orthodox scholars)" and also I think, wonder in passing why the Catholic church seems to be left out of the analysis, since it was within the Catholic church (particularly after waning Constantinople was stormed by the Crusader armies) that the doctrine of Original Sin was most successfully and forcefully promulgated (in my view).