There is indeed a consensus in Greek patristic and Byzantine traditions in identifying the inheritance of the Fall as an inheritance essentially of mortality rather than of sinfulness, sinfulness being merely a consequence of mortality. The idea appears in Chrysostom, who specifically denies the imputation of sin to the descendants of Adam; We find this also in other subsequent Fathers, such as the eleventh-century commentator Theophylact of Ohrida; and later Byzantine authors, especially Gregory Palamas. But there are not the only Fathers who have presented a different idea about the \u201cfall\u201d of Adam. The always-more-sophisticated Maximus the Confessor, when he speaks of the consequences of the sin of Adam, identifies them mainly with the mind\u2019s submission to the flesh. Sin remains for Maximus a personal act and inherited guilt is impossible. For him, as for the others, \u201cthe wrong choice made by Adam brought in passion, corruption and mortality, but not inherited guilt.<\/p>\n
The contrast with Western tradition on this point is brought into sharp focus when Eastern authors discuss the meaning of baptism. Augustine\u2019s arguments in favor of infant baptism were taken from the text of the creeds (baptism for \u201cthe remission of sins\u201d) and from his understanding of Romans 5:12 (you might want to look this up<\/em>). Children, according to Augustine, are born sinful, not because they have sinned personally, but because they have sinned \u201cin Adam\u201d; their baptism is therefore also a baptism \u201cfor the remission of sins.\u201d At the same time, an Eastern contemporary of Augustine\u2019s, Theodoret of Cyrus, flatly denies that the creedal formula \u201cfor the remission of sins\u201d is applicable to infant baptism. For Theodoret, in fact, the \u201cremission of sins\u201d is only a side effect of baptism, fully real in cases of adult baptism, which was the norm, of course, in the early Church and which indeed \u201cremits sins.\u201d But the principal meaning of baptism is wider and more positive: \u201cIf the only meaning of baptism were the remission of sins,\u201d writes Theodoret, \u201cwhy would we baptize the newborn children who have not yet tasted of sin? But the mystery of baptism is not limited to this; it is a promise of greater and more perfect gifts. In it are the promises of future delights; it is a type of the future resurrection, a communion with the master\u2019s passion, a participation in His resurrection, a mantle of salvation, a tunic of gladness, a garment of light, or, rather, it is light itself.\u201d<\/p>\n First and foremost, in my mind, it is the initiation into a way of thinking and behaving – into the Jesus Way of Living. This is why we ask Godparents to be people of faith so that they might help their children grow in the faith. This is also why we ask parents to be church-goers if they want their children baptized.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" There is indeed a consensus in Greek patristic and Byzantine traditions in identifying the inheritance of the Fall as an inheritance essentially of mortality rather than of sinfulness, sinfulness being merely a consequence of mortality. The idea appears in Chrysostom, … Continue reading