Orthodoxy's "ancestral sin" versus Calvinism's "total depravity"

The eastern Othordox view of original sin is just like the Roman Catholic view. Calvinism is very different. They key difference between the two views is that for Calvin, Luther and the reformers, an infinite transaction occurs in a single moment when a sinner believes in Christ. At this moment all guilt for sin is removed for all past, present and future sin. In other words guilt and sin is absolutely removed from a 'legal standpoint' before God as though it actually never existed. Luther called it an external righteousness to make sure people did not confuse it with sanctification. In the exchange, a perfect human righteousness under the law, i.e. a perfect lifelong loving of God and our neighbor is considered to have been performed by the sinner so that not only is he viewed by God as never sinning, but positively performing all righteousness through out his past, present and future. This concept of obtaining a full, perfect and endless redemption in a moment of simple faith apart from any human effort or meritorious inclination is entitled 'justification by faith' or the 'imputation of the righteousness of Christ'. This concept is foreign to Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theology.

Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism deny there is such a thing as a momentary justification or external righteousness given to a sinner the moment they believe in Christ. They deny in a kind of external, legal perfect righteousness that can declare a sinner perfect forever 'in a moment'. Their view is that in a literal baptism the essential depravity inherited through Adam is removed but only like a re-boot into a more-or-less righteous life that can be lost through mortal sin. it is similar to the concept or Protestant re-birth, but with much less power or benefit to the sinner. The two views are entirely irreconcilable as one says you can't be justified unless you obey God through cooperative sanctification until you die (Orthodox view), and the other (Protestant view) says you can't cooperate with God and walked in a sanctified way unless you are already declared perfect forever, making your sanctification have no bearing on your justification except as being a fruit, benefit and proof of it.

One way to understand the difference is that Calvinism deals with a balance of extremes while the alternate view avoids extremes. For example, an Orthodox or Catholic believer who commits a venial (non serious sin) such as, say 'a lustful thought' does not think it so serious as to loose their personal righteousness. Calvinism would say, 'No, if you were not shielded with Christ's eternal and perfect righteousness forever, given to you in a moment as a free gift from an eternal election, then that 'one lustful thought' would otherwise cause you to deserve an eternal torment for it's rightful desert under God's law.'. In other words, everything is extreme. Mortal and venial sins have no difference, any one of them would cause you eternal wrath under God's justice. the only hope is an extreme gift that abolishes all that and declares you perfect.

Calvinism basically goes this way: Because we were included in Adams guilt, we were condemned and punished. We are thus born with a sinful nature because we are born guilty and condemned under law, the sentence is sin and death. Under this condemnation we have no inclination towards good. We are lost forever, with no hope whatsoever at working towards God. The curse is extreme and all effecting. The gift of salvation is also so extreme, even more so. The death of Christ being of infinite worth is able to override the world of sin, remove its quilt and in its place give perfect righteousness that makes a sinner deserve eternal rewards forever by grace, all as a gift without human merit involved. This extreme hell of original sin, replaced by extreme glory and joy, in a moment a sinner believes in Christ, is simply a foreign and confusing concept to Orthodox thought. In the place of this legal transaction Orthodox theology puts the idea of sanctification in its place. In fact, if a Protestant wants to understand what Catholics / Eastern Orthodox believers mean by 'justification' it means more or less what Protestants mean by sanctification. In other words to Eastern Orthodox / Catholic faith there is no real difference between sanctification or justification. To them justification is just the beginning of a life long work of sanctification. The implication is that works are inherently involved from beginning to end, without this instantaneous extreme legal exchange between sinners and Christ under the Protestant view.

Regarding the specific question concerning the difference in the term original sin as understood by classical Augustine theology and Eastern Orthodox theology this article summarizes it well http://orthodoxwiki.org/Original_sin

Augustine, like Luther and Calvin assigned the guilt of Adam's sin upon all their posterity being a federal head upon which all humanity was judge 'guilty' or 'not guilty'. Eastern Orthodox and non Augustinian Catholicism does not accept the transfer of guilt but only the consequences of it, being death and the inclination of a sinful nature which is supposedly removed in its primary sense through infant baptism according to each own sacramental tradition to that effect.

The obvious initial consequence of not believing in hereditary guilt is that the concern over the final state of infants who die seems less controversial as they have no guilt to be punished with as outlined in the article. It would also seem to me that the extremity of the bondage to which humans are born under is generally less serious as the punishment for guilt is not a curse threatening a soul until they are able to commit personal sin in some manner that is acknowledged by a developed conscience through age, at whatever age that might be.