Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans and the RCC believe in the Fall, the judgment of God is He IMPUTED Adam’s guilt on all Adam’s descendants transmitted through propagation (sex).
The consensus of American Evangelicals, Baptists, Orthodox, SDA’s, Pentecostals and Charismatics is in the Fall, the judgment of God is He IMPUTED Adam’s sinful nature or the inclination to sin on all of Adam’s descendants transmitted through propagation (sex).
The difference is the severity of God’s judgment.
Actually not with regards to the Orthodox. The Evangelicals, Baptists, SDAs, Pentecostals and Charismatics take a view much closer to that of the Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans and the RCC. Also thought leadership in the SBC is by Reformed Baptists these days like Albert Mohler, who tend to be sacramentally Zwinglian, which annoys those Baptists who would be Arminian, but I don’t really care.
The understanding of the Orthodox is very simiar to that of the Roman Catholics and Anglicans except our specific understanding of original sin is based on the writings of St. John Cassian rather than those of St. Augustine, but we venerate St. Augustine for other matters; St. John Cassian was another Latin Christian, a monastic like St. Augustine whose Conferences used to be standard reading in Western monasteries and which were translated into Greek and remain standard reading in our monasteries.
Also most of the groups you just grouped the Orthodox with believe in OSAS whereas we do not. The Orthodox on the one hand tend to regard sin as a disease rather than in the forensic manner of the West, but on the other hand given the extremely penitential nature of the Orthodox liturgy in Lent, this does not change the extent to which sin is regard as a moral failure.
I think based on this and also the recent misunderstanding you had concerning the supposed lack of a Christological focus in the Orthodox liturgy, which can be disproven from the liturgical text itself, that as your Orthodox friend I should take you on a tour of the Orthodox liturgical books which are the most definitive source of Orthodox doctrine (in this respect they are not unlike the Anglican Book of Common Prayer; like the Anglicans the Orthodox do not have extensive confessions of faith outside of the liturgical texts other than the ecumenical councils and the Creed, and the writings of individual church fathers are regarded as potentially fallible, although some are not controversial, for example, the writings of St. Athanasius are not controversial, but these fathers who are uncontroversial are also shared by the Roman Catholics and the Lutherans and Anglicans, although I do think it appropriate to claim some of them as Eastern and Oriental Orthodox or Assyrian*, based on the primary language in which they wrote, since nearly all Greek speaking Christians, for example, became Orthodox and remained Orthodox (I think there are 2,000 Greek-speaking Byzantine Rite Catholics, and I recall a Latin Rite Catholic presence on Cyprus which has some interesting liturgical music - the Byzantine and Latin Rite music interfaced, and the superb scholar of Eastern Christian and early Christian music, Dr. Alexander Lingas, did several recordings of music in areas where Byzantine and Latin lnfluence converged, this, along with restoration of the Cathedral Typikon as used at Hagia Sophia in Constantinople and in Thessalonica and Athens before the Venetian invasion being two areas of personal interest to him, and he recorded a splendid album on Cyprus), but most Byzantine Rite Catholics are members of the Ruthenian ethnic groups such as the Carptho-Rusyn and Lemko people (Andy Warhol was a famous Ruthenian Catholic of Lemko ethnicity), Arabic-speaking Melkite Greek Catholics in the Middle East, Italo-Albanian Greek Catholics in Sicilly, and Ukrainian Greek Catholics).
The main difference between the various editions of the Book of Common Prayer as the main source of Anglican doctrine and the Eastern Orthodox liturgies and the liturgies of the Oriental Orthodox churches as the main source of doctrine for their respective churches is that the liturgical texts of the Orthodox are much more extensive and the Typikon in the Eastern Orthodox Church provides relatively few options (whereas Coptic and Syriac clergy have more discretion; the Syriac Orthodox priest can chose from a fair number of anaphoras, although not all 86 of them can be practically employed; this is also the case in the Ethiopian church, but only one remains for the Armenians as the others are disused; in theory, a Coptic priest could always opt to celebrate the Divine Liturgy of St. Cyril, although in practice most use it only during Lent if at all, but more directly, the Copts have a number of Fractions, a part of the liturgy that pertains to the prayers and responses during the breaking of bread, which takes a while in the Coptic Rite given that a fairly large Eucharistic loaf is used and it is leavened; likewise in the Syriac Orthodox liturgy, but they have only one Fraction, which is also available to Coptic priests as the Syrian Fraction and is one of their favorites, but they have several other choices including Fractions which are specific to the liturgical occasion in many cases.
However with all of the rites, the content that is proper to the liturgical day such as the lectionary lessons, hymns and so on is determined, and most of the propers pertain to Matins (and to a lesser extent, to Vespers, Compline and the Midnight Office), or in the case of the Coptic liturgy, to a part of the Divine Office called Psalmody; there are also variable parts of the Divine Liturgy (or the Typika, which replaces the liturgy if one doesn’t have a priest or is otherwise unable to celebrate it, for example, because there is a Vesperal Divine Liturgy happening that evening, but unlike in the Roman Rite and the Lutheran Use and Anglican Use of the Roman Rite, where lots of the propers, in the case of the Anglican Use, most propers formally defined in the Book of Common Prayer itself, pertain to the Mass, in the Orthodox liturgy, while the number of propers is about the same for the Divine Liturgy, the propers in Matins outnumber it (which is also the case in the Roman Rite with regards to Matins, Lauds and Vespers, but the problem there is that the DIvine Office was reduced to a private devotion of the priests outside of monasteries and some cathedrals, except in the Anglican Rite, which brought it back, but at the expense of most liturgical propers for individual occasions).
The upshot of all of this is that the amount of doctrinal content in the liturgies of the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox church, particularly in Matins, is rivalled only by the amount of doctrinal content that existed in the liturgy of the Church of Saxony and the Church of Sweden and certain other Lutheran Orthodox churches where the Divine Office was popularly celebrated during the era of the great Lutheran composers like Dietrich Buxtehude and Johann Sebastian Bach, which appears to be the ideal that the LCMS/LCC are shooting for with the dogmatically rich Lutheran Service Book of 2006, and fortunately the compositions of Bach and information on how the services were structured in Leipzig, Dresden and Uppsala during that timeframe is available, so it should be possible to boostrap that; in the case of Anglicanism, the Anglo Catholics have supplemented the BCP with various additional material, and some of this has been promoted into the BCP itself, for example, the 1979 American BCP, which admittedly has serious flaws, for example, with the lectionary, that cause my friends like
@Shane R to prefer the more elegant 1928 BCP, or various Anglican missals, but which does provide fully developed proper liturgies for important festal services like those in Holy Week and Easter, with the kind of detailed rubrics one previously had to obtain from other sources such as an Anglican missal or a book like the Directorum Anglicanorum or Ritual Notes, which are excellent but which are also unofficial and actively disliked by the low church evangelical element within Anglicanism.
But all of this means that the sources that you might have relied on for information about Orthodox doctrine might not be as valid as one might have thought; the only really reliable indicator of Orthodox doctrine is in the texts for the services, and in the case of that one has to know where it is and also how to read it, but for that I am at your service. But there are some simple guides to Orthodox doctrine which are pretty reliable; for every work of disputed reliability like a work of Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, may his memory be eternal, that I would call a controversial classic The Orthodox Way (which I like, but there is legitimate criticism of much of it, including some obvious problems with his interpretation of some aspects of the Passion of our Lord on the Cross, so that it cannot be regarded as a definitive dogmatic statement, to the point where he probably shouldn’t have called it The Orthodox Way, although it is about 75-80% correct and Metropolitan Kallistos obviously had an Orthodox phronema, and the book can encourage thinking in an Orthodox way about some issues, but as a guide to dogma it simply has too many questionable statements), one can find more reliable works like Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Protopresbyter Micheal Pomazansky. But these works cannot provide the full picture that one gets from reading the liturgy.
Fortunately all of our central liturgical texts are now available online, for free, for the first time ever; it used to be, until relatively recently, that there were some massive holes - indeed I was working on an attempt to revise the writings of some ancient public domain translations of certain parts of the services and combining them with other more recent public domain translations to provide access to about 50% of it, when unexpectedly some very large material was made availalble online, free of charge, some of which I had, but some of which, particularly the Montnly Menaion, I did not have, since most people do not use or need to use the Monthly Menaion. And a complete copy of it in the translation that I prefer used to cost a breezy $1,200.
*More precisely, the fathers who wrote in Greek and Syriac can be regarded as potentially belonging to either group before the Council of Ephesus; after it, St. Isaac the Syrian, while we now know he was a member of the Church of the East, was venerated by all the ancient churches*, but otherwise, those who spoke Greek after the sixth century can be regarded as Eastern Orthodox, while those who spoke Armenian, Coptic and Ethiopian can be regarded as Oriental Orthodox, and in the case of those who spoke Syriac, aside from those who predated the Nestorian Schisms, or those like St. Isaac who were universally venerated, we generally know which Syriac church they were a member of (such as Syriac Orthodox, Maronite, Maronite Catholic in communion with Rome, or the Church of the East or the Mar Thoma Christians of India, or the Syriac-speaking portions of the Antiochian Orthodox Church, which sadly stopped using the West Syriac liturgy around the same time as the genocide of Tamerlane and the invasion of Constantinople by Venice; these events are very possibly related.
*Some of the Eastern Orthodox Old Calendarists and a few other traditionalists are in denial over the scholarship identifying him as a member of the Church of the East, since they assume everyone in the Church of the East was, is and always will be Nestorian, whereas Nestorianism in the Church of the East had been replaced by a Syriac translation of the Chalcedonian concept by Mar Babai the Great in the early sixth century, although it is true they venerate Nestorius which is controversial and should be controversial because, if as appears to be the case, Nestorius is personally responsible for triggering a series of schisms which have been intermittently active for the past 1,592 years, he is most definitely unworthy of veneration compared to those who opposed him such as Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria and Archbishop St. Celestine of Rome (this was before the bishop of Rome was called Pope or even Pontifex Maximus, and while the bishops of Alexandria have been called Pope since around 217 AD, they have never claimed Papal Supremacy or Papal Infallibility).
