HP: It should be evident to the listener that the main distinction between believer concerning the dogma of original sin lies in whether or not it constitutes guilt or not. The Calvinist would take the position that there is associated guilt, while the Arminian would deny any guilt directly associated with original sin. I would believe that for one to maintain that it does not constitute guilt but is the necessitated impetus from which all sin derives it’s guilt, is simply inconsistent. If guilt is necessitated by original sin, what real distinction is there in that and saying that original sin imputes guilt? If original sin is the ‘cause’ of sin and associated guilt, the proper place of blame, hence all guilt, in fact does lie irrevocably upon that inherited sin. It would seem to me, that the only real distinction between those that claim to believe in original sin yet not direct associated guilt, and those that believe in original sin and as such inherit guilt, is that the latter is at least logically consistent with his premise while the former is not only inconsistent but is in denial of the true logical implications of his stated beliefs. DHK has stated that he believes in original sin and yet does not hold to total depravity as the Calvinist affirms. I would ask DHK if in fact he would be so kind as to set forth his stated differences on this thread designed to do so, so we can fairly examine the logical implications of his stated differences. All others are certainly invited and encouraged to share their thoughts and ideas on this topic as well.