I do not believe that Original Sin means I am guilty for Adam’s sin. But the mainline view of Original Sin does believe this.
Reformed Theologian Louis Berkhof says, “Original sin. This includes both guilt and pollution. The guilt of Adam’s sin is imputed to us. Because he sinned as our representative, we are guilty in him. Moreover, we also inherit his pollution, and now have a positive disposition toward sin. Man is by nature totally depraved.”
This is a fairly typical explanation of Original Sin.
Much of this doctrine is taken from a view of the Atonement and a particular reading of Romans 5 and the contrast between Adam and Christ.
In typical Substitutionary Atonement lingo, we are imputed with the very righteous deeds of Christ so that God no longer sees us, God now only sees Christ and Christ’s righteous deeds.
In essence, Christ kept the law for us. I see no real point to maintaining this doctrine on two counts:
1) If I am saved because Christ kept the Law for me, then Paul was wrong when He said no flesh is justified by deeds of the Law, nor does Christ’s death seem necessary in this.
2) God very much sees me and I will be judged on whatever I have done in the body, whether good or bad.
But alas, this idea of the imputed righteous deeds of Christ to my account is standard Christian theology. If one dares to reject it, one will be labeled a heretic.
Worse things can happen to you.
Since the view, made popular by Calvin, that Christ’s individual good works are added to my account, the reverse must then also be true: Adam’s individual sinful deeds are on my account already.
Therefore, I am guilty and a sinner because of what Adam did, and I am made righteous, not be anything I did, but by Christ’s good deeds on my account.
This then, leads to Calvin’s necessity for Limited Atonement.
Limited Atonement says that Christ only died for the elect. So, when John says Christ was the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, he was just getting carried away.
We can’t have that! Because then all would be saved. We know all aren’t saved, therefore something must have gotten in the way. If Christ died for everyone, and yet some aren’t saved, then Christ’s blood was wasted, and we can’t have that either! Goes the argument.
Therefore, Limited Atonement. If you are one of the unlucky ones whom Christ did not die for, you are left with the guilt of Adam’s sin, which was imputed to you because your parents couldn’t keep their pants on.
If Christ didn’t choose to impute His righteous deeds to you, then you have no shot. Sucks to be you. There is nothing you can do because you need Christ’s righteous deeds imputed to you, and you have no say in that.
You will rot in hell for being guilty of a sin you didn’t commit.
Obviously, by my sarcasm, you can tell I am not a fan of this logic. These ideas of Original Sin and Total Depravity are the necessary logical results of a flawed theory of Atonement.
Since I can’t do anything to get saved, since I’m so depraved by Adam, and I need Christ’s righteous deeds and I can only get that through God’s election, Irresistible Grace, and Calvin’s doctrines, nothing I do matters.
Again, I find this all to be an elaborate scaffolding to hold up a teetering theology that would be better served to just go with what God said rather than human over-thinking.