What are the differences between hamartiology from a Nazarene to a Calvinist perspective? Coming from a Nazarene tradition, influenced by Wesley and the Holiness Movement, my reflections upon sin are based upon the Nazarene manual's definitions (See 5.1,5.3) summarized as 

5.1. Original sin, a hereditary sin descended from Adam

5.3. Actual (personal) sin, committed knowingly by a responsible individual. Exclusions are made for involuntary failings, excepting when contradicting the spirit of Christ.

I would be interested in knowing how this relates to other traditions, especially the Calvinist tradition. Does election in the Calvinist tradition have impacts upon the doctrine of sin? Are these concepts of sin standard (that is, agreed upon by most denominations?) within the Christian community at large? Perhaps this is a matter where both traditions agree, but I'm afraid I don't have many Calvinist sounding boards in my immediate vicinity, so I've had a hard time figuring out the distinctions.
No difference.

On the doctrines or original sin and justification by faith Wesleyan and Calvinism seem to run a course along the same stream. Wesley's view of original sin is made clear with few words in a sermon entitled 'SERMON 44﻿ ORIGINAL SIN'.  

This sermon on its own clearly shows that Wesley taught the same doctrine as the Protestant reformers, including Luther and Calvin.

Wesley uses the time of the flood as a way to trace 'the nature of man' and then concludes this is a description of humanity at all times, not just then.


  The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. (Genesis 6:5, NIV)


Fixing on the phrase '﻿God saw all the of the thoughts of his heart', Wesley explains that this means total depravity:


  He “﻿saw all the imaginations:﻿” It is not possible to find a word of a more extensive signification. It includes whatever is formed, made, fabricated within; all that is or passes in the soul; every inclination,affection, passion, appetite; every temper, design, thought....Now God saw that all this, the whole thereof, was evil; — contrary to moral rectitude;contrary to the nature of God, which necessarily includes all good


Then he asked a question many using their own instincts might ask. 'But was there not good mingled with the evil? Was there not light intermixed with the darkness?'

He answers plainly:


  No; none at all: “﻿God saw that the whole imagination of the heart of man was only evil.﻿”


Then using a similar reasonable protest he asks, “﻿Was there no intermission of this evil? Were there no lucid intervals, wherein something good might be found in the heart of man?﻿'

Wesley again says no, insisting human nature is totally depraved always:


  For God, who “﻿saw the whole imagination of the thoughts of his heart to be only evil,﻿” saw likewise, that it was always the same, that it “﻿was only evil continually;﻿” every year, every day, every hour, every moment. He never deviated into good.


Finally he goes on to show that this is the description of man in every generation.  Wesley followed the early Protestant reformers such as Luther and Calvin in asserting human nature in all generations is only fully evil continually, i.,e 'the total depravity of man.'