Total Depravity

[Arial]

It has been said that some Reformed or Calvinist teach that people can't do anything good. I am not going to rule out that there are some who are not well versed in the doctrines that they believe have said such a thing and meant it literally. More likely though it is a misinterpretation on the part of the hearer/reader as to what is being said, or a failure on the part of the author/speaker to elaborate.

The theology of total depravity or radical depravity is based in large part on Romans 3: 9-18 which is quoting various parts of the OT. It is based also on the imputed sin of Adam to all his progeny. So the premise of the doctrine is that all mankind through Adam became sinners by nature. That is, we sin because sinners is what we are. Therefore as a creation, a species, our nature is sinful as a result of the fall.

And this explains the passages given and Is 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags;

So the doctrine of total depravity is not teaching that humans never do or cannot do good things. It means that even their good deeds and thoughts are tainted by our fallen nature, and therefore they contain elements in our hearts that bear on our intentions. They are not truly and completely a submitting to God.They aren't in honor and worship of God but are centered on ourselves. And they can never make us perfectly righteous which is the righteousness that our Creator demands as having made us in His image and likeness.

Truly and completely submitting to God is only achievable through being united with Christ through faith. The rebirth is a rebirth into Christ. Our natural birth is "born in Adam." And of course, that is not to say, that we always submit to God perfectly. For we still do live with that nature of a sinner while we are in this world. What it means is that in Christ through faith, His perfect righteousness is counted as ours, removing sins power to condemn us. That is what He defeated on the cross when He defeated the power of both the imputed sin of Adam and provided forgiveness for our personal sins.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

It has been said that some Reformed or Calvinist teach that people can't do anything good. I am not going to rule out that there are some who are not well versed in the doctrines that they believe have said such a thing and meant it literally. More likely though it is a misinterpretation on the part of the hearer/reader as to what is being said, or a failure on the part of the author/speaker to elaborate.

No, it has nothing to do with reading comprehension skills or the inability of expositors to adequately state their positions.

The theology of total depravity or radical depravity is based in large part on Romans 3: 9-18 which is quoting various parts of the OT. It is based also on the imputed sin of Adam to all his progeny. So the premise of the doctrine is that all mankind through Adam became sinners by nature. That is, we sin because sinners is what we are. Therefore as a creation, a species, our nature is sinful as a result of the fall.

Paul took a passage from Psalm 14 or 15 (not sure which one now) which in context is talking about non-believers or atheists with secondary application to Israel's behaviour. Since a fool says in his heart "there is no God" therefore there is "none righteous. no one does good, not even one". This is not total depravity at all.

If you want to argue for Total depravity, you would have to cite all the scriptures that seem to promote it and then we can examine them.

 

[Eleanor]

No, it has nothing to do with reading comprehension skills or the inability of expositors to adequately state their positions.

Paul took a passage from Psalm 14 or 15 (not sure which one now) which in context is talking about non-believers or atheists with secondary application to Israel's behaviour. Since a fool says in his heart "there is no God" therefore there is "none righteous. no one does good, not even one". This is not total depravity at all.

If you want to argue for Total depravity, you would have to cite all the scriptures that seem to promote it and then we can examine them.

Depravity is inability to please God.

That is the state of all unregenerate mankind (Ro 8:7).

 

[Arial]

No, it has nothing to do with reading comprehension skills

Dave! Did I infer or imply that it had anything to do with your comprehension skills? That is not a good way to begin a response. It causes to happen what always happens when we converse.

Paul took a passage from Psalm 14 or 15 (not sure which one now) which in context is talking about non-believers or atheists with secondary application to Israel's behaviour. Since a fool says in his heart "there is no God" therefore there is "none righteous. no one does good, not even one". This is not total depravity at all.

Does it not say ALL are under the same sentence because we are ALL the same boat? ALL are non believers until and unless God regenerates them. (Eph 2) That is what the new birth is all about.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

Dave! Did I infer or imply that it had anything to do with your comprehension skills? That is not a good way to begin a response. It causes to happen what always happens when we converse.

Why misrepresent me by only quoting one part of a sentence instead of all of it? The rest of my sentence explains what you are failing to understand. You made it about me, the poster, instead of the topic and what points were made. I hope you can stop doing that from now on.

Does it not say ALL are under the same sentence because we are ALL the same boat? ALL are non believers until and unless God regenerates them. (Eph 2) That is what the new birth is all about.

The topic is Total Depravity, not that we inherit sin and have a fallen nature.

 

[Eleanor]

Why misrepresent me by only quoting one part of a sentence instead of all of it? The rest of my sentence explains what you are failing to understand. You made it about me, the poster, instead of the topic and what points were made. I hope you can stop doing that from now on.

The topic is Total Depravity, not that we inherit sin and have a fallen nature.

Unless they are one and the same.

 

[Arial]

Why misrepresent me by only quoting one part of a sentence instead of all of it? The rest of my sentence explains what you are failing to understand. You made it about me, the poster, instead of the topic and what points were made. I hope you can stop doing that from now on.

It did not misrepresent you in any way.

No, it has nothing to do with reading comprehension skills or the inability of expositors to adequately state their positions.

What does the "or" do in that sentence but separate the first part from the second part as two ideas? Stop being contentious for the sake of being contentious. Consider this a warning to not do it again.

The topic is Total Depravity, not that we inherit sin and have a fallen nature.

It is because we inherit sin and have a fallen nature that we are depraved. You cannot separate those two things.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

It has been said that some Reformed or Calvinist teach that people can't do anything good. I am not going to rule out that there are some who are not well versed in the doctrines that they believe have said such a thing and meant it literally. More likely though it is a misinterpretation on the part of the hearer/reader as to what is being said, or a failure on the part of the author/speaker to elaborate.

I am one of those people, so I am happy to defend this position (i.e., that unregenerate sinners cannot do anything good).

The doctrine of total depravity is not teaching that humans never or cannot do good things. It means that even their good deeds and thoughts are tainted by our fallen nature, and therefore they contain elements in our hearts that bear on our intentions. They are not truly and completely submitting to God. They aren't in honor and worship of God but are centered on ourselves.

(All emphases above are mine.)

I quoted Frank B. Beck and his little book The Five Points of Calvinism (1974) in another thread, where he briefly addressed some misconceptions about total depravity before explaining the doctrine. I'm sure you saw that quote because you're active in the same thread; it was repudiating the idea that total depravity means that man does not have a conscience. Here we have you bringing up another misconception, one that Beck likewise addressed and said basically the same thing as you. He said that total depravity does not mean that the unregenerate don't (or can't) "perform outward works of charity and moral goodness." Like you, he believes they can. "However," Beck said, they "cannot and will not do these works for the glory of God, but for selfish reasons" (emphasis mine).

So, I would address the following challenge to folks like you and Beck:

Question: Is it within the capacity of an unregenerate sinner to help an elderly lady cross the street?
Answer: Yes.

Question: Is that act a moral good, humanly-speaking?
Answer: Yes.
​

Now, herein lies the rub:

Question: If he performs that act for godless reasons—maybe he is a secular humanist—is that act a sin?
Answer: <?>
​

If it's possible for something to be a "good" humanly-speaking and yet nevertheless a "sin" biblically-speaking, then is it not consistent for the Christian to say that unregenerate sinners can't do anything good? As you said yourself, their so-called good works are tainted with sin, being done for selfish or other godless reasons. That would mean these acts are NOT good, but rather a damnable sin.

I contend that this is what Christians mean when they say that unregenerate sinners can't do anything good—for indeed they can't. (That is why "humanly-speaking" is a terrible measure.)

 

[Arial]

I am one of those people, so I am happy to defend this position (i.e., that unregenerate sinners cannot do anything good).




(All emphases above are mine.)

I quoted Frank B. Beck and his little book The Five Points of Calvinism (1974) in another thread, where he briefly addressed some misconceptions about total depravity before explaining the doctrine. I'm sure you saw that quote because you're active in the same thread; it was repudiating the idea that total depravity means that man does not have a conscience. Here we have you bringing up another misconception, one that Beck likewise addressed and said basically the same thing as you. He said that total depravity does not mean that the unregenerate don't (or can't) "perform outward works of charity and moral goodness." Like you, he believes they can. "However," Beck said, they "cannot and will not do these works for the glory of God, but for selfish reasons" (emphasis mine).

So, I would address the following challenge to folks like you and Beck:

​

Question: Is it within the capacity of an unregenerate sinner to help an elderly lady cross the street?​

Answer: Yes.​

​

Question: Is that act a moral good, humanly-speaking?​

Answer: Yes.​

​

Now, herein lies the rub:

​

Question: If he performs that act for godless reasons—maybe he is a secular humanist—is that act a sin?​

Answer: <?>​

​

If it's possible for something to be a "good" humanly-speaking and yet nevertheless a "sin" biblically-speaking, then is it not consistent for the Christian to say that unregenerate sinners can't do anything good? As you said yourself, their so-called good works are tainted with sin, being done for selfish or other godless reasons. That would mean these acts are NOT good, but rather a damnable sin.

I contend that this is what Christians mean when they say that unregenerate sinners can't do anything good—for indeed they can't. (That is why "humanly-speaking" is a terrible measure.)

I agree. However it was said in another thread by a poster that they agreed with ULIP but not the T of TULIP, because Calvinists teach that we can't do anything morally good. I have heard that argument against total depravity often as I am sure you have. And I know from experience also that what they mean is they think it is saying that we cannot do morally good deeds or morally good things. They will invariably point out morall good things that people do. And that is what I was addressing.

 

[Arial]

I contend that this is what Christians mean when they say that unregenerate sinners can't do anything good—for indeed they can't.

No doubt that is what they mean. But that is not the way those who reject total depravity see it. Therefore it needs/needed clarifying. I would go so far as to say that many against Calvinism never bother to look and see what is meant by it, but just stick with their gut reaction and denounce Calvinism as being unbiblical on those grounds. And when making an argument against Calvinism, state their gut reaction as being what Calvinism teaches. (No matter how many times they are told otherwise.)

The teaching of total depravity is saying that no amount of moral living and doing will save a single soul and that He cannot choose Christ from a tainted baseline of being in Adam. The choosing itself would be tainted with self interest and come from a beast who is a sinner.

I am convinced that this free will view comes from not believing/understanding what the imputed sin of Adam means. Though there are some who claim to agree with total depravity, but then say that the grace given by God unto salvation is very limited and weak. Not Godlike at all. Only enough is given to each person so that they can choose Christ. And then, after they have made that choice, God grants them the new birth.

But a choice made before the new birth of regeneration comes from an unregenerate sinner. One still in Adam. It is akin to believing that God, to put it into OT terms of worship (approaching the holy, holy, holy God) can be approached with strange fire, or that a sinful man can touch the holy things. They could not even touch the ark of the covenant, but had to carry it on poles. We have to be cleansed of the imputed sin of Adam first, by being born in Christ. And then we can hear Him give us the good news, and when we hear it, we believe it, not because we choose to believe it, but because we do believe it.

I know. I am preaching to the choir, but I myself see things more deeply as I struggle to find the words I need.

 

[Eleanor]

No doubt that is what they mean. But that is not the way those who reject total depravity see it. Therefore it needs/needed clarifying. I would go so far as to say that many against Calvinism never bother to look and see what is meant by it, but just stick with their gut reaction and denounce Calvinism as being unbiblical on those grounds. And when making an argument against Calvinism, state their gut reaction as being what Calvinism teaches. (No matter how many times they are told otherwise.)

The teaching of total depravity is saying that no amount of moral living and doing will save a single soul and that He cannot choose Christ from a tainted baseline of being in Adam. The choosing itself would be tainted with self interest and come from a beast who is a sinner.

However, the issue is not the defilement of the choice.
The issue is the total inability of a spiritually dead man (without the Holy Spirit) to do anything spiritual (of the Holy Spirit).

I am convinced that this free will view comes from not believing/understanding what the imputed sin of Adam means. Though there are some who claim to agree with total depravity, but then say that the grace given by God unto salvation is very limited and weak. Not Godlike at all. Only enough is given to each person so that they can choose Christ. And then, after they have made that choice, God grants them the new birth.

But a choice made before the new birth of regeneration comes from an unregenerate sinner. One still in Adam. It is akin to believing that God, to put it into OT terms of worship (approaching the holy, holy, holy God) can be approached with strange fire, or that a sinful man can touch the holy things. They could not even touch the ark of the covenant, but had to carry it on poles. We have to be cleansed of the imputed sin of Adam first, by being born in Christ. And then we can hear Him give us the good news, and when we hear it, we believe it, not because we choose to believe it, but because we do believe it.

I know. I am preaching to the choir, but I myself see things more deeply as I struggle to find the words I need.

The unregenerate, spiritually dead, natural man cannot do anything spiritual (of the Holy Spirit), including making spiritual choices.
Any and every choice he makes, no matter what it is, is natural, not spiritual.
God is Spirit, and can be related to only spiritually (of the Holy Spirit), not naturally.

 

[Arial]

However, the issue is not the defilement of the choice.
The issue is the total inability of a spiritually dead man (without the Holy Spirit) to do anything spiritual (of the Holy Spirit).

What you say is also true, but I don't think you understood exactly what I was saying. We, the entire human race are a defiled creature. It is in our nature, as much a part of us as walking on two legs instead of four. This is through the imputed sin of Adam. Which does not mean that the specific sin of Adam is imputed to us. It means it made us from not being a created being who sins but one who can sin, into a created being who is a sinner by nature. That is why we sin. It is in our nature to do so.

It is our nature that defiles even our morally good choices. Therefore if we were to achieve salvation by choosing Christ without having been regenerated (born in Christ instead of born in Adam) the choice would also be defiled because it came from a sinner. An uncleansed sinner approaching God.

The unregenerate, spiritually dead, natural man cannot do anything spiritual (of the Holy Spirit), including making spiritual choices.
Any and every choice he makes, no matter what it is, is natural, not spiritual.
God is Spirit, and can be related to only spiritually (of the Holy Spirit), not naturally.

Very true. The natural man is a creature who sins in Adam. And he is spiritually dead because of it. What I say above is a hypothetical of what such a choosing would be, for it has never happened and never will, because of what you say here. Nevertheless, there are multitudes of people who think they are saved because they chose. They were asked to choose. They are told that choosing is what they have to do and the only thing that will save them, and so they remember choosing. They remember choosing because that was the point put on it. Many are truly saved by the mercy of God, and some aren't. It depends on what we believe about Jesus. Not how we think we got there.

 

[Eleanor]

What you say is also true, but I don't think you understood exactly what I was saying. We, the entire human race are a defiled creature. It is in our nature, as much a part of us as walking on two legs instead of four. This is through the imputed sin of Adam. Which does not mean that the specific sin of Adam is imputed to us.

That Adam's sin lies in his eating of the fruit, and
that the guilt of that one trespass (resulting in the condemnation of all men, Ro 5:18) is imputed to us (Adam being the pattern of Christ, Ro 5:14),
is the burden of Ro 5:12-15.
Adam's one trespass imputed to us is paralleled to the righteousness of the second Adam's one act of obedience imputed to us through faith (Ro 5:18-19, 4:1-11).
It means that the guilt of the one act of trespass in eating the fruit is imputed to us through natural birth,
just as the righteousness of the one act of obedience in his death is imputed to us, through faith (Ro 5:18-19) by the spiritual re-birth.

It means it made us from not being a created being who sins but one who can sin, into a created being who is a sinner by nature. That is why we sin. It is in our nature to do so.

Yes, that is a second consequence.
The guilt of Adam's one trespass is imputed to us (Ro 512-15), and we also inherit a fallen nature (Eph 2:3). Two separate things.
Both of which are dealt with by faith in the death of Christ; i.e., Adam's imputed guilt to us (penalty paid) and his fallen nature (redeemed).

The imputed guilt of Adam is what locks up all mankind in sin so that God may have mercy on them all (Ro 11:32).

 

[Arial]

That Adam's sin lies in his eating of the fruit, and
that the guilt of that one trespass (resulting in the condemnation of all men, Ro 5:18) is imputed to us (Adam being the pattern of Christ, Ro 5:14),
is the burden of Ro 5:12-15.
Adam's one trespass imputed to us is paralleled to the righteousness of the second Adam's one act of obedience imputed to us through faith (Ro 5:18-19, 4:1-11).
It means that the guilt of the one act of trespass in eating the fruit is imputed to us through natural birth,
just as the righteousness of the one act of obedience in his death is imputed to us, through faith (Ro 5:18-19) by the spiritual re-birth.

We are just saying pretty much the same thing in different ways and are looking from slightly different angles. It amounts to the same truth in the end. Adam's sin is imputed to us, meaning it is in us as to what type of being we are, so even our righteous acts are as filthy rags before Him.

The guilt of Adam's one trespass is imputed to us (Ro 512-15), and we also inherit a fallen nature (Eph 2:3). Two separate things.

Here I disagree a bit. The imputed sin becomes the nature. And it is from this fallen nature that the the second consequence comes---our own sins. The difference isn't between imputed sin and our nature, but imputed sin and original sin. Imputed sin is our standing before God as a sinful creature. Original sin refers to the results of the imputed sin. At least that is my understanding gained from the theological definition of terms.

 

[Eleanor]

We are just saying pretty much the same thing in different ways and are looking from slightly different angles. It amounts to the same truth in the end. Adam's sin is imputed to us, meaning it is in us as to what type of being we are, so even our righteous acts are as filthy rags before Him.

Imputation is an outward thing, inheritance (sinful nature) is an inward thing. They are not the same thing, and they do not track the same in NT doctrine.

Here I disagree a bit. The imputed sin becomes the nature. And it is from this fallen nature that the the second consequence comes---our own sins. The difference isn't between imputed sin and our nature, but imputed sin and original sin. Imputed sin is our standing before God as a sinful creature. Original sin refers to the results of the imputed sin. At least that is my understanding gained from the theological definition of terms.

The nature (Eph 2:3) one is born with is, of necessity, inherited, while the guilt of Adam assigned to one is imputed (Ro 5:12-14, 18).

Just as the righteousness of Christ assigned to one is imputed (not incurred--that comes in sanctification, Ro 6:16, 19, 22),
so also the guilt of Adam assigned to one is imputed (Ro 5:12-14, 18), not incurred, while
the fallen nature (Eph 2:3) with which we are born is necessarily inherited (is incurred).

Is our difference between theological text and Biblical text?

The righteousness imputed (Ro 4:1-11) at justification (dikaiosis) is, by Biblical definition, forensic, not of our person, but in right standing with the Court; i.e., not guilty, time served, free to go. That is the testimony of the NT.
Correspondingly, the guilt imputed at birth is forensic, not of our person, but in bad standing with the Court; i.e., guilty, (death) penalty owed.

And in this manner, God locks up all mankind in sin so that he may have mercy on them all (Ro 11:32).

 

[Arial]

Imputation is an outward thing, inheritance (sinful nature) is an inward thing. They are not the same thing, and they do not track the same in NT doctrine.

We have had this discussion before and came to no understanding. So, respectfully, there is no point in doing it again.

 

[Josheb]

So the doctrine of total depravity is not teaching that humans never do or cannot do good things.

That statement is correct.

It means that even their good deeds and thoughts are tainted by our fallen nature, and therefore they contain elements in our hearts that bear on our intentions. They are not truly and completely a submitting to God.

That statement is not quite correct.

The doctrine of "Total Depravity" TTD) is very specific and very limited. It's soteriologically relevant concept, not one applicable to anything outside the one specific domain of salvation. TD does not mean humans cannot do any moral good, or that they are wholly depraved to that point of incapability of any and all moral good. What TD does mean is that when it comes to the single, sole, solitary matter of being able to effect one's salvation by sinful human effort we lack that capacity. We can do nothing in our own might to effect our salvation.

More specifically, TD is about the nature of sin, not the nature of humanity. When it comes to human salvific effort sin has had a totally depraving effect. Only that one condition of salvation. Not all conduct in all places at all times, and not all of humanity outside the matter of salvation.

The effect of sin is totally depraving solely on the ability to come to God for salvation in one's own might.


The effect of sin is wholly effective in preventing sinful humanity from coming to God for the purpose of salvation. To borrow from Jonathon Edwards: the only thing we bring to our salvation is the sin from which we are being saved. We can do nothing else. This is not an exclusively Calvinist position. Augustine held to it, and so too did Arminius subscribe to what we now call "total depravity." Arminius was a one-pointer . This is important because a lot of synergists of the Pelagian and semi-Pelagian persuasion incorrectly think of themselves and incorrectly argue Arminianism as if TD does not apply to Arminian soteriology. Arminius' Disputation 11 unequivocally proves Arminius viewed TD as correct (see Article VII).

 

[Bob Carabbio]

So the premise of the doctrine is that all mankind through Adam became sinners by nature.

Except that when Adam WASN'T a "Sinner" (before the "fall"), he responded to "TEMPTATION" (James 1) in exactly the same way we all do, and there was "Enticement" from satan, just like we all face. So, other than immediately dying spiritually, NOTHING CHANGED in Adam. His Nature didn't change, nor did his reponse to his own personal desires. We inherited NOTHING (such as "imputed SIN") from Adam, except his HUMAN NATURE, which was the SAME before the "Fall" as it was afterwards.

That is, we sin because sinners is what we are. Therefore as a creation, a species, our nature is sinful as a result of the fall.

Not so - Our HUMAN NATURE is the same as Adam's BEFORE the fall, so what changed - OTHER THAN Adam's environment??
He, and his wife were tossed out of the garden (to prevent them from eating of the Tree of life, and gaining eternal life). The also lost their "Free Lunch", and now had to WORK to survive. AND the EARTH was CURSED - thorns, and enmity with and within the animal kingdom - the "law of the jungle" now ruled etc. And Eve was subject to "more pain" in Childbirth. Adam and Eve, however WERE NOT CURSED, only the earth and the serpent were.

Truly and completely submitting to God is only achievable through being united with Christ through faith.

Accurate.

The rebirth is a rebirth into Christ.

Specifically, It's the infilling of the Holy Spirit in us, which changes us progressively into the image of Christ (Rom 8:28,29).

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

It means that the guilt of the one act of trespass ... is imputed to us through natural birth, just as the righteousness of the one act of obedience ... is imputed to us through faith (Ro 5:18-19) by the spiritual re-birth.

I just want to interrupt your conversation here to highlight an alternative perspective. You and others are free to take it or leave it. My intent is only to provide it for contemplation.

I think the guilt of this one act of trespass is imputed not through natural birth but rather covenant union, just as the righteousness of Christ is not imputed through natural birth. This view maintains the covenant symmetry of the first and second Adam, a symmetry that is broken by the view you described above. Adam's guilt is imputed to those in him, while Christ's righteousness is imputed to those in him. Those terms, "in Adam" and "in Christ," indicate covenant union. As the apostle Paul described it, "For if by the transgression of the one man, [Adam,] death reigned through the one, how much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ" (Rom 5:17-18). Those who are in Adam (by default) belong to the natural, earthly, old creation that experiences condemnation and death, while those in Christ (by grace) belong to the spiritual, heavenly, new creation that experiences salvation and life. In every respect, it is by covenant union.

Our fallen nature, like fallen Adam, is characterized as death. The day he fell, he died. And, as fallen in Adam, we are dead—and sin reigns in death. (And this is all in contrast to life in Christ, who makes us alive—and righteousness reigns in life.) These are not biological realities conferred through natural generation, but rather theological realities conferred through covenant union. We are born separated from God and harboring enmity toward him because our federal head broke the terms of that covenant relationship. Our original communion with God was established in the context of a covenant relationship. When our federal head broke that covenant, our communion with God was severed and we were spiritually cut off from God and the power by which we were enabled to live righteous lives. (And those in Christ are regarded as covenant-keepers, having been reconciled to God and once again enjoy communion with him and the power by which we are enabled to live righteous lives.)

Both Adam's sin and Christ's righteousness are covenant realities of federal headship, and imputation refers to covenant union, not biological union. As Derek Kidner explained in his commentary on Genesis,

Again, it may be significant that, with one possible exception, the unity of mankind "in Adam" and our common status as sinners through his offence are expressed in Scripture in terms not of heredity but simply of solidarity. We nowhere find applied to us any argument from physical descent ... Rather, Adam's sin is shown to have implicated all men because he was the federal head of humanity, somewhat as in Christ's death "one died for all, therefore all died" (2 Cor. 5:14). Paternity plays no part in making Adam "the figure of him that was to come" (Rom. 5:14).
​

Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), 30.[/QUOTE]

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I agree. However it was said in another thread by a poster that they agreed with ULIP but not the T of TULIP, because Calvinists teach that we can't do anything morally good. I have heard that argument against total depravity often as I am sure you have. And I know from experience also that what they mean is they think it is saying that we cannot do morally good deeds or morally good things. They will invariably point out morall good things that people do. And that is what I was addressing.

Any Christian who rejects the T of the acrostic TULIP because he believes that unregenerate sinners can do morally good things needs to confront the same challenge I posed to you. He would have to explain how acts performed for godless reasons are not a sin. As I understand it, "whatever is not from faith is sin" (Rom 14:23). In other words, he will not be able to point to a single good thing that unregenerate sinners do—and that should be a wake-up call for him.