Total Depravity

[narnia4]

Thought it was time to make an actual thread on the whole Calvinism vs. Arminianism thing again. Rather than focus on the broad scope of Reformed Theology in this thread, I’m looking at the “T”, Total Depravity. If anyone wants to expand things, cool. This post is fairly speculative, as frankly quite a few of my posts around here are. Hopefully I won’t be inconsistent here with things I’ve said in the past and most importantly I hope that what I say won’t be inconsistent with Scripture. But I’ve frequently found that one of the best ways to explore and learn about a subject is to try to expound on it.

I’m going to take a couple things for granted, if I’m mistaken I’d be happy to discuss where we disagree. I’m taking for granted that we all believe that man is depraved (Romans 3:10 and a host of other verses) and has sinned and needs God (Romans 3:23).

Here's a question- If man has free will that makes the persuasion of sin and their sinful nature “defeatable”, how can you say that every man outside of Christ has sinned and will sin? If man can overcome all of his sinful urges and nature in order to choose to follow Christ, then why is it impossible that a man could always choose to do right and doesn't actually need Christ? Maybe its only "probable" that we need Christ at all.

This line of reasoning naturally lends itself to Pelagianism and a boatload of other issues that could be considered heretical. If you can say that God changes our hearts (or even weaker versions of that type of sentiment), I see this as the beginning of the road that ends up at Calvinism anyway.

So if we are partially depraved or not naturally depraved at all, we potentially don't need Christ. I’m not saying that it is probable that someone would choose not to sin, it could even be a one in a trillion chance. Yet if man can choose to follow Christ, then there is a small chance he could choose to never sin. If we are totally depraved, then we can't be saved or believe in Christ or even want to believe in Christ without God's direction. In another conversation it was stated that Calvinism disrespects the power of the Gospel. Couldn't it be the exact opposite, saying that man is anything other than totally depraved making pelagianism possible?

Now I know a few have said that it isn’t Calvinism vs. Arminianism, that this is a false dichotomy. Strictly speaking, I might agree. But I DO think there is a true dichotomy between monergism and synergism. Either we work together for our salvation (with some views giving humans more of a role than others) or God works alone. Either God must wait for us to believe on Him or sovereignly, unconditionally elect us. If God's playing the waiting game and man can make the "good decision" to choose Christ, what exactly is stopping him from always making good decisions? Simple probability, what?

To sum up my argument-

Either man is totally depraved or he is not
If man is not totally depraved, he can choose not to sin
If man can choose not to sin, it is possible that he could choose to never sin
If a man could choose to never sin, that man would not need Christ
All men have (and will) fallen short of the glory of God and needs Christ
Therefore man could NOT choose to never sin
Therefore, man is totally depraved

Or maybe this doesn’t work as its stated, maybe I should just come out and ask what non-Calvinists believe “depravity” or the “sin nature” is. Thoughts? Again, if anyone wants to address a different aspect of Calvinism or a different question relating to TD, I'm game.

[Silvertusk]

I am kinda happy with the Total Depravity aspect of Calvinism - All have fallen short of the Glory of God. Because as Jesus told us - we sin in our thoughts as well.

What I don't agree with Calvinism is the election of the saved.

Silvertusk.

[PaulSacramento]

To me, the issue has always been the term "TOTAL depravity".
Depravity is: the state or an instance of moral corruption
And that is fine, but TOTAL depravity seems to imply TOTAL moral corruption and that seems to imply NO redeeming qualities whatsoever.
For humans being made in the image of god AND being TOTALLY depraved, it seems contradictory.
Humans may be morally corrupt in the sense that even our most noble of actions can have selfish intentions and that we KNOW what is wrong and still do it, BUT that we KNOW it is wrong shows we are not totally depraved (morally corrupt) sense we do know right from wrong.

[jlay]

Either man is totally depraved or he is not
If man is not totally depraved, he can choose not to sin
If man can choose not to sin, it is possible that he could choose to never sin
If a man could choose to never sin, that man would not need Christ
All men have (and will) fallen short of the glory of God and needs Christ
Therefore man could NOT choose to never sin
Therefore, man is totally depraved

Nope, because it doesn't address the real issue with TD. The issue is not one of sin. Man is a sinner. The issue is as you later hint at, man's ability.

Could a person choose to never sin? This presumes the person is not a sinner. That instead, they are by nature good, waiting to fall into sin. But that isn't the case. They are born in their Adamic nature and under a curse, sinners.
The issue is not one of depravity, but of ability. The doctrine of TD says that man is so depraved that he can not respond to God's monergistic work, under his own volition, period, end of story. So depraved that even hearing the Gospel message is of no use, unless the man is deposited with the commodity of faith to believe it. Without the sinner being regenerated (deposited with faith) by God prior to hearing the Gospel, the Gospel can not be heard. So, the Gospel is of no avail, and is in and of itself powerless to save. For example, (according to 5PC) the reprobate are those passed over by God. They will not be saved, and can not be saved. They have no ability to hear the Gospel and believe it for themselves. Therefore, the Gospel will not and can not save them. It is in fact impotent. The elect on the other hand, are implanted in some manner with the commodity of faith. They will hear and will believe the Gospel whether they want to or not.

So, again, we can argue about depravity. But the issue isn't whether depravity refers to sin, but instead to ability. Man is fallen. Man's volitional ability to choose right from wrong, doesn't change the fact that man is fallen, and will sin either in word, thought or deed. People will sin, and God has pronounced that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. But scripture also speaks to the responsibility of man, and always, always, speaks of faith as such. The example of a person (a sinner) who chose not to sin is hypothetically absurd. This person would sin by not beleiving that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. We assume that a person is condemned because they sin. Well, all sin, and are in that sense condemned. But what is it that condemns today? Rejection of the fact that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." (John 3:18) Does this person stand righteous because they made good choices not to sin? No, they stand condemend because they have rejected Christ through their own unbelief.

-The Calvinist needs to be honest. A person is not condemend (ultimately) because they are a sinner. They are condemned because they are not elect. The elect is no less a sinner than the reprobate. (unless I've missed something essential to Calvinism) The Calvinist is right in that sin was settled at the cross. The issue of salvation was and is settled. That is the monergistic truth. God did it. He provided the unblemished sacrifrice, and saved man, without one iota of man's contribution. The Calvinist goes a step further in monergism and says that if man has any part, even in just believing the truth, then man can claim some credit in his salvation. I see the bible teaching that all men are saved. Atonement is universal. And, the person who goes to Hell, goes to Hell having their sin paid for. And, that God soveriengly has placed choice within the will of man.

5PC logically flows, one point to another. Each stands or falls on the other. So, I would say if the 5PC doctrine of TD is correct, then the others must flow. The elect MUST be unconditionally elected. Atonement must be limited. The call must be irresistable to the elect and witheld from the reprobate, and the saints must persevere. 4PC is a nasty compromise, IMO.

If anyone wants to read more on a counter position,
http://faithalone.org/journal/2003i/badger.pdf

[narnia4]

I don't think you're really addressing my point, jlay. If man has the ability to choose not to sin, then why couldn't he choose to never sin? If he can "choose to choose" Christ and recognize that he's a sinner, why can't he just "not sin"? As I originally stated, we all agree that everyone has sinned, the question is that if TD is false why must it be true that all have sinned?

Let me use the analogy of a dead man. There's a true dichotomy between being alive and dead. You can be close to death, but close to death is still being alive. If a man is dead, he can't choose to walk through a door. If man is truly dead in his sin, how in the world could he possibly choose Christ? But if man isn't dead, then is it true that he necessarily needs someone to bring him back to life?

I'll try to address your points against Calvinism soon. But really, I see you saying that man is a sinner, but you're also affirming that he can choose to follow Christ. But that makes him partially depraved, a "kinda sorta sinner" who can do good things of his own will. But as I've been trying to show, there are problems with this. If man isn't "so depraved" that he can make free will choices that are vehemently opposed to his sin nature, then why can't he always choose to resist his sin nature?

[Jac3510]

I'll let jlay defend himself, narnia, but let me try to make what I think is a very similar point in a different way, and let me start by challenging what seems to me to be your conflation with our ability to choose to sin (or not) with our state as fallen sinners. Now, you seem to conflate them on the basis of Rom 3:23.

I’m taking for granted that we all believe that man is depraved (Romans 3:10 and a host of other verses) and has sinned and needs God (Romans 3:23).

Notice the part of your words I put in bold. Let me suggest that, as popular as that translation is, it is incorrect. Here is a link to the Greek word in question. If you click that, you'll see that the word (hamarton) is an aorist (roughly similar to the English past tense). Yet the popular translation "has sinned" assumes, and translates as if, the word is a perfect.

At best, I think we should translate this passage, "For all sinned and fall short . . ." But that seems awkward, the conjunction of a past tense with a present tense like that. It would be just as odd for a Greek reader as it is for an English one (that, I suggest to you, is why English translators use a perfect translation rather than a simple past). The solution, I think, is to render it as what grammarians call a gnomic aorist. In other words, it's a snap-shot truth and should be rendered by the English present. So the proper translation is:

• For all sin and fall short of the glory of God . . .

This, then, speaks to our behavior. Sin is just something we all do. Paul's not making a theological point about our nature. He's making a practical observation about our behavior. Everyone sins, so everyone needs Christ (as an aside, I would suggest that we also have a gnomic aorist in Rom 5:12, but that's another debate).

That's important because of what Paul says back in Rom 2:5-7

• But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who “will render to each one according to his deeds”: eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality

I take this seriously. God judges each of us according to our works. We any of us to live "by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality," we would actually merit eternal life. That, by the way, is precisely why Christ did merit eternal life and why He can give it freely to whomever He wishes. That is also why the Great White Throne Judgment is so important. Everyone will have their day in court. People who think they are good enough for heaven are allowed to make their defense. God will give them an honest change to make their case. He'll see if they actually lived "by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality." Of course, the evidence will show that they didn't, but they they instead were "self-seeking and [did] not obey the truth, but obey[ed] unrighteousness" (Rom 2:8), and therefore their condemnation will be just.

But doesn't this mean that people may not need Christ? Again, no, because the practical reality is that everyone sins! ALL of us do. That, I submit, is because we have inherited a sin nature from Adam (I refer you again to Rom 5:12 on that). It is in our nature to sin, and while we may logically be able to say no to sin each and every time, the practical reality is that we do not. So you can say that it is theoretically possible to merit heaven, but practically impossible.

That isn't Pelagianism (and even if it were, I couldn't care less--the Scripture is my authority, not the Church), since Pelagianism effectively teaches that a person can be good enough to merit heaven even after they have sinned.

I, then, would argue that we are totally depraved, but that in a practical sense. Everyone sins. It's just in our nature to do it. But, ethically, how can God hold you accountable for something you have absolutely no control over? Sin is so heinous precisely because sin is an act of the will that we could have done otherwise. So to use the old cliche, "ought implies can." If we ought not sin, that implies that we can not sin (not cannot sin). A final benefit to this view is that it resolves us of the difficult problem of the whole age of accountability/what happens to babies nonsense. Babies haven't sinned, so they haven't been killed spiritually by sin. There's no basis on which to condemn them, a view that is absolutely consistent with the rest of Scripture. In fact, the only doctrine the view I'm proposing requires us to reject is the view that Adam's sin was imputed to each one of us--that's one I reject anyway. Adam's sin was NOT imputed to us. Rather, we inherited his sinful nature, that is, our tendency to sin. Give us long enough, and we'll eventually succumb to it. All of us do. That's the reality we live in.

[PaulSacramento]

This goes back to the notion AND interpretation of "original sin" as Augustine put it.
All have sinned and ALL do Sin and the sin is THE sin - to believe we can do it apart from God, just as Adam and Eve did.
They HAD God and knew him intimately and yet they WANTED and CHOOSE to do "it" apart from God, to "be God".
And every human has done this too, they have believed and even lived parts of their life (if not their whole lives" trying to do it without God.

[jlay]

I don't think you're really addressing my point, jlay. If man has the ability to choose not to sin, then why couldn't he choose to never sin? If he can "choose to choose" Christ and recognize that he's a sinner, why can't he just "not sin"?

Why can't a fish breath air? It's a fish. A sinner is well... a sinner. For a person to do such means they would need to be born with the innate knowledge as to why they should not sin. Not simply knowing in the conscience that it is wrong, but knowing precisely the glorious standard to which they fall short. They would need to be born, well, perfect. Perfect in the sense that they are not in bondage to the sin nature, and desire to be Godly in word, thought and deed. I suppose this could happen if one was born to say a Virgin mother, and conceived by the HS.
Trying to prove a point with an aburd hypothetical isn't going to get far. But since the Bible says that all sin and fall short, I'm going to go with that.

But really, I see you saying that man is a sinner, but you're also affirming that he can choose to follow Christ. But that makes him partially depraved, a "kinda sorta sinner" who can do good things of his own will. But as I've been trying to show, there are problems with this. If man isn't "so depraved" that he can make free will choices that are vehemently opposed to his sin nature, then why can't he always choose to resist his sin nature?

-Of course a person can choose to follow Christ. Why would Christ ask people to follow Him if they couldn't? Why would He ask them to count the cost? But I don't conflate salvation with choosing to follow Christ. Salvation isn't one's personal choice to follow Christ, or do this and don't do that. That is Lordship. Salvation is believing on Christ as savior.
If a person doesn't 'choose' to follow Christ, then why is much of the NT an admonition to do that very thing? Why are believers admonished to do this? How much sense does it make to ask someone to do something they can't volitionally do? Answer: it doesn't.

And, people do chose to resist the sin nature. In fact there are plenty of non-Christian religions that say salvation is based on how good a job you can do resisting the sin nature. People can do good things. The Bible says as much. Romans 2:14,15 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)
This verse isn't about believers. It's about people who were cut off from the promises of God. And it clearly states they can choose good and evil based on their conscience. However, chosing to do good doesn't wash away the sin. It only shows they are culpable and responsible.

If you want to read the link it addresses the verses that 5PC prooftexts for support. For example, one of the most popular is the quotation of Jer. 17:9. The problem? It ignores the context. Particularly Jer. 17:7,10

[BavarianWheels]

Why can't a fish breath air? It's a fish.

Fish breathe the oxygen in water...therefore fish breathe air.
.
.

[narnia4]

I had a longer post ready but instead of breaking things down further maybe it would be wise to step back first.

Jlay-

As far as your first post, I usually don't talk about the demeanor and language in posts because it can easily just be misinterpretations. But any position can be made to sound like some sort of evil if you use certain derogatory terms and "put your own spin" on the phrases in use. Frankly, your two responses on this subject are partly just stating what Calvinism is and replacing words like "Grace" and "election" with phrases like "commodity of faith", and then stating your position with words that sound wonderful and appealing. But this sort of equivocating can easily lead to misrepresentation. I think what you say about Calvinism is basically true in the details, but the beauty and grace and love that is so central to the Gospel is just "left out" so that it sounds like an evil dictator. Its strange, in some ways what you write says what I believe but in other very important ways its completely foreign to me and my understanding of Scripture.

I thought I should specifically address a couple things too in the first post-

Of course the reprobate goes to hell because he is sinner, just as the elect would... were it not for grace.

Atonement is universal. And, the person who goes to Hell, goes to Hell having their sin paid for.

This could be a thread in and of itself. Imo this is what would make the Gospel much less than what it is. Christ's death isn't enough. You need to implicitly (or explicitly, depending on the position) add another step to the process.

Now as far as my argument, its not an absurd hypothetical and I've been surprised by some of the responses so far that seem to really concede the logic of my argument. Jac conceded the main point that I was trying to make and I'll try to respond to that as soon as I can. But again, saying "The Bible says all have sinned!" doesn't prove your case, I stated that right off the bat. I know all have sinned. The question is why and whether the Gospel is what I'll call "necessarily necessary". Apparently the majority opinion here is that it really isn't so long as man doesn't sin. It may be a one in a trillion trillion chance, but its logically possible that a person who never heard of Christ could choose to never sin. Imo this is what opens things up to a "works based salvation" in the first place.

When I get a chance I'll try to expound further (I'm going on a fishing trip in Canada soon so I might not have a chance for anything other than a couple short replies before then), but my position is that there really is something at a "baser level" about man that makes him sinful. Total depravity. That man is truly blind and truly dead. How does someone who denies total depravity reconcile their position with these analogies? How does a blind person choose the right path, how does a dead person say "I will believe in Christ"? My position is that they can't, and I haven't seen anyone post anything to make me otherwise. Rather, I would describe the non-Reformed position as one in which man isn't actually dead or isn't actually blind.
In other words, Pelagianism except in a few minute details. So maybe what's left to do is see if Pelagianism is a viable option, or is the force of my argument here still being denied?

[RickD]

Why can't a fish breath air? It's a fish.

Fish breathe the oxygen in water...therefore fish breathe air.
.
.

False, Bav. Fish breathe the oxygen that is dissolved in the water. Air is a mixture of gases. Made up of approximately 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, plus other gases.

So no, fish do not breathe "air".

How do fish breathe?

[narnia4]

Couple little things.

Here's a quote from Bavinck on semi-pelagianism-

According to semi-Pelagianism, the consequences of Adam’s fall consisted for him and his descendants, aside from death, primarily in the weakening of moral strength. Though there is actually no real original sin in the sense of guilt, there is a hereditary malady: as a result of Adam’s fall, humanity has become morally sick; the human will has been weakened and is inclined to evil. There has originated in humans a conflict between “flesh” and “spirit” that makes it impossible for a person to live without sin; but humans can will the good, and when they do, grace comes to their assistance in accomplishing it. This is the position adopted by the Greek church; and although in the West Augustine exerted strong influence, the [Western] church increasingly strayed toward semi-Pelagianism.

Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Vol 3, pg. 90

To put it shortly, my argument is basically that either man is totally depraved (and total depravity entails other things as well, including "probably" the other 4 points of TULIP) or else he simply has a tendency, an inclination, to sin. Or you could put it a little stronger and say a proclivity. Does anyone disagree with this?

So maybe not Pelagianism, but semi-pelagianism. I think Jac's post is heading in the general direction I was thinking of, but I want to make sure there's some understanding here between us. In fact, I think the quote above expresses Jac's view, almost to a tee.

Also, while its not a big deal, but for clarity's sake I think we should say that Jac and jlay and Paul (who I agree with when he says that original sin could definitely be a big part of this discussion) do reject TD as the term is actually used by Calvinists AND (for the most part) Arminians. Anyone object to that?

There's a lot to think about, original sin and imputed righteousness (and imputed sin) and loads of other issues, its fun to talk about (and challenging). Trying to wait on posting so that I don't clutter things up and can find a way to compact my thoughts and address the points here.

[jlay]

As far as your first post, I usually don't talk about the demeanor and language in posts because it can easily just be misinterpretations. But any position can be made to sound like some sort of evil if you use certain derogatory terms and "put your own spin" on the phrases in use. Frankly, your two responses on this subject are partly just stating what Calvinism is and replacing words like "Grace" and "election" with phrases like "commodity of faith", and then stating your position with words that sound wonderful and appealing.

Just what exactly is offensive about commodity? I think it is actually a very fair way to speak of 5PC. Faith, in 5PC is not one's volitional belief, but faith itself is, for lack of a better word, a commodity, like grace, given by God to the elect. Just what do you disagree with here? This is essential to the doctirne of TD. If man must have saving faith, (and he must) and man is incapable of contributing in anyway, volitionally, to his regeneration, then what exactly is faith? It certainly (in 5PC) isn't man's volitional response to the Gospel message.

Apparently the majority opinion here is that it really isn't so long as man doesn't sin. It may be a one in a trillion trillion chance, but its logically possible that a person who never heard of Christ could choose to never sin. Imo this is what opens things up to a "works based salvation" in the first place.

I don't think you've proven that at all, logically. It seems your trying to create a scenario that supports your position, but doesn't really hold up. Just take the phrase, "chose to never sin." As I said, the conditions for someone to do such would require an innate understanding of sin in regards to how it relates us to God, and therefore that person would understand sin as it relates to enmity or peace with God. A true biblical understanding. Who starts with this? Afterall, sin has very little meaning apart from the knowledge of the biblical God, and if one has that knowledge to pursue righteousness completey in word, thought and deed, then they have something far beyond what man has been afforded in his conscience alone. Righteousness is not by accident, and certainly not by the accident of a sinner. But in your scenario, it could be. And therefore it fails to logically represent.

The doctrine of TD seems to require that man be depraved of even a conscience. That is man is incapable of descerning right from wrong. Of course that is counter to scripture. When Ninevah repented and turned from their evil, they did so because God moved. He sent a message. One that illuminated Ninevah and carried life if received, and death if rejected. God had already provided pardon. Now, 5PC would have that Ninevah was incapable under their own volition to hear the warnings of God, and decide, "Let everyone call urgently on God. Let them give up their evil ways and their violence. 9 Who knows? God may yet relent and with compassion turn from his fierce anger so that we will not perish.”" (Jonah 3:8,9)

This could be a thread in and of itself. Imo this is what would make the Gospel much less than what it is. Christ's death isn't enough. You need to implicitly (or explicitly, depending on the position) add another step to the process.

You can call it steps, I don't have a problem with that. But, it doesn't matter if that is what is decreed in the sovereign will of God. If God has decreed that man is to respond in faith in Christ, then so be it. As far as the Gospel being less, then prove it. Saying so, isn't an argument.

That man is truly blind and truly dead. How does someone who denies total depravity reconcile their position with these analogies? How does a blind person choose the right path, how does a dead person say "I will believe in Christ"?

Is the Gospel light? I wouldn't so much say men are blind, (incapable of seeing) but are blind in darkness (unable to see without light) A man in darkness is blind until a source of light is revealed. John 3:19-20, Romans 2:19

My position is that they can't, and I haven't seen anyone post anything to make me otherwise.

The answer is the Gospel. It is the power of salvation. If the work of the law is written on the heart, then why wouldn't the Gospel have power to speak to the heart of man?

Pelagianism. Whatever. Get over it. No one is saying that man is the source of his own light. I'd rather spend my efforts exhalting Christ than try to dig a deeper hole for man to stand in.

[Jac3510]

Narnia, you are right that I reject TP in the popular sense of the word.

Again, though, I would caution you against trying to label people with terms like "Pelagian" or "semi-Pelagian" for three reasons:

1) Labels don't matter. Unless you believe that the Church has the authority to announce heresy and bind people thereby to reject it, it doesn't matter. Something isn't right or wrong on account of such labels.

2) Just because someone holds an idea that another system happens to hold doesn't make a person an adherent of that system. So in the case of semi-pelagianism, I'd reject the claim because it is essential to the system that, while man makes the "first move" (so to speak) in believing, God goes on to protect and foster that faith thereby guaranteeing salvation. In that regard, the Final Perseverance of the Saints is more like semi-pelagianism than anything I hold to (which is doubly important as I reject FPS). Others could find ideas they disagree with in such systems as well.

3) It tends to oversimplify the systems you are talking about. Semi-pelagianism is a very nuanced school of thought, where the real debate isn't between having a tendency or proclivity to sin vs. having a nature that must sin, but rather it between whether or not man can act apart from the grace of God (and that defined in Augustinian terms!) with reference to his salvation. For those of us who would reject the Augustinian notion of grace (and, for that matter, faith), there's just no useful way you can call us semi-pelagian. And whatever disservice you do to us, you do just as much to actual semi-pelagians (past and present), as you would be equating their beliefs with our own; and I have no doubt real semi-pelagians would have serious problems with what all of us have said!

I'm not saying you are intentionally doing any of that. I've argued on other forums that my own soteriology might well be unacceptable to Roman Catholics for the same reasons that semi-pelagianism is. But that's a far cry from claiming semi-pelagianism myself. Again, I'll let others speak for themselves on the matter, but that's my own two cents.

[narnia4]

I'm not intending to project an entire framework onto anyone and I don't believe I ever called anyone a Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian. What I'm trying to do is clarify the positions here as far as the nature of sin and accepting or rejecting TD, all of those things. I took a quote and found a lot of similarities in what semi-pelagians believe on this particular issue with what the folks here are saying. And that's all I'm trying to do.

jlay, I can't help but feel as if you sound like you're angry at something with the "get over it" type comments. For that reason I'm going to restrain from responding to the bulk of it for now in order to avoid any sort of emotionalism and anger creeping into the debate on either of our parts. I did simplify my point to this, and I'll repeat it-

To put it shortly, my argument is basically that either man is totally depraved (and total depravity entails other things as well, including "probably" the other 4 points of TULIP) or else he simply has a tendency, an inclination, to sin. Or you could put it a little stronger and say a proclivity. Does anyone disagree with this?