Narnia,
Again, just to be direct, I absolutely reject the Calvinist doctrine of TD. It makes too many assumptions about the nature of faith and the nature of grace that I just disagree with. You might as well ask me if I've stopped beating my wife yet.
As to your argument specifically:
- 1. Man is either totally depraved or he is not.
2. If man is not totally depraved, he can choose not to sin.
3. If man can choose not to sin, it is possible that he could choose to never sin.
4. If a man could choose to never sin, that man would not need Christ.
5. All men have (and will) fallen short of the glory of God and needs Christ.
6. Therefore man could NOT choose to never sin.
7. Therefore, man is totally depraved.
I have several problems with this.
First, (2) is problematic. If you look carefully, you'll notice that you are starting arguing (from absurdity, I assume) a consequence of TD being false. The implied argument is this:
a) If ~TD, man can choose ~sin.
b) ~(man can choose ~sin)
c) :. ~(~TD) = TD
Of course, (b) here is really what you are trying to demonstrate through the rest of the argument, but leave that aside for a moment. The problem is that you have not demonstrated, but rather assumed, this premise:
a') If TD, ~(man can choose ~sin)
In other words, you may be right that if TD is false, I can choose to not sin. But it may also be that if TD is true, I can still choose to not sin. If that premise is true, then the rest of your argument fails (assuming the absurdity you reach is really absurd). So you have more work to do in that you must prove that on TD, I cannot choose not to sin. But that's a rather extreme position, because it is clear that the non-elect, and the unsaved in general (e.g., the elect not yet saved, temporally speaking), at times choose not to sin. The only way to maintain the argument, I submit, would be to argue that every single non-sinful act we do, we do only because God enabled it. But that just seems absurd--that the unsaved person chooses not to murder his boss because God so enabled him, etc. That, in my mind, makes a mockery of the whole notion that we ought to resist temptation!
Anyway, to continue on . . .
I think (3) is true, but again, I think TD proponents are going to have the same "problem." In fact, I think TDs have their own problem here with regard to believers. Presumably, you would say that believers can choose not to sin (perhaps by the indwelling of the HS). Therefore, by your argument, believers can choose never to sin. It is, of course, evident, both experimentally and biblically, that none of us do that (see 1 John 1:8-10). So what is the difference in the unsaved who chooses to sin and the saved who chooses to sin and the unsaved who chooses not to sin and the saved who chooses not to sin? There are other implications for this, but I'll mention them later, as they really have to do with the internal consistency of your argument later.
(4) is the really serious problem, though, because it just doesn't follow. Why would we not "need Christ" if we chose never to sin? Part of not sinning is not calling God a liar, so it is logically impossible to fail to believe that Jesus is the Christ and not sin; indeed, to fail to believe the Gospel is to sin, since it makes God a liar. What you would have to actually say here is NOT that a man does not need Christ, but rather than if any person ever chose never to sin, then Christ would not have had to come. And that would actually be true. But the fact is, the moment ANYONE in history sins, if Christ wants to save him, then by God's decree, Christ must come. And, Christ coming, the one choosing never to sin must believe in Christ (lest he sin).
In fact, I think this is actually really the case. Are you aware that up to 20% of all children die of miscarriage? If we accept that life begins at conception--and I certainly do--then it is evident that these children never sinned. For what, then, would they be condemned to Hell? And for which of their sins did Christ die? They had no sin for Christ to die
for. It is theoretically possible that Jesus could have never come and God could have just raised all of us from the dead and condemned every person who ever sinned to Hell. That would, however, leave over 20% of the population that never sinned. What would he condemn them for? On my view, there would be no reason for Him to do so. So God could still save untold millions of people without sending Christ. But because He loved those of us who did sin (which includes me and you), everyone else must accept the truth of the Gospel to be saved. So, again, I just see it as false to say that if a person never chooses to sin, then they do not need Christ. The proper theological statement would be that if a person never chooses to sin, then Christ can save at least that person without having come to earth. But since Christ did come to earth to save sinners, the premise fails, since the theoretical person who chooses not to sin needs Christ exactly insofar as He needs to believe Christ to not sin.
(5) is odd in your argument, because it shifts the mood. In 1-4, you are dealing with hypotheticals. Frankly, I just don't see how it fits. It seems that what you really wanted to do here was to deny the consequent of (4), and say, "But all men do need Christ, because all men sinned." And then trace the reductio back up. So it ought to be rendered as follows:
- 4. If a man could choose to never sin, that man would not need Christ.
5'. But it is not the case that a man would not need Christ (that is, all men need Christ)
6. Therefore man could NOT choose to never sin.
7. Therefore, man is totally depraved.
But phrased this way, it is evident the problem with (4) discussed above becomes clearer. It is not obvious that just because all men need Christ they therefore cannot choose not to sin (which is the necessary logical framing your argument: If P then Q; ~Q; :.~P).
This takes me to the problem of consistency I discussed above. As we look at (6), if believers can choose not to sin (which I presume you accept is true), then (6) is problematic, too. For 1 John 1:8-10 makes it clear that believers sin, just as Romans 3 makes it clear that all people do sin. Now, it seems you take the assertion that all men sin in Romans 3 to speak to our basic constitution (that is, to require TD). That is, you are reading it in a theological sense of, "Because TD is true, everyone necessarily sins and falls short . . ." But that leaves unexplained 1 John 1:8-10. For you can't say, "Because TD is true, all Christians necessarily sin," since I presume you agree that Christians do not NECESSARILY sin. Now, perhaps you do think that Christians necessarily sin, but I think that creates serious problems elsewhere (since the Bible says clearly that God always provides a way out of sin). But I assume that you take 1 John 1:8-10 to be stating a
practical reality--that is, that it is just the case that we all choose to sin, even though we don't have, too. But if you can read 1 John 1:8-10 that way, then there seems to be no reason that you cannot read Romans 3:23 in the same way, and therefore, there seems to be no necessary theological requirement for TD.
So for all of these reasons, I think your argument fails. In fact, I think it demonstrates some very serious problems with TD and offers some very good reasons as to why I reject the doctrine entirely.
