What is Total Depravity?
This is one of the 5-Points of TULIP Calvinism.
One Calvinist explains: “If you want to study the T.U.L.I.P., try starting with the foundation, Total Depravity, and then work your way through the doctrines. Starting with Election is the surest way to get everything about Calvinism wrong....” (emphasis mine)
Calvinist, Erwin Lutzer, writes: “Why, then, is one person saved and another lost? The Arminian says the difference is to be found in man. … The Calvinist says that the difference is in God, for all men are equally in bondage to sin. Any differences in disposition is due to his work in the human heart. Thus since some are saved, it must be that God has elected them.” (The Doctrines That Divide, pp.180-181, emphasis mine)
First, in terms of the first quote, TULIP Calvinism is built upon the Calvinist doctrine of Unconditional Election, or perhaps for some Calvinists, it is built upon the premise of an immutable “decree,” in which God has allegedly scripted, as if writing a book, whatsoever will ever come to pass. That’s called Determinism.
Yes, Arminians do contend that the “difference” in why one person goes to Heaven and another goes to Hell, does depend upon the individual, because Arminians believe that God has already made His choice, and His decision is that He wants all men to repent, believe and become saved (1st Timothy 2:4; 2nd Peter 3:9), and has provided Calvary as the provision for salvation, and the Gospel as the means to receive Him. One example of “choices determining consequences” is 1st Corinthians 10:13. God promises to provide the grace to escape temptation, and thus He has already made His decision, and the reason why one person takes the way of escape, while another does not, depends upon the individual.
It is foolish for Calvinists to build a system of theology upon the premise of Total Depravity. Essentially, the system dictates that since man is totally depraved, he has no interest in the Gospel, and therefore, for anyone to become saved, God must implant an Irresistible Grace, and only those who are “elect” from before the foundation of the world, in the secret, eternal flock of the Father, are designated to receive such a grace. The problem is that by starting with man’s inability, the system is made into one big sand-castle. For what if God, through the conviction of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8; Acts 26:14), the seeking and knocking of Jesus (Luke 19:10; Revelation 3:20), and the power of the living and active Gospel (Romans 1:16; Romans 10:17; Hebrews 4:12) is able to enable an unregenerate person to receive Him? That’s why you would absolutely never want to start with man’s inability, but instead, always start with God’s ability. Calvinists would therefore need to decide whether they believe that God has the ability to overcome man’s depravity without having to resort to an Irresistible Grace, but just opts not to use it, or whether the whole thing really is beyond God’s ability. The latter position supposes a weakness in God, while the former position supposes a prerogative of God, but at the cost of conceding the potential of the Arminian argument on Prevenient Grace.