Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
History and Religion
Reply to a Calvinist Defender of Total Depravity

Reply to a Calvinist Defender of Total Depravity

Last updated on: June 13, 2026 at 1:10 pm by Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Reply to a Calvinist Defender of Total Depravity 2026-06-13T13:10:08-04:00 Dave Armstrong

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

His words are in blockquotes below, time-stamped to the video, so you can find each one.

*****

A REFORMED, BIBLICAL RESPONSE TO: “Total Depravity DEBUNKED by the Bible!”

What Burchard and Armstrong are attacking is not the Reformed doctrine of total depravity, but a caricature of it. Total depravity does not mean that fallen humans are as evil as they could possibly be, nor that unbelievers are incapable of any outwardly good or morally praiseworthy actions, nor that God’s image is erased. It means that the fall has affected the whole person (mind, will, affections), so that no part of us is spiritually neutral toward God, and that apart from regenerating grace we cannot perform any act that is spiritually pleasing to God (Rom 8:7–8; Heb 11:6; 1 Cor 2:14).

As I wrote in the combox, this is a critique of a 28-minute presentation: half of which was spontaneous, unplanned discussion (I write out the first part beforehand). Obviously, that’s not a full treatment of (I agree) a complex topic. I linked in the description to a lengthy article of mine on the topic, that is drawn from a 29-page chapter in my book, Biblical Catholic Salvation (also linked in the description), written in 2010. There I go into much greater depth, citing lots of Hodge and Calvin and a ton of Scripture, as always. I quoted Hodge:

By total depravity, is not meant that all men are equally wicked; nor that any man is as thoroughly corrupt as it is possible for a man to be; nor that men are destitute of all moral virtues. The Scriptures recognize the fact, which experience abundantly confirms, that men, to a greater or less degree, are honest in dealings, kind in their feelings, and beneficent in their conduct. Even the heathen, the Apostle teaches us, do by nature the things of the law.

I alluded briefly to this sort of thing in the second half of the video. But this shows that it’s nothing new to me. There are still many statements in Hodge and Calvin that are expressly contradictory to biblical statements and examples, as I will demonstrate as we proceed.

Their key move is to cite Old Testament kings who “sought the Lord” and “did what was right,” and then argue: “See? Therefore total depravity is false, because unregenerate people can seek God and do spiritual good.”

Hodge wrote (we quoted this in the video) that fallen, carnal men had “lost all ability to perform what is spiritually good” and “are utterly unable to . . . do anything truly good in his sight . . .” So a lot of the discussion hinges on how Calvinists define “spiritual good” and “truly good.” Hodge also wrote (we cited this, too): “no unrenewed man . . . seeks after God; . . .The apostasy from God is total or complete. . . . They are destitute of any principle of spiritual life.” You cite Paul later on in your reply:

“None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God.” (Rom 3:10–11). Thus, by any account, things are very bleak in the “total depravity world.” When it suits your purpose you’re quite willing to universalize this depravity and make out that there are few if any exceptions to it. But Paul is vastly misunderstood. I wrote about thirty years ago:

We see Jewish idiom and hyperbole . . . We observe [this] dynamic in the Psalms:

Psalm 14:2-3 The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any that act wisely, that seek after God. [3] They have all gone astray, they are all alike corrupt; there is none that does good, [Hebrew, tob] no not one. (cf. 53:1-3; Paul cites this in Rom 3:10-12)

Yet in the immediately preceding Psalm, David proclaims, “I have trusted in thy steadfast love” (13:5), which certainly is “seeking” after God! And in the very next he refers to “He who walk blamelessly, and does what is right” (15:2). Even two verses later (14:5) he writes that “God is with the generation of the righteous.” In the very next verse (14:4) David refers to “the evildoers who eat up my people.” Now, if he is contrasting the evildoers with His people, then obviously, he is not meaning to imply that everyone is evil, and that there are no righteous. So obviously his lament in 14:2-3 is an indignant hyperbole and not intended as a literal utterance.

The word “righteous” appears in the book of Proverbs 68 times, and “righteousness” 19 times, but we should interpret literally the passage, “there is none that does good, no, not one” (Ps 14:3; cf. 53:3)? Indeed, the very next Psalm is entirely devoted to “good people”:

Psalm 15:1-5 O LORD, who shall sojourn in thy tent? Who shall dwell on thy holy hill? [2] He who walks blamelessly, and does what is right, and speaks truth from his heart; [3] who does not slander with his tongue, and does no evil to his friend, nor takes up a reproach against his neighbor; [4] in whose eyes a reprobate is despised, but who honors those who fear the LORD; who swears to his own hurt and does not change; [5] who does not put out his money at interest, and does not take a bribe against the innocent. He who does these things shall never be moved.

Such remarks are common to Hebrew poetic idiom. The anonymous psalmist in 112:5-6 refers to the “righteous” (Heb. tob), as does the book of Proverbs repeatedly: using the words “righteous” or “good” (11:23; 12:2; 13:22; 14:14, 19), using the same word, tob, which appears in Psalm 14:2-3. References to righteous men are innumerable (e.g., Job 17:9; 22:19; Ps 5:12; 32:11; 34:15; 37:16, 32; Mt 9:13; 13:17; 25:37, 46; Rom 5:19; Heb 11:4; Jas 5:16; 1 Pet 3:12; 4:18, etc.). . . .

The key in all this is to understand biblical language properly in context. It’s not always literal.

Psalm 53 provides another similar example, almost identical to Psalm 14:

Psalm 53:1-3 The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, doing abominable iniquity; there is none that does good. [2] God looks down from heaven upon the sons of men to see if there are any that are wise, that seek after God. [3] They have all fallen away; they are all alike depraved; there is none that does good, no, not one.

All the same elements are present: it starts with a reference to atheists or agnostics, then moves on to ostensibly “universal” language, which is seen to admit of exceptions once context is considered. As in Psalm 14, there is the following contrast in the next verse:

Psalm 53:4 Have those who work evil no understanding, who eat up my people as they eat bread, and do not call upon God?

And like Psalm 14, we see other proximate Psalms refer to the “righteous” or “godly” (e.g., 52:1, 6, 9; 55:22; 58:10-11). David himself eagerly seeks God in Psalms 51, 52:8-9, 54, 55, 56, 57, 61, 62, 63, etc. Obviously, then, it is not the case that “no one” whatsoever seeks God. It is Hebrew hyperbole and exaggeration to make a point. We must keep in mind that this is poetic language in the first place. Therefore, it is fairly clear that there are plenty of righteous people to go around.

In Psalms, “righteous” (in the KJV) appears 65 times, and “righteousness” 47 times. Isaiah has one or other of these words 55 times, Ezekiel: 32, Jeremiah: 13, Job: 16, Ecclesiastes: ten, Daniel: seven, Amos: five, Habakkuk: three, Hosea: two, Lamentations: once, Malachi: twice, Zechariah: once, etc. That’s a total of 346 times in the prophets and the “writings”, not even counting the narratives and the Pentateuch, or the deuterocanonical books (where there are quite a few also).

But the Calvinist will find a few verses of hyperbole and typical Hebrew hyper-exaggerated compare and contrast and conclude that the overwhelming consensus of the other instances must all be interpreted in light of the few: wrongly regarded as literal. They don’t even abide by one of their own supposedly key hermeneutical principles (that is a useful one across the board for all Bible readers): interpret less clear biblical passages in light of more clear related cross-references.

Many of the people of Judah in the reign of King Asa, even determined that anyone who didn’t seek God would be put to death! So what did they do: commit mass suicide, like the Jonestown cult, because no one is righteous, and no one did or could seek God?:

2 Chronicles 15:12-13 And they entered into a covenant to seek the LORD, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and with all their soul; [13] and that whoever would not seek the LORD, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman.

In the Old Testament in RSV, “the righteous” appears 129 times, “the wicked” 257 times. But hey, that’s not a bad percentage, given the perspective of total depravity. Between the two concepts, almost exactly one-third referred to righteous people. Yet according to you, per a false reading of Paul, “None is righteous, no, not one; . . . no one seeks for God.” You apparently take that hyper-literally, against all contextual arguments. Yet “seek the Lord” appears 29 times in the Old Testament; “sought the Lord” another six, “seek me” (God speaking) ten times.

This will be long, but only because the video is confidently wrong at multiple levels—biblical, historical, and theological. When an error is layered, it takes more than a soundbite to untangle it.

I know the feeling very well! I do this for a living, after all. I much prefer “long” to the one-line or one verse non sequitur slogans that I’ve been receiving from some 95% of Protestants who comment in my venues. You know how to make a sustained argument, so I heartily commend you for it. Whether you are right, is another question, of course!

I’m going to be thorough here, because the claims made in this video are not minor misunderstandings; they touch the very structure of the biblical doctrine of sin and grace.

Well, we’ll see about that.

The video collapses several crucial biblical distinctions:

Regeneration Is Not Identical with Possessing the Full NT Gospel.

They argue: “They hadn’t heard the gospel yet, so they couldn’t be regenerated.”

I didn’t just pull that out of a hat. There is a basis for it. The Calvinist site, Ligonier Ministries (R. C. Sproul’s group) has an article entitled, “What happens to people who never hear the gospel?” In it, two men try to work out one of the many thorny difficulties of Calvinism that can never be resolved:

I think there are certain things that you have to say, such as there is no salvation apart from Christ. . . . “I am the way, the truth, and the life, and no man comes to the Father but by Me” (John 14:6). The positive of that exclusivity is that there is an absolute imperative upon us to take the gospel to every people group. This burden ought to weigh heavily upon us. There should be an urgency to take the gospel to as many people as is humanly possible. . . .

Sometimes our instincts say, “Surely, God is a merciful God,” and that He is sort of overlooking the unevangelized or making accommodation for them. I think this is where our instincts want to go because we believe this is a better portrayal of God somehow or that this is a better God who is more commendable. When we move in that direction, however, we’re moving into what theologians sometimes call “inclusivism,” which is a movement away from “exclusivism.” The idea of John 14:6, Acts 4:12, and Romans 10 is that faith in Jesus Christ alone is the only means to have our sins forgiven and for us to be delivered from the wrath of a holy God. That is exclusivism. . . .

I am talking about inclusivism, that there is one true God, and there are multiple ways to find Him, which may be outside of faith in Jesus Christ and outside of the explicit preaching of the gospel. [my italics] Again, I think people go there because they believe this is a better God to commend. I think we have to be very careful of that temptation. We must start by saying that God is as He revealed Himself.

So according to this reputable Calvinist ministry, not only are men not regenerated, but not saved, unless they hear “the explicit preaching of the gospel.” Yet if I note that this is Calvinist teaching, you accuse me of fighting straw men and improperly “collapsing” categories. Sounds like you better go over to the folks at Ligonier and set them straight. But I know that at least some do.

The famous Calvinist preacher and evangelist Charles Spurgeon stated in his sermon, “What I Believe About Regeneration,” the following:

Men are not usually saved without the immediate agency of the gospel. Some have said that the Spirit of God always works through the truth, and that the truth is sure to work conviction. The truth, however, is preached, and faithfully preached, to tens of thousands, to whom it conveys not a blessing at all, but is the savor of death unto death. Others have said that the Spirit of God regenerates men apart from the Word of God but this is not told us in Scripture, and is not therefore to be received.

It looks, however, like Charles Hodge doesn’t hold this view:

No Christian, whether Romanist or Protestant, believes that all who hear the Gospel are saved; that it is always the vehicle of conveying the saving and sanctifying influences of the Spirit. (Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, § 12. Efficacy of Baptism. Doctrine of the Reformed Churches., p. 603)

But he may still think it is overwhelmingly the norm, with some exceptions. I don’t know how many Calvinists take this view of “having to hear the gospel to be saved.” That’s for you to figure out and report back to us. No Catholic or any human being can ever conceptualize the endless internal differences and contradictions and theological chaos of Protestantism as a whole. The Calvinists disagree with each other, too. Ho hum. What else is new?

That is simply false biblically. Abraham, David, Asa, Jehoshaphat, etc., were saved by grace through faith in the promises of God (Rom 4; Heb 11), even without the full clarity of later revelation. Regeneration is the work of the Spirit, not dependent on possessing a completed New Testament canon.

Yeah, that’s what Catholics and most Protestants believe: whoever is saved, whenever, is saved by God’s grace. The OT Jews believed that as well. Protestants — and no doubt some Catholics, too — have been misrepresenting their views for 500 years. But now the Protestant movement, “New Perspective on Paul” is setting the record straight. Bravo!

So when Scripture says Jehoshaphat “set his heart to seek God” (2 Chr 19:3), the Reformed answer is not embarrassment; it is straightforward: Yes — because God’s grace was already at work in him.

I concede that he was not the best example. I saw the part about God’s wrath, but it appears that it was more like temporal punishment for sin, as in the case of David. So that argument may well be a failure. See, I have no problem admitting if I made an error. But I don’t think all my examples collapse. King Uzziah “did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, . . . He set himself to seek God . . . (2 Chr 26:4-5), but then “he grew proud, to his destruction. For he was false to the LORD his God . . . ” (2 Chron 26:16).

He must have been regenerated to seek God in the first place, because Hodge said so. But if he was, he couldn’t have fallen away, per perseverance of the saints. So it’s the same old problem as always, when we have someone who clearly was in the fold, and fell away. If Uzziah was saved in the end, again there is no text whatsoever that would indicate such a thing.

A better case can be made for the possible damnation of Solomon (St. Augustine apparently thought that he was). The Bible states:

1 Kings 11:4-6, 9-10 (RSV) For when Solomon was old his wives turned away his heart after other gods; and his heart was not wholly true to the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father. [5] For Solomon went after Ash’toreth the goddess of the Sido’nians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. [6] So Solomon did what was evil in the sight of the LORD, and did not wholly follow the LORD, as David his father had done. . . . [9] And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart had turned away from the LORD, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice, [10] and had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods; but he did not keep what the LORD commanded.

1 Kings 11:33 . . . he has forsaken me, and worshiped Ash’toreth the goddess of the Sido’nians, Chemosh the god of Moab, and Milcom the god of the Ammonites, and has not walked in my ways, doing what is right in my sight and keeping my statutes and my ordinances, as David his father did.

If indeed he fell away and was damned, that wouldn’t be possible, under Calvinist premises. He couldn’t have followed God at all or given his heart to him. He couldn’t have “forsaken” God if he had never followed Him in the first place. In 2 Samuel 7:14 God said, “I will be his father, and he shall be my son.”

But the Old Testament is too vague about eternal destinies of people. It seems much more clear in these passages of Hebrews:

Hebrews 6:4-6 For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, [5] and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, [6] if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt.

Hebrews 10:26-29 For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, [27] but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries. [28] A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses. [29] How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?

Hebrews 10:38-39 “but my righteous one shall live by faith, and if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him.” [39] But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and keep their souls.

I’ve collected 150 Bible passages about falling away / apostasy.

Total depravity does not deny that God can and does regenerate people before Pentecost.

I don’t think I claimed that it did. Again, there is a strain of thought among at least some Calvinists that would suggest most OT people went to hell. The people from Ligonier said that one must hear the gospel preached, so that presents quite a problem before our Lord Jesus Christ lived on earth.

‘“Seeking God” in a Covenant Context’ — isn’t the same as ‘Natural Ability’

In Chronicles, “seeking the Lord” is covenantal language, not philosophical anthropology. Israel is God’s chosen nation, living under special revelation, sacrifices, prophets, and promises. To infer from this that fallen humanity as such has native spiritual ability is to ignore the redemptive-historical setting. Paul’s universal statement still stands:

“There is none who seeks for God.” (Rom 3:11)

So here we go again with this lack of understanding of hyperbole.

**Paul is not unaware of Chronicles. He is interpreting it. Any seeking that occurs is the result of prior divine grace, not autonomous human initiative (cf. Ps 80:18; Lam 5:21).

Yeah, no problem there. The real problem is in the assertion of universal total depravity in light of the hundreds of Bible passages that refer to the righteous and folks seeking God, etc.

Total Depravity Does Not Mean Inability to Do Civil or Relative Good.

Armstrong keeps saying: “Calvinism says you can’t do any good whatsoever.”

I qualified and clarified this in the video, in perfect harmony with my 16-year-old article, saying that Calvinists’ view of unregenerated persons doing “good” things is that there had to be some problem with any good act, that it wasn’t perfectly good or had a wrong motive, etc. So you’re barking up the wrong tree again.

But Hodge and Calvin explicitly distinguish:

—Civil good (justice, kindness, discipline, love of family), and

—Spiritual good (acts arising from faith, aimed at God’s glory).

Yep, as I explained in 2010.

As Calvin says, unbelievers may produce “admirable deeds” in society, but they do not arise from a heart reconciled to God. Romans 14:23 remains decisive: “Whatever is not from faith is sin.”

I think Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers rightly explains the passage:

This is intended as a general principle, but only as a general principle covering this particular kind of case. Where the conscience is in doubt, faith alone can make it right to choose the side against which conscience inclines. Nothing is said about those cases in which conscience is either not appealed to at all, or approves what is done. Hence St. Augustine was wrong in arguing from this passage that even good actions, when done by unbelievers, were of the nature of sin.

Likewise, Pulpit Commentary:

Faith here denotes an assured belief that what one does is right; . . . Hence to see in it (as has been done) the doctrine of the sinfulness of all works done apart from faith in Christ is to introduce an idea that is not there.

And Henry Alford, in his Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary:

That ‘faith in the Son of God’ by which the Apostle describes his own life in the flesh as being lived (Galatians 2:20), informing and penetrating the motives and the conscience, will not include, will not sanction, an act done against the testimony of the conscience): but (introducing an axiom, as Hebrews 8:13) all that is not from (grounded in, and therefore consonant with) faith (the great element in which the Christian lives and moves and desires and hopes), is sin. . . . Here the Apostle has in view two Christians, both living by faith, and by faith doing acts pleasing to God: and he reminds them that whatever they do out of harmony with this great principle of their spiritual lives, belongs to the category of sin.

So when Asa reforms worship, destroys idols, and later sins in pride, none of this contradicts total depravity. It illustrates it: even regenerate people remain deeply fallen and dependent on grace.

Perseverance Is Misrepresented…

They argue: “If Asa fell, Calvinism collapses.” But the text never says Asa lost saving faith. It says he acted foolishly, relied on Syria, and later failed to seek the Lord. Scripture frequently rebukes true believers severely (David, Solomon, Peter). Perseverance means God preserves His elect in saving faith, not that they never commit serious sin or undergo temporal judgment.

Well, I concede that we can’t seem to determine for sure with some of these kings whether they fell away and were damned. So their behavior can possibly be reconciled with Calvinism. But this is not misrepresenting perseverance; it would be a wrong application of it, if you are correct. That’s two different things. I haven’t misrepresented the doctrine. If in fact any of these kings fell away, it would contradict irresistible grace and final perseverance.

“Totally Deprived” vs. “Totally Depraved” Is a False Dichotomy.

The Catholic slogan: “Not totally depraved, but ‘totally deprived of grace’.” sounds pious but dodges Paul’s diagnosis: “Dead in trespasses and sins… by nature children of wrath… unable to submit to God’s law.” (Eph 2; Rom 8) Death is not mere disconnection; it is *inability*. A lamp unplugged can still shine if reconnected. A corpse cannot decide to plug itself back in. Prevenient grace in Trent still leaves the decisive movement *in the human will*. Reformed theology insists Scripture places the decisive movement in God’s sovereign, life-giving act (John 6:44; 1:13; Eph 2:5; Acts 16:14).

We don’t disagree that mankind is fallen and dead. That’s why we believe in the necessity of baptismal regeneration and justification. Our disagreement is on the finer points and how bad the fall is in relation to the good that men can still manage to do. The Catholic view is clearly explicated by theologian Ludwig Ott:

The Reformers . . . admitted the reality of original sin, but misunderstood its essence its operation, since they regarded it as identical with concupiscence which corrupts completely human nature . . .

Original Sin does not consist, as the Reformers . . . taught, in ‘The habitual concupiscence, which remains, even in the baptised, a true and proper sin, but is no longer reckoned for punishment.’ The Council of Trent teaches that through Baptism everything is taken away which is a true and proper sin, and that the concupiscence which remains behind after Baptism for the moral proving is called sin in an improper sense only. That sin remains in man, even if it is not reckoned for punishment, is irreconcilable with the Pauline teaching of Justification as an inner transformation and renewal . . .

The wounding of nature must not be conceived, with the Reformers and the Jansenists, as the complete corruption of human nature. In the condition of Original Sin, man possesses the ability of knowing natural religious truths and of performing natural morally good actions . . . Man, with his natural power of cognition, can with certainty know the existence of God. The Council of Trent teaches that free will was not lost or extinguished by the fall of Adam. (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma [Rockford, Illinois: TAN Books, 1974; originally 1952], translated by Patrick Lynch, 108, 110, 112-113)

Both sides agree generally on original sin: the doctrine that all human beings were affected by the fall of man and fell “in” Adam. It was a corporate rebellion that all of mankind took part in. This can be found in passages such as Psalm 51:5; Romans 5:12-19; and 1 Corinthians 15:22. The dominion of the devil is a result of original sin; it caused a catastrophic cosmic disorder (Gen 3:15; Jn 12:31; 14:30; 2 Cor 4:4; 2 Pet 2:19; Heb 2:14). That’s why theological dissidents (both in the Protestant and Catholic camps) who deny original sin (if not sin itself) invariably deny the existence of the devil (and sometimes even evil itself).

The Deeper Problem: Confusing Moral Language with Soteriological Ability.

The kings are praised morally within Israel’s history. Paul is analyzing humanity’s spiritual incapacity before a holy God. These are different levels of discourse. The real question is not: “Can fallen people perform admirable acts?” but: “Can fallen people, apart from regenerating grace, love God, trust Christ, and submit to His righteousness?” Paul answers unambiguously: No.

He does not, because you universalized and hyper-literalized what was clearly intended as hyperbole in the OT passage that he cites. I more or less proved this with tons of context. Protestants habitually fall into this error. But when it comes to John 6 and the Real Presence in the Eucharist, all of a sudden they get very unliteral and symbolic.

They Illicitly Universalize Covenant Exceptions

Chronicles is describing people inside a theocratic covenant order saturated with revelation, priesthood, sacrifice, and prophetic ministry. To infer from this that fallen humanity as such has native ability to seek God is like inferring from Lazarus walking that corpses in general can self-resurrect. The biblical pattern is: God seeks first >>> then man seeks God. Never the reverse.

Exactly. That’s why I cited Trent. Many Protestants don’t know that we fully agree about this. We believe in the predestination of the elect. I even put up a video short in the last few days about salvation by grace alone as Catholic teaching.

Even in the OT: “Turn us to yourself, O LORD, and we shall be turned.” (Lam 5:21) “Give me understanding, that I may seek your law.” (Ps 119:34) “You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart.” (Jer 29:13) — a promise grounded in God’s prior covenant action. Seeking is the fruit of grace, not its cause.

Yep; preaching to the choir there . . .

Romans 3 Is a Divine Commentary on Chronicles:

Paul is not ignorant of Jehoshaphat, Asa, David, or Uzziah. Yet he still declares: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God.” (Rom 3:10–11) If Armstrong’s reading of Chronicles disproved total depravity, Paul would be contradicting Scripture. The Reformed reading allows Paul to function as inspired theological interpreter of Israel’s history, not a naive proof-texter.

I’ve already explained this more than once. You’re dead-wrong, as to this supposedly establishing total depravity. Once again, Protestants are unable to comprehend the many different non-literal literary devices of the Bible. It’s a sad and completely unnecessary thing. I highly recommend you looking over Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, by E.W. Bullinger. It explains 217 distinct figures of speech used in the Bible and provides examples of when they are used. It’s available for free online, but I also have a hardcover copy right next to me at my desk.

Their “Lamp Unplugged” Metaphor Is Biblically Inadequate:

Kenny’s image (unplugged lamp) implies: —intact moral ability —dormant but self-reactivable power —neutral will But Scripture uses far stronger categories: —Death (Eph 2:1) —Blindness (2 Cor 4:4) —Slavery (John 8:34) —Hostility (Rom 8:7) —Dead men don’t decide to re-plug themselves. —Blind men don’t generate sight by effort. —Slaves don’t free themselves by moral resolve. —Enemies don’t initiate reconciliation. Their metaphor already concedes too much to semi-Pelagian anthropology.

Kenny fully agreed with the Trent statement that God has to start the process of salvation, over against Pelagianism. So whatever he meant (it was his metaphor, not mine) it isn’t as you claim.

They Smuggle in Libertarian Freedom as a Premise.

Notice the repeated assumption: “God wouldn’t command what people can’t possibly do.” But Scripture does exactly that: “You therefore must be perfect.” (Matt 5:48) “Make yourselves a new heart.” (Ezek 18:31) …followed immediately by “I will give you a new heart.” (Ezek 36:26) Commands reveal duty, not ability. They expose dependence, not autonomy. This is classic Reformed law-gospel structure, which Augustine, Luther, and Calvin all saw clearly.

One can’t follow the commands if they were predestined to hell from all eternity and therefore not given the “irresistible” grace and not part of the benefits that Jesus’ death on the cross provided (for everyone who will accept the free grace, forgiveness, and salvation). That was our point. When we do follow such commands, it’s by God’s grace that we merely cooperate with and accept.

Their Objection Actually Attacks Original Sin Itself

If fallen man can naturally: seek God, love God, submit to God, generate righteous desires, then Adam’s fall did not spiritually incapacitate humanity at all. It merely reduced information and introduced bad habits. That is not the Augustinian doctrine of the fall; it is a moral-example model. Yet Scripture says: “Through one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners.” (Rom 5:19) Not merely “we became spiritually disadvantaged,” but constituted sinners in nature.

We don’t deny the fall and original sin, so this is a red herring. I argue vociferously against anyone who does.

Bottom Line: Burchard and Armstrong do not refute total depravity. They: 1. Confuse covenant privilege with natural ability. 2. Confuse outward moral action with spiritually acceptable obedience. 3. Assume regeneration requires full gospel knowledge. 4. Misdefine perseverance. 5. Replace biblical inability with a softer therapeutic metaphor.

This simply repeats what I’ve already answered.

Ironically, their own appeal to Trent’s prevenient grace concedes the core Reformed point: No one can even begin to believe, hope, love, or repent without prior divine action.

If we happen to agree on that, great. It’s not “conceding” anything. It’s teaching the Catholic notion of non-Pelagian grace that was affirmed notably at the Second Council of Orange in 529.

The only real difference is this: —Trent: Grace assists a still self-determining will.

That’s false. It’s completely monergistic; pure grace. Read it again:

CANON III on Justification. If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.

In Chapter VIII on Justification, Trent stated that “none of those things which precede justification — whether faith or works — merit the grace of justification.” Then there are Canons II-III:

CANON II.-If any one saith, that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is given only for this, that man may be able more easily to live justly, and to merit eternal life, as if, by free will without grace, he were able to do both, though hardly indeed and with difficulty; let him be anathema.

CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.

God’s grace is given first, then man freely cooperates with it. Hence, Chapter V states: “he is not able, by his own free-will, without the grace of God, to move himself into justice in His sight.” Chapter VI asserts that man is “excited and assisted by divine grace, conceiving faith by hearing, they are freely moved towards God . . . God justifies the impious by His grace . . .” Catholics believe in the predestination of the elect! That’s one-way. We play no part in causing that.

—Scripture (as read by the Reformed): Grace creates the willing heart (Ezek 36:26; Phil 2:13; John 6:37).

We agree, as just shown.

Total depravity does not deny that kings sought God. It explains why they ever could.

Cool.

Their Argument Collapses into Circularity

Structure of their reasoning:

If anyone seeks God, total depravity is false.

Scripture says some sought God.

Therefore total depravity is false.

But the Reformed claim is precisely: “Anyone who seeks God does so because God has already regenerated him.” So their argument begs the very question in dispute. It assumes what it is trying to disprove.

It was more subtle than that, as explained. But I provided inadequate examples. My much stronger case was how the Bible portrays mankind as much more righteous on balance than total depravity would hold.

Irony: Trent’s Anathema Confirms Reformed Anthropology.

They triumphantly cite Trent’s Canon 3, but that canon actually supports monergistic logic: “Without prevenient inspiration… man cannot believe, hope, love, or repent…” That is already the death of natural spiritual ability.

Glad you are starting to get up to speed on our soteriology. That’s always a triumph!

The only disagreement is whether prevenient grace merely assists or creates faith. Rome says: grace enables cooperation. Paul says: grace raises the dead.

We say both. Grace creates faith. We then cooperate (see my 150 passages against faith alone).

The Real Theological Divide Is Not “How Bad Are We?” but “Who Acts First and Decisively?”

They keep framing it as: “Are we totally ruined or just damaged?” But the biblical issue is: “Does God regenerate because we believe, or do we believe because God regenerates?” John answers: “Not of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:13) “No one can come unless the Father draws him.” (John 6:44)

Once again, there is no disagreement on that. I admitted that I blew a few arguments. You can do the same.

Final Synthesis:

Armstrong and Burchard’s case fails because: —They confuse historical description with anthropological doctrine. —They confuse moral language with soteriological causation. —They confuse covenant privilege with natural capacity. —They replace death with disability, hostility with weakness, bondage with inconvenience. —They read Scripture through a prior commitment to libertarian freedom and conditional election. In short, they are not refuting Calvinism. They are resisting Paul.

More repetition. They say it’s a good teacher, but it makes for lousy reading.

***

Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become a Catholic or to return to the Catholic Church, or better understand some doctrines and why Catholics believe them. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle and 100% tax-deductible donations if desired), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information.

You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my two YouTube channels, Catholic Bible Highlights and Lux Veritatis, in partnership with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!

***

Summary: Lengthy discussion on total depravity with a Reformed Protestant who defends it. I discuss our recent video on the topic and concede that I over-argued a few points.

Calvinism & General Protestantism

Previous Post

January 23, 2026

Ten Purgatory Proofs: “Fiery Cleansing” in the Bible