Commenting on proof-texts often used in support of Total Depravity (AKA Radical Depravity), the T of the Calvinist TULIP, one critic of this theology wrote the following about Jer 13:23 and 17:9:
Jeremiah 13:23: “Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? Then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.”
In context, those being spoken of and to are the disobedient people of Jerusalem who had, during this period of their history, forgotten God (v. 25). If the verse is referring to all non-believers at all times, then these people would not have “forgotten” God because they would have never known Hi in the first place. According to Calvinists, the totally depraved have never been able to know God, so how could they have forgotten someone whom they have never known?
Furthermore, those being described (actually spoken to) are those who “are accustomed to do evil.” In other words, these people are unable to do good because they have been sinning repeatedly for so long they cannot stop. Their sins are habitual. They are not what way because of one single sin (Adam’s).
Jeremiah 17:9: “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?”
The argument is a “deceitful and desperately wicked” heart is not capable of seeking after God. This argument is very weak at best. Most importantly, however, the context does not support such a conclusion. Jeremiah is not saying the heart can only be bad. The very next verse reads, “I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.” Unless God gives man only bad things (which we know He does not), the heart must be capable of good fruit as well as bad. It should also be noted that prophets like Jeremiah often used hyperbole in their attempts to convince people of the truth. This verse cannot be ruled out as an example of that.
The poetic books also make use of hyperbole. Verses such as Psalm 51:5, “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me,” are suspect. Even if such a verse of poetry is taken literally, however, the verse says the Psalmists was born in sin, but it does not say he was born into total depravity as Calvinists might wish. Being sinful and being totally depraved are not the same thing. (Gil Vanorder, Jr. Calvinism’s Concept of Total Depravity: 12 Reasons to Reject it [Createspace, 2015], 12-13)
In another work (I am not a fan of the rather polemical title, it should be noted), this same author answered the charge from Calvinists that their theology is not one of fatalism:
Whether you believe events are predetermined by fate, chance, or God does not change the fact that they are inevitable. If a man has no choice as to what will happen to him in a given situation, then we say his fate is sealed, regardless of who or what may be the cause of the circumstances. This is exactly what Calvinism teaches. The non-elect have no choice as to what their ultimate fate will be, because it has already been predetermined and hence, it is inevitable . . . [C. Michael Patton, a Reformed apologist] disagrees and says, “A fatalistic worldview is one in which all things are left to fate, chance, and a series of causes and effects that has no intelligent guide or ultimate cause. Calvinism believes that God (not fate) is in control.” Patton does not say where he came up with his definition, but it is meaningless. The fact that God is in control and predetermines everything changes nothing as far as the inevitable end that awaits the non-elect. They are still hopelessly consigned to hell. Just because it is God who controls their fate does not change the non-elect’s situation. They still have no choice as to where they will spend eternity. (Gil VanOrder, Jr., Reformed Theology’s Deformed Exegesis: The Book Calvinists Want Banned [Createspace, 2014], 82, comment in square bracket added for clarification).
With respect to 1 John 5:1, a text used to support the Reformed ordo salutis, wherein regeneration precedes (saving) faith, another critic of Calvinism wrote about the grammar of the underlying Greek:
This interpretation, however, is unwarranted from the tense of the Greek verbs. There are at least two examples in John's writings where, rather than the present tense participle resulting from the perfect tense verb, the perfect tense verb results from the present tense participle.
One example is John 3:18. "Whoever believes (present participle) in him is not condemned (perfect tense)." Believing removes, and hence, precedes, not being condemned. Expressed positively: "Whoever believes (present participle) in him is has been justified (perfect tense). Believing is not the result of having been justified; rather, faith precedes justification.
A second example is 1 John 5:10 "Whoever does not believe (present participle) God has made (perfect tense) him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son." The perfect tense, making God a liar, is a result of the present participle, not believing.
The most you can conclude from the Greek present participle and the perfect tense verb is that the actions occur contemporaneously. There is regeneration and there is faith. The Greek tenses do no more to establish the order of salvation than the conjunction "and" in the previous statement. (Daniel D. Musick, Faith Precedes Regeneration [the entire article should be pursued as a thorough refutation of the eisegesis Calvinists apply to this verse])