when tulip is discussed, it usually starts with man being depraved and the elects getting saved. the non-elects, however, is said to die in their sins, and are thus worthy of condemnation. the point is, the elects were saved out of God's sovereignty (through Christ's sacrifice) while the non-elects were condemned out of their own free will or disability. herein is the point that i would like to focus. two things must be considered: 1. everyone is born condemned. nobody's volition is respected in this regard. this is due to Adam's sin being imputed on everyone. thus, nobody caused his own condemnation, but are actually sovereignly born with it. 2. it is impossible for anyone not to sin. this is due to the sin nature inherent in everyone. again, nobody chose to have such nature. in other words, one is born condemned with no regards to his volition. thus, even if he does not sin all his life, he remains condemned. but then again he is born wiht the sin nature, which he did not choose to have, that gets him impossible not to sin. come judgement, yes the non-elects are worthy of condemnation as they do not pass God's standard, which tulip correctly applies. what is wrong is that tulip suggests that the non-elects are responsible for their own condemnation, which is worng based on the imputed sin and sin nature which total depravity assumes. they are simply made resposible, and was sovereignly left that way.