But this tendency or bias is not sin itself. Since sin is the actual breaking of God's law and not a bias or tendency to, Our nature is not full of sin, but our choices are. Man becomes totally depraved by his own voluntary transgression of the known law of God. The very nature of sin is a free choice. I cannot see how one can hold to a dogma that takes away free choice and makes sin a mere calamity, and not a crime.
Sin is a choice, and if there is no choice then there is no sin.
Now if one holds to a constitutional moral depravity, they must of necessity hold to either a constitutional regeneration or a constitutional sanctification. In other words, if we have a sin nature that makes us sin and is sin itself, then the only way that we can become holy in any sense of the word is to have our very constitution changed. They need this new nature so they do not continue to be made to sin. Thus they hold that at salvation God imparts a new constitutional nature in order to ounteract the old sinful one. But this does not explain why believers are called saints if they still have a sin nature, which was bad enough to inherit hell before conversion, but after conversion the same nature no longer deserves the same penalty.