Many Reformed/Calvinists portray humanity's post-Fall, pre-New Birth condition (Total Depravity) as a state of total unconsciousness and passivity rather than separation from God.  This erroneous emphasis is reactive in both its nature and origin, and largely a carryover from their century-old battle with Roman Catholic and Arminian heresies.  Consequently, it creates serious problems relative to: a) the true condition of lost sinners and the preaching of the Gospel, b) differences between the effectual calling, the New Birth, and the role of faith, and c) the believer's relationship to his indwelling nature of sin (flesh).

a)  In Ephesians 2:1, the Apostle Paul tells us, "As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient."   How is it that the words "dead," "live," and "disobedient" can be used in the same sentence to simultaneously describe our prior lost condition, if the meaning of dead carries the idea of being unconscious or passive?   More to the point, Miles Stanford remarks:

Their [Reformed/Calvinist] illustration of this total inability [depravity] is a man physically dead, who cannot see, hear, speak or move.

However, "Although the sinner is dead in sins, he is not an unresponsive corpse, he is not annihilated; rather, he is separated from God.  He is certainly alive enough to adamantly reject the Saviour! [8]

As mentioned above, the reason our Calvinist brothers overstate their case in this theological realm is due to the manipulative way their (and our) humanistic adversaries have argued in favor of "free will" and their loyalty to defend the biblical truth of the "grace of God."  However, this emphasis has proven to progressively cause an imbalance, which over time undermines the Scriptural truth of both volition and volitional responsibility.  Further, their deficient view of sin opens the door to religious self-righteousness and pride and also closes the door to considering possible error on their part.  I have found that to suggest that a Calvinist loosen his grip on his theology is like asking King Edward I ("Longshanks") to relinquish control of Scotland.

In time, preaching the Gospel to unconscious sinners makes less and less logical sense to the consistent Calvinist.  If he doesn't pull back, he will assuredly slide into hyper-Calvinism and may decide to give up communicating the Good News altogether.  But Romans 1:18-23 and others teach us that those who are "dead in transgressions" have retained a level of both consciousness and conscience about God and His creation.  His separation from God (spiritual death) and bondage to sin renders him a rebellious inhabitant in a lonely and silent cosmos, a slave to sin and self, but not a cadaver.

b)  All Christians who adhere to sovereign grace affirm the truth that "No one can come to Me [Christ] unless the Father who sent Me draws him." (John 6:44).  However, Reformed/Calvinists erroneously view the action(s) of the Father drawing the sinner to the Savior as evidence of regeneration--i.e., the New Birth.  No room is made for any human response before regeneration, lest some religious humanist get a meritorious 'toe' in the door.  Representative of this emphasis Dr. Bob Wright states:

Since the Fall of Adam and Eve, all are born spiritually dead in their sin nature, and therefore require regeneration to a life they do not naturally possess.

The doctrine of total depravity states that fallen human nature is morally incapable of responding to the gospel without being caused to do so by divine intervention (1 Cor. 2:12-15).  [So far, OK]  Once the soul is sovereignly regenerated, it willingly responds in saving faith to God's command to repent and believe the gospel, but not before.  [Now, not OK]

He regenerates the human heart, infusing divine life into it, thus enabling the wicked to believe, even though they were formerly enslaved to the habit of rebellion.  [This is speculative, based upon his theological presumptions.]

God regenerates each elect person so that he or she invariably responds willingly to the gospel. [10]

In spite of the many examples throughout Holy Scripture of God controlling the actions of the unregenerate, the Reformed/Calvinists dogmatically require an "initial infusion of the resurrection life of Christ into the human soul" for John 6:44 to be effective.  But think for a moment about the 22nd chapter of Numbers.  The false prophet Balaam heard the Lord speak, his ass (donkey) spoke, and both he and his ass saw an angel all without the benefit of Calvinistic regeneration.   Supernatural? Yes!  New Birth? No.  Strangely, while the Calvinist prides himself in being a stalwart defender of God's sovereignty, he limits what God the Father is capable of doing.  He erroneously requires that the doctrine of effectual calling be made synonymous with the New Birth.  Cannot the Father's enablement of the sinner to "believe the Word in order to accept the Savior" be seen as separate while related, and not confused with the New Birth itself?   

http://withchrist.org/covtheo.htm