Take the 2-minute tour ×

I'm quite sure I understand the concept of Total Depravity, but I'm not sure it's viewed exactly the same in different doctrinal frameworks that support it. I've spent a lot of time among Lutherans, and while I'm sure they support Total Depravity, they usually rather talk about Original Sin. Is this because Total Depravity as a term originates in Calvinism?

I came upon a table comparing the Lutheran, Calvinist and Arminian ideas of Total Depravity, but I don't quite understand it. Can you explain the main differences in the three views to me?

share|improve this question
+1. This came up a while back in chat and I think I said I suggested we needed a total depravity vs original sin question. This is a good example of a focused comparison of two doctrines! –  Caleb Oct 11 '11 at 23:13

4 Answers 4

I can't speak much to the Lutheran or Calvinist view, but I can give my own perspective (Wesleyan Arminian):

In the Arminian understanding, human beings were created by God as part of God's good creation, but we were given free will which enabled us to turn away from God's will. In order to bring us back, God provided the means of grace that enables us to be saved. This grace is known as prevenient grace because God has given it to us before we were capable of making a decision.

Arminians believe in total depravity in the sense that our own sinful human nature does not allow us to respond to God's offer of salvation. However, the prevenient grace that God has given us does enable us to accept that offer. So although we do have free will and are capable of making choices, it is only God's grace that allows us to choose to follow him.

share|improve this answer

That linked Wikipedia article is incorrect in it's description of free will. Both of the main views (Calvinism and Arminianism) assert a free will of sorts - man is not as bad as he could possibly be and we recognise that non-Christians can make good and bad decisions. Furthermore, both sides agree that an unregenerate sinner cannot do anything to please God in terms of his works toward obtaining salvation.

The big point of division comes in when trying to decide if choosing to submit to God constitutes a work or not. The Arminian says that a person can choose to make a good decision and if this decision (under prevenient grace) is accepting Jesus' death for his sins, he can respond accordingly, NOT earning his salavation but accepting Jesus' offer of salvation. The Calvinist says that a person cannot come to this conclusion unless God has already done ALL the persuasive work in his mind.

So it's only two options, not three.

share|improve this answer

Seeing as I used to go to a Lutheran seminary but now find myself at a Presbyterian church, I hope I can help!

Calvinists do in fact prefer the term total depravity, however it really only dIfferentiates from Lutheran concepts of original sin in name. Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk, and so is very influenced by his understanding of original sin that human beings are "in curvatus in se" or "turned in upon oneself". That is, both Calvinist and Lutheran understandings hold that we were intended to point towards GOD yet are now directing all of our beings back into ourselves and that only GOD can set our gaze back upon Him.

In the Arminian sense, human beings are not fully turned in upon themselves and still have an amount of goodness that was not tainted by original sin or depravity and therefore are capable of turning themselves back to GOD if they so choose. Thus meaning that there is depravity but perhaps not total depravity.

I would be happy to put some references in if someone wishes but for now I am writing from a mobile device.

share|improve this answer
This is not quite accurate regarding Arminians. We do not believe humans have goodness within us; rather we believe we have a measure of God's grace that enables us to respond to God's call. –  Bruce Alderman Oct 12 '11 at 16:46

I speak from a Lutheran perspective. In our confession we say this - AC II.1. 1] Also they teach that since the fall of Adam all men begotten in the natural way are born with sin, that is, without the fear of God, without trust in God, and with 2] concupiscence; and that this disease, or vice of origin, is truly sin, even now condemning and bringing eternal death upon those not born again through Baptism and the Holy Ghost.

In general I think we would object to the terminology of TD as it is problematic. The reason is that it can mean that man is not able to do what is ethically good or from a human point of view. We know there are atheists who,from the outside, appear to be ethical, even Jesus says that we as parents though evil do good to our children, so one looking at TD will find TD puzzling. This is not what Original Sin means. What we mean is that when it comes to moving towards God, having faith in Him, trusting Him or fearing Him and doing what he commands we are not able to do this on our own since we are impure and are not able to do what his Laws demand.


Also yes that is correct we would rather talk about Original Sin rather than get to the paradigm and terminology of TD.


share|improve this answer

Your Answer


