I’m looking forward to reading Mike’s new series….I do like the rewording of subject. As Inability, but there is some justification of the original phrasing using the word Depravity. I’m using my AI tool to help summarize many references..hopefully this is accurate.
The preference for the term “total depravity” over “total inability” among early Reformers comes down to a distinction between a human being’s condition and their capacity. While the two terms describe the same spiritual reality, “total depravity” serves as the foundational cause, while “total inability” is the inevitable symptom. [1]
Why Early Reformers Preferred “Total Depravity”
- It Explains the “Root” Rather Than the “Fruit”: The early Reformers wanted to emphasize that the problem with humanity isn’t just a functional defect (an inability to perform a specific action, like choosing God). Rather, it is a structural, comprehensive corruption of the entire human soul. Human beings have an active, inherited bias toward sin that infects the mind, the will, and the emotions. “Depravity” captures the nature of the disease; “inability” only captures the limitation caused by the disease. [2, 3, 4, 5, 6]
- It Rejects the Idea of a “Pure” Part of Man: Medieval Scholastic theology often argued that while the human will was weakened by the Fall, human reason remained relatively untainted and could still clear a path toward God. By insisting on total depravity, the Reformers made it clear that no hidden pocket of human nature—not even the highest intellect or conscience—remained pure or untouched by sin.
- It Places the Blame Solely on Humanity: If the Reformers only preached “inability,” it could sound as though humans are victims of a physical handicap, making God seem unjust for punishing them for failing to do what they literally cannot do. “Depravity” highlights that our inability is entirely moral. We cannot choose God because we actively hate righteousness and love sin. Our inability is our own fault. [7, 8, 9, 10]
Who First Used the Terms?
The specific English phrases “total depravity” and “total inability” are later academic constructs, but the concepts and their Latin equivalents developed across centuries.
- The Concept’s Pioneer: Augustine of Hippo (354–430 AD)
Long before the Reformation, Augustine established these doctrines during his controversies with Pelagius. Augustine argued that original sin left human nature inherently fractured, corrupt, and completely dependent on sovereign grace. [11, 12, 13, 14] - The First Reformers: Martin Luther and John Calvin
Martin Luther formulated the concept of total inability most famously in his 1525 treatise The Bondage of the Will. He argued that post-Fall human free will is a slave to sin.
John Calvin heavily formalized the concept of “depravity” (depravatio in Latin) in his Institutes of the Christian Religion (1536). He defined original sin as a “hereditary corruption and depravity of our nature, extending to all parts of the soul”. [15, 16, 17, 18, 19] - The Acronym Authors: The Synod of Dort and 20th Century Pop-Theology
Neither the Belgic Confession nor the Canons of Dort actually use the exact phrase “total depravity” in their original Latin or early translations. Instead, they spoke of “radical corruption” or “total corruption”. The exact phrase “Total Depravity” became institutionalized much later when 20th-century theologians created the TULIP-acronym to summarize the findings of the Synod of Dort. [20, 21]
[1] https://learn.ligonier.org
[2] https://www.forthegospel.org
[3] https://www.calvaryburley.org
[4] https://www.theholinesspartnership.com
[5] https://directionjournal.org
[6] https://www.desiringgod.org
[7] https://learn.ligonier.org
[9] https://www.thegracelifepulpit.com
[11] https://reesecommentaries.com
[12] https://4marksofthechurch.com
[14] https://www.cliffsnotes.com
[15] https://michaelincontext.com
[16] https://learn.ligonier.org
[19] https://www.merriam-webster.com
In John’s Gospel verse 44, Mike quotes Jesus as saying “no man can come” is echoed a second time for emphasis later in Chapter 6:
Jhn 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
This further emphasizes what Jesus said to Nicodemus:
Jhn 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
I looked up his reference to two of the Three Forms of Unity in the Reformed Church doctrines discussed from the early Reformation years.. You can read a summary here and the full text from the Canons of Dort follow Mike’s article.. This was an AI summary, but it also appears accurate.
The Canons of Dort and the Belgic Confession approach these doctrines through different historical lenses. The Belgic Confession presents them as a foundational statement of faith, while the Canons of Dort act as a targeted, judicial correction of specific theological errors. [1, 2]
The Belgic Confession: Structural & Foundational
Written in 1561 to prove Reformed orthodoxy to a hostile government, the Belgic Confession frames total depravity as a tragic loss of human dignity. [3]
- The Loss of Free Will: Article 14 states that humans willfully subjected themselves to sin and death. It stresses that while humanity retains a small trace of God’s gifts, the light within us is turned to total darkness. It explicitly states that “all our free will is but a slave.” [4]
- A Hereditary Contagion: Article 15 defines original sin as a hereditary disease that infects the entire nature of human beings. It emphasizes that this corruption is so deep it is even sufficient to condemn infants before God.
The Canons of Dort: Polemical & Definitive
Written in 1618–1619, the Canons of Dort were drafted specifically to refute the Arminian (Remonstrant) view that humans retain a cooperative free will in salvation. [5, 6]
- Combined theological focus: Total depravity and total inability are treated together under Heads of Doctrine 3 and 4. [7]
- Blinded Mind and Perverted Will: Article 1 states that after the fall, man became blind in his mind, horrible in his darkness, and rebellious in his will.
- Spiritual Death and Total Inability: Article 3 defines human inability in absolute terms. It states that without the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit, humans are “neither willing nor able to return to God… or even to dispose themselves to such a reformation.” [8]
- Inadequacy of the “Light of Nature”: Article 4 directly addresses human potential apart from grace. It argues that while a “light of nature” remains to help humans maintain basic social order, it is completely useless for obtaining saving knowledge or true righteousness.
Key Differences in Presentation
- Scope: The Belgic Confession provides a brief, systematic summary of humanity’s fallen state. Dort provides a highly detailed, analytical breakdown of how sin affects the mind, the will, and the affections.
- Tone: The Belgic Confession laments the loss of humanity’s original, upright creation. The Canons of Dort vigorously guard the absolute necessity of sovereign grace by shutting down any idea of human cooperation.
If you want to continue examining these documents, let me know if you would prefer to look at the exact wording of specific articles from either text, or if you want to look at the historical arguments the Arminians made that prompted the Canons of Dort.
[4] https://www.christianstudylibrary.org
[6] https://www.kimriddlebarger.com
[7] https://tabletalkmagazine.com
Link to the Canons of Dort full Heads of Doctrine Text, go to the Third and Fourth Heads.
Rainbow Trout 