Total Depravity

It may seem perverse to write up the 5 points of Calvinism as determined to be official doctrine at the Synod of Dort and use the 5 points of the Remonstrants (Arminians) to answer them when infact the Remonstrants came first and the Synod of Dort came second. But I am doing so because the Synod was a political reaction to the Remonstrants, not a theological one. Infact, the Remonstrants were barred from attending or presenting any theological argument. So one can be quite sure the outcome was political and not theological.

So the Synod paraphrased Calvin very neatly, without actually dealing with the Remonstrants objections at a theological level (though the dealt with the problem politically by beheading the political leader Johan Van Oldenbarnevelt, defrocking 200 priests and exiling any who refused to be silent). So I believe it is pertinent to explain the five points of Calvinism as expressed by the Synod of Dort as the most concise and accessible expression of Calvinism. It is also the most relevant because it is the form adopted by almost all modern Calvinists. Then I propose to outline the 5 points of the Remonstrants which I maintain are still a viable criticism of Calvinism.

So,
Total Depravity.

Firstly, what it is not. This is not the much weaker and entirely orthodox doctrine of Original Sin. Original Sin is the doctrine given in Romans 3:23 'For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.' Also implied in Original Sin is that man is sinful from birth, which any parent could have told you. So Total Depravity is not the universality of sin.

Total Depravity is the doctrine that not only is man universally corrupt, but that he is utterly corrupt.

Again this is not the doctrine that every aspect of man's life is corrupt. It is quite orthodox, and certainly not contested by me, that no part of our life escapes the tinge of sin - e.g. neither Art, nor Reason escape sin's taint to show us perfectly the way to God.

Total Depravity is expressed by Luther thus: 'If we believe that original sin has so destroyed us, that even in the godly who are led by the Spirit, it causes the utmost molestation by striving against that which is good; it is manifest, that there can be nothing left in a man devoid of the Spirit, which can turn itself towards good, but which must turn towards evil!' (Luther, 'Conclusion Sect. 167, The Bondage of the Will'.) Luther means that the unsaved are unable at any time to ever chose good instead of evil.

And this is the position adopted by Calvin and the Synod of Dort.

Without here criticising the position, it is important to notice its corollaries:

1. The position is Deterministic - meaning there is no such thing as Free Will. As Luther writes in the previous paragraph to the above: ' If we believe that Satan is the prince of this world, ever ensnaring and fighting against the kingdom of Christ with all his powers; and that he does not let go his captives without being forced by the Divine Power of the Spirit; it is manifest, that there can be no such thing as - "Free-will!" '. (Ob. Cit.)

2. The position negates the possibility of any person having any choice to not sin. In specific, it requires us to reinterpret all the old testament passages where a prophet reproached the people and told them not to sin. As Calvin writes: 'The Word, when addressed to the reprobate, though not effectual for their amendment, has another use. It urges their consciences now, and will render them more inexcusable on the day of judgement.' (Calvin, 'Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 2, Ch. 5, Sect. 5') It other words, even when God via a prophet says 'Chose', it is not a real choice but a rebuke because we are totally depraved and incapable of choice.

Interestingly, the Remonstrants did not debate the concept of Total Depravity, but evaded it while maintaining Free Will by the addition of their doctrine of Preveening Grace - the grace of God that extends to all men and allow even sinners to sometimes choose the right.