Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.

The Historic Faith
Sign in
Question 6
Tertullian speaks of souls having their “nature in Adam” until reborn, yet also insists there are “seeds of good” in every soul and that people have “a will either for obedience or resistance”; how does his combination of inherited corruption, remaining good, and real choice compare to the way your tradition talks about “total depravity,” prevenient grace, and human ability to respond to God?
Another way to ask: Tertullian says we inherit a sinful nature from Adam but still have “seeds of good” and real choice—how does that compare to your tradition’s view of total depravity, prevenient grace, and our ability to respond to God?

Direct Answer According to the transcript, Tertullian taught inherited corruption and a need for regeneration, but he rejected total depravity by affirming remaining “seeds of good” and real human choice. Compared to traditions that stress total inability, Tertullian’s view leaves meaningful capacity to respond, while still insisting on the renewing work of the “second birth.”

Support from Transcript:

  • Tertullian: “By reason of its birth, every soul has its nature in Adam, until it is born again in Christ…the soul is unclean…actively sinful.”
  • Yet he denies total depravity: “There is still a portion of good in the soul…its goodness is only obscured, not extinguished.”
  • He adds: “Just as no soul is without sin, so neither is any soul without seeds of good.”
  • Renewal comes in conversion: “When the soul embraces the faith, it is renewed through the second birth by water and by the power from above.”
  • He emphasizes freedom: “Man is free with a will either for obedience or resistance.”
  • Bercot summarizes: Tertullian “did not teach…total depravity…He taught a fallen nature, but not a totally depraved nature.”
Discussion Follow-ups The transcript mentions “God’s preceding grace” in Latin Christianity generally, but not a full prevenient-grace system. Where does your tradition place the “first move”—God alone, or God enabling a real human response?