"For they say that his predestination brings it about that no person predestined to life is able to fall into death, and no person predestined to death can in any way recover for life." (in Victor Genke and Francis Gumerlock, editors and translators, Gottschalk And A Medieval Predestination Controversy [Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Marquette University Press, 2010], 165)
He's referring to a contemporary monk named Gottschalk and his allies. Though I'll be focused on Gottschalk in this post, it should be kept in mind that he wasn't the only one who held such views at the time. Notice Rabanus' use of the plural "they". In the book cited above, Victor Genke writes, "In his Letter to Eberhard, Rabanus uses at least three times the word 'secta' (MGH, Epist. 5:481, 482, 487), which presupposes the multiplicity of the followers [of Gottschalk's teachings]." (n. 153 on 29) Hincmar of Reims wrote of Gottschalk, "he is able to recite from memory all day long without any break not only the scriptures violently twisted to his opinion, but also mutilated statements of catholics. That is why he was in the habit not only of leading lay people to admire him, but also of bringing would-be scholars, the careless, and those who have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge (Rom 10:2) to his own view." (ibid., 178) Elsewhere, Hincmar denounced Gottschalk's "admirers" and claimed that Gottschalk "chose for himself certain points from all the ideas that he knew were incorrectly thought at that time in these regions" (ibid., 175). So, Hincmar suggests not only that Gottschalk had supporters, but also that he was putting forward ideas that predated his adoption of them. One of the individuals who produced the book I've cited above, Francis Gumerlock, has published a couple of articles on theological views similar to those of Gottschalk in the century before him. You can read those articles here and here. They aren't focused on eternal security, but they address the subject to some extent, among other topics.
Before I quote some portions of the second of those articles and another one Gumerlock wrote, I want to address a potential misunderstanding of Gottschalk's views. He believed in a form of redemption that the non-elect would experience if they were baptized, which included being forgiven of some sins. But it only involved the forgiveness of some sins, not all, and he repeatedly refers to those baptized non-elect as condemned, unreconciled, uncleansed, etc. (ibid., 139-40) He clearly and frequently taught the concept of limited atonement. He's emphatic about the point that the blood of Christ is never applied to the non-elect under any circumstances. It seems that the redemption of the baptized non-elect that he refers to falls short of what we'd normally call justification today. Those non-elect experience some, but not all, of the benefits we typically associate with justification. It's roughly analogous to what Paul refers to in 1 Corinthians 7:14 regarding the sanctification of an unbelieving spouse of a Christian. Gottschalk even compares the redeemed non-elect to animals in the process of contrasting their redemption to that of the elect:
"How much this bodily and temporal salvation, which is common to good and evil men along with cattle and beasts of burden, and that spiritual and eternal salvation, which is of course proved to be special to the elect, differ!" (ibid., 144)
Amolo of Lyons, an opponent of Gottschalk, refers to how Gottschalk held that the non-elect, even if they appear to be Christians outwardly in some way, "were never Christians" (ibid., 191). Augustine believed that some non-elect are justified, but lose their justification. It doesn't seem that Gottschalk held any equivalent view. Rather, even the best of the non-elect fell short of justification.
In his second article linked above, Gumerlock writes:
Predestination in this time was not a teaching lost in Semi-Pelagian darkness after the sixth-century, only to appear again in the mid-ninth century. Rather, the recognition of God's eternal decree, predestinating the elect to glory, was on the minds and pens of many….
Alcuin of York, Agobard of Lyons, and Ambrose Autpert, all eminent church leaders, preached and advocated an 'all of grace' doctrine of salvation: Free will is bound in sin. Faith is a gift of God. Any movement of free will toward good is inspired by preceding enabling grace. Subsequent good works are done only as enabled through grace. Perseverance in righteous living to the end, resulting in eternal salvation, is also a product of divine grace. Furthermore, this grace is particular in its application, dependent upon divine predestination and election….
While Gottschalk in 829 was occupied at the Council of Mainz with trying to secure his release from monastic life, a council in Paris was discussing issues related to the 'eternal security' of the believer. This shows once again that the issue of who will be saved and how they are saved were hot topics of the time, and that the disagreements were so significant that they needed to be addressed at a synod. (pp. 329, 332, 335 here)
Regarding that council in Paris, Gumerlock and Genke comment in their book that the council condemned the teaching that "Christians are at all events saved, even in case they persist in evil, and that the pagans are automatically punished" (n. 192 on 37). Edward Landon wrote that canon 10 of the council "Condemns the error of those persons who think, that having been baptised, they must eventually be saved, whatever sins they may commit." (A Manual Of Councils Of The Holy Catholic Church, Vol. 2 [Edinburgh: John Grant, 1909], 22)
In another article, Gumerlock writes of Gottschalk:
In the monastery where he was under house arrest, Gottschalk managed to obtain writing material, compose treatises, and have them delivered to their recipients and circulated. Consequently, from prison Gottschalk started no small controversy on predestination within the Frankish empire. The debate centered around three topics or questions: predestination, free will, and redemption by the blood of Christ. Interestingly, some of the leading theologians of the time, particularly those in Corbie, Lyons, and Ferrière, said that Gottschalk was right in his theology on these points. Archbishop Hincmar mustered a few theologians for his side, who debated the predestinarians throughout the 850s. In several regional synods the opposing theologians condemned each others' doctrine, until finally they came to a compromise about 860….
As mentioned earlier, a number of theologians came forward and said that Gottschalk's teaching was correct regarding twofold predestination and Christ shedding His blood exclusively for the redeemed….
In a treatise, now lost, that Gottschalk addressed to bishops and sent to Amolo, Gottschalk apparently taught that if a person were predestined for condemnation, since the divine sentence could not be changed and the person could never be saved, that person should merely ask God to lighten his punishment in hell….
Gottschalk died in the monastery at Hautvillers in 868, holding fast to his doctrinal positions, for which he was refused communion and the last rites upon his death….
Gottschalk saw in holy Scripture and the fathers that man's will was entirely bound in sin until God graciously freed it. He also preached that God, before the foundation of the world, chose a people who, through no merits of their own, would be redeemed through the blood of His Son. These would be effectually called, and through God's gift of perseverance would enjoy Him forever. Although Gottschalk's superiors were uncomfortable with his teaching of predestination as double, and that Christ's blood was shed only for the elect, a number of his contemporary theologians regarded his teaching as representative of the true faith handed down by the apostles.
No comments:
Post a Comment