Gottschalk & The Supralapsarians

In a previous article [Linked Here] I went into the historical context of Gottschalk almost solely from the view of his resurrected theology coming back during the Reformation through the means of Calvin’s predecessor - Beza. The reason I’m resurfacing this talk is two fold:

(1) I want to shine a light from a different angle so that the “heretical” nature can be more in focus and (2) so that we can discuss what it means in cyclical heresies.

Who Was Gottschalk?

Gottschalk of Orbais (ca. 804–868) was a Carolingian monk, theologian, and poet, whose theological contributions—primarily his advocacy for double predestination—placed him at odds with the Church of his time. Born into a noble Saxon family, he was initially offered as an oblate to the monastery of Fulda under the influential abbot Rabanus Maurus, a decision that shaped the trajectory of his life and theological pursuits.

Early Life and Monastic Struggles

As a child oblate, Gottschalk was committed to the religious life without personal consent. Upon reaching adulthood, he sought release from his monastic vows, arguing that his initial commitment lacked validity due to his age at the time. This dispute led to a protracted legal battle with Rabanus Maurus, who strongly opposed such a release. Gottschalk eventually succeeded in leaving Fulda and sought refuge at the monastery of Orbais in the Diocese of Soissons, where he continued his theological education and began to develop the ideas that would later define his controversial legacy.

Theological Formation

Gottschalk’s intellectual development was deeply rooted in the Augustinian tradition. He drew heavily from Augustine of Hippo’s writings on predestination, particularly those from the anti-Pelagian controversies [here we see the issue with the theological pendulum swinging] Unlike the nuanced approach taken by many medieval theologians who sought to harmonize Augustine with the emerging theological consensus of their time, Gottschalk embraced Augustine’s more rigorous views on predestination. This led him to advocate for double predestination, the belief that God predestines some individuals to eternal salvation and others to eternal damnation, independent of their actions or merits. Now, this is nearly identical to what happens with Calvin and Beza, where Calvin and Augustine held soft views of non-dogmatic theological nuances but Beza and Gottschalk took them to the extreme, nearly becoming obsessed proponents of the theological view to the nth degree.

This position, though grounded in Augustine’s writings, diverged from the theological trajectory of the Carolingian Church, which emphasized God’s universal salvific will and sought to mitigate the perceived harshness of Augustine’s anti-Pelagian arguments. Gottschalk’s unyielding stance set him on a collision course with his contemporaries.

Gottschalk’s Writings and Preaching

Gottschalk’s theological positions became widely known through his writings and preaching, particularly his treatises and poetry. His most notable works include the “Confession of Faith” (where he articulated his views on predestination) and various polemical writings against opponents he deemed heretical.

In his Shorter Confession, Gottschalk articulates his doctrine:

“I believe and confess that omnipotent and unchangeable God foreknew and predestined saint angels and elect men to eternal life gratis and that He equally predestined devil, head of all demons, with all of his apostates, and also reprobate men, namely his members, on account of their own most certainly foreknown evil merits, through the most right judgment to deserved eternal death.”

He asserted that:

1. Double Predestination: God eternally decrees both the salvation of the elect and the damnation of the reprobate. These decrees are immutable and not contingent upon human free will.

2. Christ’s Atonement: Christ’s sacrifice was made only for the elect, not for all humanity—aligning with what would later be termed “limited atonement” in Calvinist theology.

3. Grace and Free Will: Human free will is utterly incapable of contributing to salvation; divine grace alone determines one’s eternal destiny.

Gottschalk’s approach was not merely theological but polemical. His combative style often alienated potential allies and drew sharp criticism from ecclesiastical authorities.

Gottschalk further supports his position by referencing Augustine’s exegesis:

“What can the wolf do? What can the thief and the robber? They destroy none but those predestined to destruction.” This view has massive implications on how we perceive evil and God interacting - if you haven’t caught on yet.

In his Longer Confession, Gottschalk elaborates on the concept of limited atonement, asserting that Christ’s redemptive sacrifice was intended solely for the elect:

“He redeemed all the elect only, not one more or less, who were predestined to life eternal before the foundation of the world.”

The Political and Ecclesiastical Context

Gottschalk’s ideas emerged in a period of Carolingian reform, where theological unity was seen as essential for the stability of Christendom. The theological debates of the 9th century were deeply intertwined with politics, as Charlemagne’s successors sought to consolidate their rule over a fragmented empire. In this environment, Gottschalk’s radical theology was viewed not only as a doctrinal challenge but as a potential threat to ecclesiastical and political cohesion.

So, was it thrown out on theological merit or solely because of the divisive nature it entailed?

Exile and Condemnation

Gottschalk’s most significant theological disputes arose with Hincmar of Reims, a powerful archbishop and staunch opponent of his views. Hincmar convened several synods, including those at Quierzy (849) and Valence (855), to address Gottschalk’s teachings. At the Synod of Quierzy, Gottschalk was condemned as a heretic, and his works were burned. He was also subjected to corporal punishment, publicly flogged, and imprisoned—a fate that reflects the severity with which his teachings were regarded.

Synod of Quierzy

The Synod of Quierzy in 849 was a pivotal ecclesiastical assembly convened to address the contentious teachings of Gottschalk of Orbais on predestination.

Participants:

• King Charles the Bald: The reigning monarch who presided over the synod.

• Archbishop Hincmar of Reims: A leading ecclesiastical authority and chief opponent of Gottschalk’s doctrines.

• Bishops and Abbots from the Archdiocese of Reims: Including representatives from Corbie, Hautvillers, and Orbais.

Proceedings and Outcomes:

Gottschalk was summoned to defend his doctrine of double predestination, which posited that God had predestined some individuals to salvation and others to damnation. His unyielding stance and confrontational demeanor, including denouncing attending bishops as heretics, led to severe repercussions. The synod condemned Gottschalk’s teachings as heretical, resulting in his deposition from the priesthood, corporal punishment through flogging, and imprisonment at the monastery of Hautvillers. Additionally, his writings were ordered to be burned.

Subsequent Developments:

The Synod of Quierzy in 853 revisited the predestination debate, issuing four key chapters (Capitula) that articulated the Church’s stance:

1. Single Predestination: Affirmed predestination to salvation, denying predestination to damnation.

2. Role of Free Will and Grace: Emphasized the necessity of divine grace to remedy the flaws of free will.

3. Universal Salvific Will: Asserted God’s intention to save all humanity.

4. Universal Redemption: Declared that Christ’s redemptive act was for all people.

These decrees aimed to counteract Gottschalk’s teachings and reaffirm the Church’s doctrinal positions.

---

Wouldn't this make Augustines views heretical? or was the supralapsarian view so drastically different?

This is a critical question, as Gottschalk claimed to be faithfully adhering to Augustine’s theology, especially his writings on predestination and grace. To address whether Augustine’s views would also be heretical or if Gottschalk’s supralapsarianism diverged significantly, we need to explore the distinctions between their teachings and how the Church understood them.

1. Augustine’s View on Predestination

Grace is Necessary for Salvation: Augustine emphasized humanity’s reliance on divine grace due to the fallen nature resulting from original sin. He stated, “For not all men are redeemed by the death of Christ, but only those who reign with Him, and that not by their own merits, but by the grace of God.”

Predestination to Salvation: Augustine taught that God predestines certain individuals to eternal life, a concept he developed in his anti-Pelagian writings. He wrote, “He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will.”

No Explicit Double Predestination: While Augustine held a strong predestinarian view, he did not systematically teach that God actively predestines individuals to damnation. He attributed the damnation of the wicked to their own sin and God’s just judgment, stating, “God’s predestination, therefore, which cannot exist without His foreknowledge, is the preparation for grace; while His foreknowledge, which is not the same as predestination, is the foreknowledge of those who would believe and those who would not believe.”

2. Gottschalk’s Supralapsarianism

Gottschalk expanded Augustine’s ideas into a more rigid framework:

Double Predestination: He explicitly argued that God predestines the elect to salvation and the reprobate to damnation. Unlike Augustine, Gottschalk emphasized the predestination of the damned as an equally eternal and active decree by God.

Limited Atonement: He maintained that Christ’s atonement was made solely for the elect, excluding the reprobate. Augustine, by contrast, did not formulate such a restrictive view of the atonement.

3. Why Was Gottschalk Condemned While Augustine Was Not?

Key Differences in Theological Framework:

Emphasis on God’s Will vs. Human Agency:

Augustine balanced God’s sovereign will with the notion that damnation is a result of human sin.

Gottschalk appeared to leave no room for human culpability, making damnation an active part of God’s eternal decree.

Nature of God’s Justice:

Augustine saw God’s justice as reactive: He punishes sin because it is just.

Gottschalk’s supralapsarianism suggested God decreed damnation prior to creation, making divine justice appear arbitrary or harsh.

Pastoral Concerns:

The Church often framed theological decisions with pastoral implications in mind. Gottschalk’s doctrines, particularly his deterministic tone, were seen as potentially harmful to Christian faith and moral responsibility. Augustine, despite his predestinarian tendencies, left room for mystery and pastoral care, avoiding the rigid determinism associated with Gottschalk.

“Why He chooses this one for honor and another He leaves as a vessel of dishonor, be assured that in His judgments there is no unrighteousness. But His reasons for doing this are hidden, yet they are not unjust.”

(De Dono Perseverantiae, Chapter 21)

Contextual Factors:

Augustine’s theology developed during the Pelagian controversy, where his primary goal was to combat the overemphasis on free will and human merit. His views were accepted because they countered Pelagianism while leaving room for mystery.

Gottschalk’s theology emerged in a different context: the Carolingian Church sought to balance Augustine with the evolving doctrines of grace, human agency, and God’s universal salvific will. His rigid framework was considered out of step with the Church’s pastoral and theological priorities.

---

A Surprise Guest: Thomas Aquinas

While Augustine spoke heavily against the Pelagian view that was essentially coupled paganism - that is to say “Salvation exist within the person”, Augustine often admitted and utilized the nature of mystery within his views. He also made it clear that dogmatizing his view was not his purpose, but rather showcasing that God’s ability to “know” supersedes our understanding to comprehend it.

Thomas Aquinas addressed predestination in his theological works, particularly in the Summa Theologica. While he often engaged with Augustine’s ideas, Aquinas nuanced them within his broader framework of scholastic theology. His remarks offer clarity on predestination while maintaining a balance between divine sovereignty and human free will. Aquinas did not directly critique Gottschalk, but his theology indirectly addresses some of the tensions raised by figures like Gottschalk and even later by Calvinist thinkers.

Aquinas largely affirmed Augustine’s views on predestination but with refinements that fit his Thomistic system. He emphasized:

1. God’s Sovereignty in Predestination:

Aquinas agreed with Augustine that predestination is entirely rooted in God’s eternal knowledge and will, independent of human merit:

“Predestination is a part of providence. To providence it belongs to direct things to their end; as was said above, but the end to which created things are directed by God is eternal life, as is clear from what has been said above. Thus, predestination is the plan conceived by God for directing human beings toward eternal life.”

(Summa Theologica, I, Q.23, Art.1)

2. The Universal Will to Save:

Aquinas softened some of Augustine’s sharper predestinarian edges by emphasizing God’s universal salvific will. He distinguished between God’s antecedent will (desiring the salvation of all) and consequent will (permitting some to fall due to their own sins).

3. Human Free Will and Cooperation:

Unlike Gottschalk’s deterministic tone, Aquinas maintained that human free will operates within God’s plan:

“Although God’s predestination is certain, it does not exclude free will, for God moves all things, including human will, according to their nature.” (Summa Theologica, I, Q.23, Art.5)

This, to me, is the sum of the view. This showcases, clearly, concisely, the view that the consequent will interacts with the antecedent will (permissive will) to bring about the purpose of the Father.

---

Aquinas on Augustine’s Mystery

Aquinas explicitly engages with Augustine’s notion of the mystery of predestination, emphasizing the limits of human understanding:

He quotes Augustine:

“Why He draws one and not another, seek not to judge, if thou dost not wish to err.”

(De Dono Perseverantiae, Augustine, cited in Summa Theologica, I, Q.23, Art.5)

Aquinas builds on this:

“We cannot fully know the reasons for God’s predestination because His will is not caused by anything external to Himself, nor is it conditioned by time or merit.”

AND he rejects double predestination: “Reprobation differs in its cause from predestination. For reprobation implies not only foreknowledge but also the act of permitting/causing someone to fall into sin and to be excluded from glory because of it.”

(Summa Theologica, I, Q.23, Art.3)

This reinforces Augustine’s emphasis on the mystery of divine justice and mercy. However, a view that I once held (may still), and it draws upon our previous section:

The will of God is interacted upon the free choice of man, but in His foreknowledge, knew that which would be interacted upon and therefore, it was predestined. Thus, predestination is only predestined because it was first foreknown (Augustin/Aquinas both touch on this with agreement).

What do you think?