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.
I'd like to push back on that definition of double predestination. It doesn't mean that God actively predestines the non-elect to hell/damnation, rather, it means that God allows the non-elect to fall into sin of their own accord and then, on the basis of their sin, justly condemn them. God doesn't infuse evil into them the way He infuses righteousness into the elect, it's passive, not active. reprobation is the opposite of election; since election means to set aside to a particular purpose, reprobation is to exclude from that purpose. The view you defined as double predestination is actually Equal Ultimacy, which, rightly, literally everyone has rejected. Hope this was helpful!
I appreciate the distinction you're making between double predestination and Equal Ultimacy! as well as the clarification regarding the passive nature of reprobation. That said, I’d like to engage your points in light of the paper this comes from (2016).
What can be shown is that double predestination as Gottschalk articulated it in the 9th century was indeed rejected by the Church—not just because of its symmetry between election and reprobation, but because it fundamentally misrepresented the nature of God's justice and universal salvific will (1 Timothy 2:4). This rejection was not just theological but pastoral, as the implications of Gottschalk’s theology undermined the Church’s mission and understanding of grace.
Later, during the Reformation, Beza seems to have revived a version of double predestination that leaned closer to Gottschalk’s "twofold predestination" (duplex praedestinatio), in contrast to Calvin’s more nuanced view. While Calvin was firm on God's sovereign election, Beza’s supralapsarian framework arguably took things further by systematizing a view that made reprobation almost indistinguishable from active predestination. This shift in emphasis caused confusion and led to criticisms that Calvinism espoused a view closer to Equal Ultimacy, even if that term was later universally rejected.
I agree with you that predestination to damnation is not symmetrical with predestination to life in mainstream Reformed theology. However, Gottschalk’s view and Beza’s later framework muddied these waters by pushing the boundaries of how we understand God's decrees. This is why the Church decisively rejected Gottschalk’s formulations in the 9th century and why even many within the Reformed tradition have since struggled with the implications of Beza's supralapsarianism.
I hope this provides clarity to the historical and theological nuances at play here. Also, I will note the view of "election" matters here too.
Thank you! And yeah, I definitely see what you're saying. The only other thing I'd ask is about Blsd John Duns Scotus; he was a Supralapsarian, so I'm wondering how his view of that is different than Gottschalk and Beza?
I disagree that Scotus was a Supralapsarian by definition. Supra is primarily focused on decree prior to creation; Scotus was clear the damned are lost not because of a prior decree but because of their rejection of God’s grace. ie., he wasn't on about Election/reprobation precedeeding the fall.
I'd like to push back on that definition of double predestination. It doesn't mean that God actively predestines the non-elect to hell/damnation, rather, it means that God allows the non-elect to fall into sin of their own accord and then, on the basis of their sin, justly condemn them. God doesn't infuse evil into them the way He infuses righteousness into the elect, it's passive, not active. reprobation is the opposite of election; since election means to set aside to a particular purpose, reprobation is to exclude from that purpose. The view you defined as double predestination is actually Equal Ultimacy, which, rightly, literally everyone has rejected. Hope this was helpful!
I appreciate the distinction you're making between double predestination and Equal Ultimacy! as well as the clarification regarding the passive nature of reprobation. That said, I’d like to engage your points in light of the paper this comes from (2016).
What can be shown is that double predestination as Gottschalk articulated it in the 9th century was indeed rejected by the Church—not just because of its symmetry between election and reprobation, but because it fundamentally misrepresented the nature of God's justice and universal salvific will (1 Timothy 2:4). This rejection was not just theological but pastoral, as the implications of Gottschalk’s theology undermined the Church’s mission and understanding of grace.
Later, during the Reformation, Beza seems to have revived a version of double predestination that leaned closer to Gottschalk’s "twofold predestination" (duplex praedestinatio), in contrast to Calvin’s more nuanced view. While Calvin was firm on God's sovereign election, Beza’s supralapsarian framework arguably took things further by systematizing a view that made reprobation almost indistinguishable from active predestination. This shift in emphasis caused confusion and led to criticisms that Calvinism espoused a view closer to Equal Ultimacy, even if that term was later universally rejected.
I agree with you that predestination to damnation is not symmetrical with predestination to life in mainstream Reformed theology. However, Gottschalk’s view and Beza’s later framework muddied these waters by pushing the boundaries of how we understand God's decrees. This is why the Church decisively rejected Gottschalk’s formulations in the 9th century and why even many within the Reformed tradition have since struggled with the implications of Beza's supralapsarianism.
I hope this provides clarity to the historical and theological nuances at play here. Also, I will note the view of "election" matters here too.
Summary really can be: Infra vs Supra... Supra is heresy ( as we know ).
Thank you! And yeah, I definitely see what you're saying. The only other thing I'd ask is about Blsd John Duns Scotus; he was a Supralapsarian, so I'm wondering how his view of that is different than Gottschalk and Beza?
I disagree that Scotus was a Supralapsarian by definition. Supra is primarily focused on decree prior to creation; Scotus was clear the damned are lost not because of a prior decree but because of their rejection of God’s grace. ie., he wasn't on about Election/reprobation precedeeding the fall.
Ah, I see. Thank you!