Nature, Grace and Predestination in the 9th Century

A preliminary to any discussion of predestination in the 9th century has to be the concepts of nature and grace. As I mentioned in a previous post, the distinction between nature and grace basically ran like this (the references here will all come from Pelikans’s ‘The Growth of Medieval Theology’):

Augustine: nature = supported by grace, after the fall, grace is taken away. Nature without grace can only do evil.
Pelagius = nature is grace – righteousness is part of the original nature of man. Grace is immutable in the person.

It was the Augustinian viewpoint that dominated the medieval tradition – free will, for example, was seen to only be free in any meaningful sense if it was supported by grace. Bear this in mind as the background and underlying presuppositions of this entire debate, even though it’s not directly referenced.

Now, generally, there are two main ways of thinking about predestination: either God picks by means of decree some to be saved, or God picks based on His foreknowledge of what people would freely do. A key point in Augustine, who was basically the ender of disputes in the medieval period, was this, that God acted…

‘…for the damnation of those whom he had justly predestined to punishment and for the salvation of those whom he had kindly predestined to grace.’ (p. 81

The latter originated with a guy named Hincmar, who turns out to be another guy named Gottschalks arch enemy. Hincmar said that God foreknew that…

‘…some, through the freedom of the will assisted by grace, would be good…’ (86)

…and these were the people he predestined to salvation. This is single predestination. God predestines based on foreknowledge who goes to heaven, passing over the reprobate.

Gottschalk based his double predestination heavily on his idea of God’s impassibility:

‘”I believe and confess that God, omnipotent and unchangeable, has foreknown and predestined”: so Gottschalk opened a confession of his faith. The conclusion of another statement of faith was an apostrophe extolling the transcendence of God beyond time and beyond change. If God had not foreordained the damnation of the devils and the wicked, they could not be damned; for “if he does something which he has not done by predestination, he will simply have to change,” which was blasphemous.’ (p. 85)

An area of dispute was the distinction between God’s foreknowledge and predestination – did the one impose necessity on the other? Did it even make sense to talk of ‘fore’ knowledge in God? This was an area of intense discussion – but for the sake of brevity I’ll pass over it, noting the two obvious answers: either (a) it did impose necessity, or (b) it didn’t, for one reason or another.

To breeze through a pretty lengthy and subtle debate: both sides believed that they were teaching the correct doctrine, and each believed the other to be a heretic. Both were able to find support in Augustine, and both had patristic support as well as contemporary followers. The most pertinent for modern discussions is the emergence of this viewpoint:

‘This statement of Paul’s, (that God desired all men to be saved), the predestinarians had to admit, was “extremely perplexing and  much discussed in the writings of the holy fathers and explained in many different ways”. Therefore its interpretation was “not to be settled precipitately, but very cautiously”. They rehearsed Augustine’s various attempts to circumvent the text’s affirmation of the universal salvific will of God. From the use of the identical word ‘desires’ in 1 Timothy 2:4. “who desires all to be saved”, and in Romans 9:18, “He has mercy upon whoever he desires,” Gottschalk strove to demonstrate that “truly God has not in way desired to save with eternal salvation those whom, as Scripture testifies, he hardens.” The “all men” in the text must mean “all men who are saved” rather than “all men” in general.’ (p. 90)

This viewpoint opened up all kinds of other questions: how effective was the death of Christ in securing redemption? We have as responses some now classic answers: on the one side, God could be accused of injustice if his son died for only for some and not others. On the other side, the blood of Christ would be seen as being wasted if it was shed for those who were not saved. Both of these were developed in intricate detail by their supporters.

To sum up: the contemporary debate, usually had between Calvinists and Arminians, over the scope of redemption, predestination and God’s foreknowledge, can be seen reaching all the way back to the 9th century – and, oddly enough, it seems that the answers have basically remained the same ever since.

As a postscript: the real issue here is the idea of externalism in regards to salvation, which Barth/Torrance subjected to pretty withering criticism in their writings.

6 thoughts on “Nature, Grace and Predestination in the 9th Century

  1. newenglandsun February 1, 2014 / 1:58 pm

    It is quite interesting how Augustine could be said to be anti-Calvinist on one end and pro-Calvinist on the other hand. It’s a similar scenario with Paul. Calvinist (Rom. 9) or not?

    Hence, why the Catholic Church forbids certain interpretations of Augustine leading to Calvinism or Jansenism.


    • whitefrozen February 1, 2014 / 3:08 pm

      Another interesting issue is that in regards to anthropology, the classical Reformed view (Turretin, Hodge, et al) is actually Pelagian and not Augustinian. I find that quite fascinating.


      • Cal February 2, 2014 / 8:43 am

        Thanks for putting this up! How did you mean your last comment about the Reformed scholastics having a pelagian anthropology? Does it have to do with man’s ability to reason?

        And in regards to Augustine, NewEnglandSun, I think he understood the correct balance better than the Medieval semi-Pelagianism of Rome, and some of the Fatalism employed as a corrective.


          • Cal February 2, 2014 / 9:32 am

            Thanks for the read.

            It’s a lot of intellectual lifting to try and work through that comment section!

            So as I understand: everything, even ‘nature’, is sheer grace, if by that we mean an unmerited favor. Of course, there are different kinds of grace, the chief, capital-G being salvific and uncreate, namely the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

            Thus by positing a ‘Covenant of Works’, while it is still grace, it has become maintaining righteousness, and do able by nature. That’s the real charge of Pelagian anthropology by Perry? So I suppose a serious impact of this is, perhaps, a way through Calvinism/Arminian debate by allowing both space for monergism and synergism? One not precluding the other?

            Because if man was inherently righteous, that raises problems on how he was able to sin, and if he was fully covered in grace, the Holy Breath being breathed in him, then also, how did he sin? Yet, just as in our own walks, we can grieve the Spirit and sin, but that doesn’t deny a salvation already wrought and applied, nor does it throw it back upon man to be able to do proper mimesis of Jesus.

            Interesting to think through at least,


            • whitefrozen February 2, 2014 / 9:52 am

              It is indeed interesting to think through – there’s lot’s of subtle issues creeping about here. I generally side with the Orthodox – grace is an uncreated energy of God, active everywhere. I don’t think the Augustinian dictotomy between nature and grace is correct.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s