Amid the swirling controversies of the ninth century, there was raised a strong voice for sovereign grace belonging to an unknown German monk named Gottschalk of Orbais (ca. 804�869). Like Augustine before him and Luther and Calvin after him, Gottschalk possessed an overriding sense of the sovereignty of God in salvation, and he brought it to bear upon his turbulent generation. It was in this dark hour of history that this medieval theologian stood in the gap to uphold the banner of the doctrines of grace.
Born at Mentz in modern Germany, Gottschalk was the son of a respected nobleman, Count Berno of Saxony. At the insistence of his father, he conceded to take a lifelong monastic vow while still a young boy. But upon reaching the age of maturity, Gottschalk sought to be released from this commitment and leave the monastery. The church, however, would not release him, beginning a long-standing rivalry between the two.
As a concession, Gottschalk was allowed to move to the monastery at Orbais, in northeast France, where something unexpected occurred. Gottschalk became an avid reader of Augustine (354�430), the most dominant teacher of the early Western church. With the bishop of Hippo as his theological mentor, Gottschalk clearly saw the biblical truths of inseparable relationships between human depravity, unconditional election, and monergistic regeneration. Immediately, these grand truths struck his soul like a lightning bolt, igniting his heart with a burning passion for God. Far from being a mere intellectual pursuit, these God-exalting doctrines transformed his life, infusing him with holy zeal.
Gottschalk began to travel extensively, preaching these truths wherever he went. Soon other monks were convinced to embrace them. The doctrines of sovereign grace now had a new champion. He undertook a pilgrimage to Rome and spread Augustinian teaching throughout Italy, the Balkans, and Bulgaria � but not without conflict.
Summoned to appear before the Synod of Mainz (848), Gottschalk was to give an account of his bold teaching on the doctrines of grace. Before the king and church officials, he confessed his unwavering belief in the sovereignty of God in salvation. He stated his doctrine was true to the Scriptures and consistent with Augustine. But the synod decided against Gottschalk and delivered him into the custody of the most powerful bishop in France, the archbishop of Reims, a man named Hincmar (ca. 806�882).
Hincmar ordered Gottschalk to appear before the Synod of Chiersy (849) where he was charged with heresy. Specifically, he was accused of gemina pradestinatio � double predestination � a step in which he went even further than his teacher Augustine. Not only did God eternally predestine His elect to eternal life, Gottschalk maintained that He also foreordained all reprobates to eternal death. When Gottschalk refused to recant, the synod charged him a heretic and flogged him within an inch of his life. His books were publicly burned and he was imprisoned at Hautvilliers.
Prominent church leaders were outraged at this unjust treatment. Had not Gottschalk merely taught the same essential theology as Augustine? Several men stepped forward to lend their support, including such notables as Remigius, the archbishop of Lyon (d. 875), Florus of Lyon (d. 860), Prudentius of Troyes (d. 861), and Ratramnus of Corbie. These men asserted that Gottschalk was not alone in believing the God-exalting truths of sovereign grace. They stood with him, though Florus counseled him to preach the gospel to the lost, not election.
With such respected churchmen taking this strong stand, the controversy boiled to a fever pitch. At the insistence of the king of Francia, the Synod of Chiersy (849) was convened to sort out this theological dilemma. Tragically, this ill-led session adopted a semi-Pelagian position, and Gottschalk remained imprisoned for the next two decades.
Even in a time when it was unpopular to do so, Gottschalk held fast to the doctrines of grace. The center of gravity of his thinking was his fundamental belief in the supreme authority of God to govern every area of creation and life, including salvation. From this high ground he would not be budged. The following represents his teaching:
Total depravity
Like Augustine before him, Gottschalk was persuaded that all humanity was in Adam, and when the first man sinned, mankind fell with him into death. In his sinful state, man, he believed, inherits a �total depravity of will and mind� [and is] incapable of willing good unless efficaciously enabled by divine grace. He is able only to sin, not to do good.� Gottschalk added: �After the first man fell by free will, none of us is able to use free will to do good, but only to do evil.� That is, man�s will is free, but it has no desire to do good because it is corrupted by sin.
Sovereign election
Gottschalk further affirmed the doctrine of unconditional election. Gottschalk believed that God has �elected a world from out of the world.� He wrote: �Before all worlds and before whatever God did from the beginning, He foreordained to the Kingdom whom He willed.� God cannot and will not alter His saving decree: �God the immutable, immutably predestined before the foundation of the world all His elect by His free grace to eternal life.�
Definite atonement
But, unlike Augustine, Gottschalk taught a specific death by Christ for the elect: �Our God and master Jesus Christ [was] crucified only for the elect.� It has been said that Gottschalk provided the first clear articulation and defense of a particular redemption in church history. Although men previous to him had made strong statements about the basic aspects of this doctrine, Gottschalk first demonstrated the strong relationship between predestination and the extent of the atonement. Gottschalk wrote, �Christ died only for the elect,� asserting that Christ died exclusively and triumphantly for the sins of His people.
Irresistible calling
Gottschalk was convinced that the new birth is all of God. The Holy Spirit must draw the sinner to faith in Christ. He wrote: �We run in a way that befits our salvation when we are drawn by God.� He believed that the Holy Spirit brings life to spiritually dead sinners, grants saving faith to the elect, and that He recreates elect souls. In a hymn, Gottschalk wrote, �O Holy Spirit, You bring instant life to those You breathe into�. Together with the Father and the Son, You recreate Your elect souls, And when they are recreated, You also glorify them.�
Preserving grace
Gottschalk held that all those whom God elects are eternally secure, never losing their salvation: �Those who have been foreordained to the Kingdom cannot perish.� In this teaching, Gottschalk was consistent with Augustine.
But where Gottschalk most notably went beyond his mentor Augustine was in the doctrine of reprobation. While Augustine held to single predestination, that God chooses His elect and merely passes over the non-elect, Gottschalk explicitly taught that �predestination is double, whether of the elect to peace, or the reprobate to death.� That is, God foreordains the non-elect to reprobation, not as a just condemnation but because God willed to do so. He believed that the damning decree lies in God: �The precise number of the non-elect is specified by an eternal decree of God, a predestination to death, which runs parallel to the decree of election to life.�
Gottschalk advanced an infralapsarian position, arguing that God�s decree to elect came after His decree to permit the fall, rather than before (supralapsarianism). That is, mankind�s evil at the fall was the reason for reprobation: �God Himself by His righteous judgment immutably predestined to everlasting death all the reprobate, who on the day of judgment will be condemned on account of their own evil deserts.� In other words, God predestined some to reprobation because He knew them to be sinners. But it should be clarified that Gottschalk did not believe that God predestined anyone to sin. All transgression is the sole responsibility of man, not God.
According to Gottschalk, reprobation was not a specific decree, as in supralapsarianism, but a subject of foreknowledge. In his own words, Gottschalk asserted: �I believe and confess that God foreknew and foreordained the holy angels and elect men to unmerited eternal life, but that He equally foreordained the devil with his host and with all reprobate men, on account of their foreseen future evil deeds, by a just judgment, to merited eternal death.�
Gottschalk died on October 30, 869, having spent the last twenty years of his life in prison, suffering �murderous scourgings.� Sadly, he is said to have gone mad shortly before his death. Viewed with contempt by the religious establishment, Gottschalk was denied a Christian burial and was laid to rest in unconsecrated soil.
To the end, Gottschalk maintained a deep conviction as to God�s sovereignty. The truths of sovereign grace were both the cause of his suffering and his comfort in suffering. Many joined with Gottschalk in testifying to those truths, but he alone was persecuted as a heretical teacher, as the opposition felt he alone was dangerous to their church system. But though his enemies assailed him, Gottschalk has been vindicated by champions of the faith as a martyr to the truth.
Let us pray that God will bring about a resurgence of such God-centered doctrine in His church again. This remains the need of the hour.
Not to offend anyone here, but it seems to me that you guys make a big deal of this reformation theology as a whole here.
What is the big deal about it? The very idea of this reformation was to REFORM the beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church about the use of works as being a necessity for ones salvation. This is the only major difference they came up with. The rest, although God minded, still missed the mark. They were men who loved the Lord to be sure, but they did nothing to restore the priesthood back to the believers. I mean, seriously. What did they do? Did they really give back the priesthood to ALL the saints? No. They still kept the most basic hierarchial structures of the RCC by changing the names of priests to pastors, but they still stifled the church into believing that there were two sets of believers - the divinely ordained and the rest of the common believers. They not once gave a voice to the common believer as the 1st century church did. What were the major differences?
By the time the Reformation came the Lord's supper was reduced to a cracker, a cup and a rebuke to every believer about being serious about why they gathered that was meant to the Corinthian gatherings.
The Reformation was good, but it still left a trail of atrocities in its wake. Calvin, being devoutly zealous for God, still missed the mark when contributing to the gathering at Geneva as to how people should conduct their meetings. I mean the only real reasons why he did it was to solidify the sermon over the mass of the Roman Catholic Church. All the Reformation did was take over the distribution of one brand of biased theology over the other.
Ironically, the one thing that both theologies never changed was that the man of God had to be well trained in the theology of their mentors, which by historically documented fact, proves that they not once went back to the time of Christ. And the sad part about it is that all the brethren as still arguing over the same interpretive biases of these men today no matter who they were.
May the Prince of Peace be the seasoning in your words, brethren.
"Not to offend anyone here, but it seems to me that you guys make a big deal of this reformation theology as a whole here. "
I keep trying to get to the bottom of this mystery myself brother Agapeton as you can see from my recent posts to P.J and now Jude.
It seems more than a bit silly especially since at least in one of their cases, they are all about unity in the body but intent on continuing to falsely divide brethren with labels such as "calvinist" or "reformed"
I am all for using the Word of God to divide the wheat from the chaff but I think that's a different matter entirely.
"It seems more than a bit silly especially since at least in one of their cases, they are all about unity in the body but intent on continuing to falsely divide brethren with labels such as "calvinist" or "reformed""
I'm aware of this brother Bob. I can't help but laugh when I read someone being labeled as a Calvinist or a Reformist considering the very church they attend and participate in is purely derived from it. I mean, if you're going to try to separate yourself from another believer in Christ because of what theses men stood for, then tell me that you don't participate in the same church functions that they founded upon to give the appearance that you know what it was about.
If not, then... Well... It seems kind of... lacking, shall we say?
Correction of just one of my many erroneous statements: lol
I'm aware of this brother Bob. I can't help but laugh when I read someone being labeled as a Calvinist or a Reformist considering the very church that the labler attends and participates in is purely derived from it.
I hope the rest of the statement seems clearer now.
Bob said ~ For me this is "old news". I've actually even addressed that here before.
Jude asked ~ Hey !!!...Question for ya Bob...when did ya ever Address the Cauvin and Servents issue on the forums here ???...
*** Thanxs for all the Re-Dirrect away from the Original Question Bob�just goes to show what intent you truly have�Thanxs for the challenge�Yes I have read Cauvins writings and Luthers and even Pelagius as well as the Nostic�However�I do not desire to�Heck I�ll use your words here��go back and fourth��It serves no Good purpose�
"Not to offend anyone here, but it seems to me that you guys make a big deal of this reformation theology as a whole here. "
I keep trying to get to the bottom of this mystery myself brother Agapeton as you can see from my recent posts to P.J and now Jude.
It seems more than a bit silly especially since at least in one of their cases, they are all about unity in the body but intent on continuing to falsely divide brethren with labels such as "calvinist" or "reformed"
I am all for using the Word of God to divide the wheat from the chaff but I think that's a different matter entirely.
Actually you are trying to act as if the death proclaimed In the theology is acceptable to
the lord Jesus it will never happen, nor will The Holy Spirit agree with any of it.
And I have no desire to "go back and forth" while you try to make your point that Calvin was a "bad guy" Again, even if you could prove this to be the case, all you have proven is that Calvin was human just like all of us. It does not speak to the truth or error of his writings.
Enter " calvin servetus controversy" into google. There is a wealth of debate to be found on both sides.
I'm just failing to see your whole point on the whole matter of Reformed theology ,Calvin, Augustine, etc. The clarification never comes yet the digs keep coming.
What did you gain, for instance yesterday, by pointing out that sister Donna is "following a heretic's teaching". Given the fact that you have not shown or proven what that "heretic" taught. Nor, have you shown or proven what made that "heretic's" teaching heresy.
If any pastor, theologian, etc gets a few points wrong are they a 'heretic"? By challenging the likes of Calvin (and other reformers), Augustine, etc, you are setting yourself up as one having more knowledge, one with more Biblical understanding then all of them.... a fairly tall inference. Fine by me, if you can show it and prove it. You have not thus far. However, my challenge remains open to you.
In conclusion, the Bible is filled with less than perfect men and women who God used to accomplish great things in their days.
P.J said - "Actually you are trying to act as if the death proclaimed In the theology is acceptable to the lord Jesus"
P.J - since nobody here has every been able to get a straight coherent answer out of you as to what you mean when you say things like this referring to "the theology", you are speaking to the air.
Many folks have asked you but you refuse to give them answers. I started an entire thread to give you a place to communicate your thoughts. You refused.
NOTICE OF MY INTENTIONS: I personally am going to boycott you until you answer those questions. I suggest others do likewise.
1 Cor 14:
7 And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?
8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?
9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.
