Treatise on Divine Predestination

by Johannes Scotus Eriugena, Avital Wohlman (Introduction), Mary Brennan (Translator)

Treatise on Divine Predestination is one of the early writings of the author of the great philosophical work Periphyseon (On the Division of Nature), Johannes Scottus (the Irishman), known as Eriugena (died c. 877 A.D.). It contributes to the age-old debate on the question of human destiny in the present world and in the afterlife.

The work survives in a single manuscript of which editions were published in 1650 and 1853. It has been most recently edited in 1978. The present translation was made from that edition. Modern scholars are able to discern in this early work strong intimations of Eriugena's later major writings.

Genres: Philosophy, Theology, Spirituality, Medieval, Religion

148 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1998

About the author

John Scotus Eriugena, or Johannes Scotus Erigena (/dʒoʊˈhæniːz, -ˈhænɪs/ /ˈskoʊtəsˌ ˈskɒtəs/ /ɪˈrɪdʒənə/; c. 815 – c. 877) was an Irish theologian, neoplatonist philosopher, and poet. He wrote a number of works, but is best known today for having written The Division of Nature, which has been called the final achievement of ancient philosophy, a work which "synthesizes the philosophical accomplishments of fifteen centuries."

Erigena argued on behalf of something like a pantheistic definition of nature. He translated and made commentaries upon the work of Pseudo-Dionysius, and was one of the few European philosophers of his day that knew Greek, having studied in Athens. Famously, he is said to have been stabbed to death by his students at Malmesbury with their pens.

Reviews

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

I’ve wanted to read John Scottus Eriugena for a long time. There aren’t many great Christian writers from the time between about 700-1000 or so, at least not many I know of. But I am realizing the period from about 400-800 is filled with many more amazing writers than I previously realized. Usually church history stories and courses jump, essentially, from Augustine to Anselm. Other folks are mentioned, but its kind of a “not much happened for six centuries”.

I mean, I had heard of writers such as John Scottus Eriugena, I had just never read them. This piece is short, and one of his first. In it, he argues against the false teaching of double predestination which is the idea God predestines some for salvation and some for damnation. Eriugena argues God only works the good and predestination is only of those for salvation. Those who are not predestined are punished for their own sins.

Eriugena emphasizes that God foreknows everything, and thus has knowledge of those who will deny him. Yet this foreknowledge is not the same as predestination. Eriugena also, a bit surprisingly, brings Augustine in on nearly every other page to support his argument. This is where those helpful introductions come in, as well as a bit of knowledge of Augustine. It is the early Augustine who sides with Eriugena, the later anti-Pelagian Augustine sounds a bit more into double predestination (which is why there was a debate in the first place, probably).

Of course, someone could ask Eriugena, or those who agree, if there is much difference between God actively predestining people for damnation and simply not choosing to predestine them for damnation. Either way, God has the power and could save them. God chooses only to save some? Does this get God off the hook in the way Eriugena thinks? I mean, if two children are drowning and I save one and just let the other die, am I not culpable for the death if I could have saved him? Am I only guilty if I hold the other kid under?

That debate, of course, is as old as...well, as old as debates about God and freedom. At any rate, this is a good book and I hope to read more Eriugena in the future.

[Erick · Rating 4 out of 5]

Eriugena is known more for his Periphyseon than this treatise he wrote against Gottschalk of Orbais. I just wrote a review for a collection of Gottschalk's writings.

Eriugena was recognized as one of the more prominent intellectuals of the 9th century. He was tasked to write a refutation in response to Gottschalk's teaching, which was a kind of double predestination--one for the blessed and one for the damned. Unfortunately, some of Eriugena's theology came under fire, so it apparently failed to do what was intended. Eriugena was a philosopher as well as a theologian. Both streams are a bit mixed up here. He relies on philosophical positions in some areas; and in others, he appeals to theological ones. I would have to research more what specifically came under fire in this book. It may have Eriugena's insistence that evil and sin are essentially nothing. God doesn't predestine evil, sin and punishment because these lack proper existence. He does predestine good and blessedness because these do have proper existence.

I certainly support Eriugena's position more than Gottschalk's, but I admit that using foreknowledge as a synonym for predestination doesn't seem to do the Greek term "proorismos" justice. The Greek word does seem to indicate some degree of determinism, but I would reject an interpretation that disregards freewill.

[David Haines · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is prefaced by 2 helpful introductory sections. This work, written by a medieval scholar from the period of the Carolinian renaissance, treats the highly debated question of divine foreknowledge and human free will. It was, for its time, somewhat revolutionary and highly debatable. Still is. Regardless of how we judge the authors position on the subject, it is interesting to see how he weaves together different concepts to build his theory. Also of interest is how he quotes and interprets Augustine. Definitely worth reading for anyone interest in the subject.

[SB · Rating 3 out of 5]

Eriugena's logical and rhetorical acrobatics follow two aims here: to discredit Gottschalk's theory of 'double predestination' (i.e. to salvation for the elect on the one hand and to damnation for the rest on the other) and to defend St Augustine's take on the subject (namely that the elect are predestined while the remaining original-sin-bound 'mass' is merely 'not selected at this time', to use the language of contemporary staffing processes). Why does Eriugena bother with this 'scholastic' debate? Well for one, this is the 9th century (the Carolingian Renaissance is still going strong) and such debates are serious business that can make or break an emerging theological reputation like Eriugena's. Second, Gottschalk has been preaching his almost 'proto-protestant' theory of sin (predestined by God, immutable) left and right and citing cherrypicked passages from St Augustine to support his views (much like Luther would do centuries later), something which was understandably viewed with great alarm and ire at the time by 'orthodox' Catholic bishops (these are uncertain times for the Western Church, as the introduction points out). They had to send the finest young polemicist in their arsenal to do battle with the impudent Saxon (Gottschalk), and for specific reasons of time and place (explained in the same introduction) that lot fell to Eriugena. Thirdly - duty to Church and secular authorities aside - Eriugena simply loved a good argument, I think, and the opportunity of cutting through the puffed-up sophistry of someone like Gottshalk would have appealed to him greatly.
The resulting treatise (more of a long essay in modern terms) will prove interesting enough for anyone already interested in the broader topic of medieval (pre-Thomistic) theology. However, there is little originality to be found as Eriugena is mostly focused on turning the Augustinian arsenal back on Gottschalk in order to blow him up to smithereens. Added to the purely polemical aspect of the work is also Eriugena's likely self-censorship in philosophical matters. After all, if you're a Hellenophilic neoplatonist in the early middle ages, you're not going to announce it in a work meant to expose and combat heretical belief. As such there is little 'freeform' philosophizing here, and the work as a consequence ends up being dry, repetitive and very opaque (at least for my 'modern' taste). And yet there are also moments when Eriugena's highly perceptive 'Greek' spirit (predictably he would eventually be accused of heresy himself) shines through the dense, combative prose:
"Of two people placed in one and the same spot in a royal court one catches a fever, the other experiences pleasure; to the one who is rejoicing, all the adornments in the whole palace give delight and pleasure, have a praiseworthy appearance, are in estimable harmony; to the fevered man, on fire within himself from his illness, of all that he sees outside himself nothing delights him, nothing is praiseworthy: for he censures everything, and nothing is agreeable because he is in dread of everything. Rightly so: for what good thing would not injure him, when the maker of all good could not please him?"

[Esioan · Rating 4 out of 5]

'When we are told that God is the maker of all things, we are simply to understand that God is in all things – that He is the substantial essence of all things.'

There's a lot of Kyoto School vibes here, despite being an 8th Century Irish monk. Nishida and Suzuki's conception of 虚無 or 無 as a type of apophatic grounding for ontology is incredibly similar to the Gael's approach. Compare the above quote to this:

'God is not something that transcends reality, God is the base of reality. God is that which dissolves the distinction between subjectivity and objectivity and unites spirit and nature' (Nishida, Inquiry, 79)