A faint voice of Orthodoxy amongst the Predestinarians: A recall of the patristic ordo theologiae

“[J]ust as there is not, has not been, and will not be any human being with whom Christ is not consubstantial, there has not been, is not, and will not be any human being for whom He did not die.”

–Archbishop Hincmar of Rheims at the Council of Quercy in 843

27 Responses to A faint voice of Orthodoxy amongst the Predestinarians: A recall of the patristic ordo theologiae

  1. The fact that Augustine has an intervening attribute of “predesination” between God and Christ when he says “He predestined both Him and us…” and that this man had no preceeding merits of His. The Nicene and Pro-Nicene’s maintain that there is no interposition of attributes between the Persons of the God-head. This is why Barth says rightly that Calvin’s doctrine of predestination is the ultimate separation between God and Christ. Augustine, probably unkowingly, seperates God and Christ in this passage and that is why it implies Nestorianism (and Arianism).

    You need to understand the fact that the Spanish Adoptionists were strict Augustinians and followed these premises to their logical conclusion. Otherwise, their heresy becomes very unintelligible.


  2. Jay Dyer says:

    What is the Nestorian implication of the last post? I have read these texts, btw.

  3. Elliot,

    It is obvious to me that you haven’t read a work like De correptione et gratia (On Rebuke and Grace) or his Enchiridion where the full fruition of the Augutinian ordo theologiae finds itself.

    God’s wills only the predestined to be saved. So, how can it be said that Christ died for someone he doesn’t will to save? Hence,

    “And what is written, that “He wills all men to be saved,” while yet all men are not saved, may be understood in many ways, some of which I have mentioned in other writings of mine; but here I will say one thing: “He wills all men to be saved,” is so said that all the predestinated may be understood by it, because every kind of men is among them. Just as it was said to the Pharisees, “Ye tithe every herb;” where the expression is only to be understood of every herb that they had, for they did not tithe every herb which was found throughout the whole earth.” –Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers I Vol. 5, “Rebuke and Grace”, p. 489

    Those not chosen, are not separated from the mass of perdition, and are denied the grace of predestination,

    “But since it was not given to them to believe, the means of believing also were denied them. From which fact it appears that some have in their understanding itself a naturally divine gift of intelligence, by which they may be moved to the faith, if they either hear the words or behold the signs congruous to their minds; and yet if, in the higher judgment of God, they are not by the predestination of grace separated from the mass of perdition, neither those very divine words nor deeds are applied to them by which they might believe if they only heard or saw such things. Moreover, in the same mass of ruin the Jews were left, because they could not believe such great and eminent mighty works as were done in their sight. For the gospel has not been silent about the reason why they could not believe, since it says: “But though He had done such great miracles before them, yet they believed not on Him; that the saying of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report, and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? And, therefore, they could not believe, because that Isaiah said again, He hath blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.” Therefore the eyes of the Tyrians and Sidonians were not so blinded nor was their heart so hardened, since they would have believed if they had seen such mighty works, as the Jews saw. But it did not profit them that they were able to believe, because they were not predestinated by Him whose judgments are inscrutable and His ways past finding out.” Ibid., “The Gift of Perseverance Book II of the Predestination of the Saints” p. 539

    The confusion of “attributes” predestination and foreknowledge:

    “These gifts, therefore, of God, which are given to the elect who are called according to God’s purpose, among which gifts is both the beginning of belief and perseverance in the faith to the termination of this life, as I have proved by such a concurrent testimony of reasons and authorities,—these gifts of God, I say, if there is no such predestination as I am maintaining, are not foreknown by God. But they are foreknown. This, therefore, is the predestination which I maintain. [XVIII.] Consequently sometimes the same predestination is signified also under the name of foreknowledge; as says the apostle, “God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew.” Here, when he says, “He foreknew,” the sense is not rightly understood except as “He predestinated,” as is shown by the context of the passage itself.” Ibid. p. 544

    Predestination, as a concept, is irrespective of how a person wills. Christ as the predestined man, and the example of predestination. The reversal of the patristic ordo and its Nestorian implication:

    “He, therefore, who made of the seed of David this righteous man, who never should be unrighteous, without any merit of His preceding will, is the same who also makes righteous men of unrighteous, without any merit of their will preceding; that He might be the head, and they His members. He, therefore, who made that man with no precedent merits of His, neither to deduce from His origin nor to commit by His will any sin which should be remitted to Him, the same makes believers on Him with no preceding merits of theirs, to whom He forgives all sin. He who made Him such that He never had or should have an evil will, the same makes in His members a good will out of an evil one. Therefore He predestinated both Him and us, because both in Him that He might be our head, and in us that we should be His body, He foreknew that our merits would not precede, but that His doings should.” Ibid. p. 552

    The fact that Rome has avoided these extremes is irrelevent. All it shows is that Rome has avoided the LOGICAL conclusions of the ordo in which she does embrace: The Augustinian Trinity and the One God as philosophical simplicity.


  4. Elliot,

    It is not about man trying to find God’s favour and lifting his will to faith. God loves man more than we could possibly believe and He wants the best for all men, sinful or just. Rather it is man accepting God’s love and Himself. We cannot receive God of ourselves but only from Himself; there is no means of theosis without the Grace of God. Man cannot earn or achieve this on his own power.

    All the holy ancestors of Christ are testimony that man has been free to accept God since the Fall. They did exactly that. That most men remained in darkness and sin does not mean that they were not free to accept God. Yes, we are bound to sin and death in our fallen state but that does not mean we are not free to accept God in our weakness.

    Man requires the same Grace for theosis pre or post Fall. The Grace is the Life of God; it is the gift of the Holy Spirit. Man cannot live, as he should, without the Life-Giving Spirit. The Fall has meant that man is more bound to the flesh than pre-Fall but it also brings humility in realising our weak state and reliance on God to save us; it helps to prevent the pride that Satan fell into. The circumstances have changed but otherwise the path is the same.

    How can pre-Fall man be any better position regarding theosis that post-Fall? Both must submit to God, both rely on the Grace of the Spirit, both must be found in Christ, both must reject the pleasures of the flesh. Adam fell for the same reason we also fall, disobedience and turning to the pleasure of created things, he started from a better place but in Christ we are able to transcend this place even while living here in the flesh. See the lives of the saints.

    I am finding the whole manner in which you are approaching grace and the Fall is as if humans ceased to be human after the Fall and that our life has a different goal. Somehow the image of God has changed. It hasn’t. We are the same image now as before the Fall. You seem to be confusing physical freedom for mental/spiritual freedom. You seem to think that favouring God is sufficient for salvation, as if it can be merited by doing or believing the right thing of our own power. The grace of theosis is not about freeing our minds and hearts to do what is right but about transforming us that we may become partakers of the divine nature. Man needs this Grace whether his will is free or not. (In fact he can only receive the grace with a free-will because theosis is only possible if man is the image of God.) Free-will does not negate the necessity of Grace, neither does living a pure life; even the Virgin Mary needs the Grace of God and yet it can be claimed that she is sinless. It is no avail to man to be sinless, if he does not have the Holy Spirit.

  5. Elliot B says:

    Fr Patrick said:

    “The starting point for theosis does not alter the perfection possible in theosis; the standard for this is God Himself. The end is not dependent on the starting place just as the speed of light is not dependent on the speed of the torch shining the light.

    [The Fall] doesn’t make the final place of any particular man any better in Christ. Men do not have any more or less responsibility to freely accept Christ pre or post Fall. We can all still live in holiness and love now, if we are willing.”

    EB replies:

    This prompts my questions in the earlier (so far still very quiet) Suarez thread.

    Do the divine energies depend for their efficacy in man on the theletic receptivity of man or do the energies––God-as-charis––generate fruit and light in man by virtue of their divine nature?

    If one torch burns brighter than another, though both emit photons [divinity] with the same speed (c), then what determines which torch burns brighter, and how brightly?

    If the “speed of divnitiy” (c) is constant and the divinized energy (E) in each person is variable, then clearly the m (of man’s will) must be what modulates grace in the properly human mode. Perhaps Einstein is rolling his grave but the analogy works for me.

    If the energies fully manifest, or bear, God, how can they fail, as a matter of fact, to fully manifest the divnizing power and presence and glory of God in all saints alike?

    Surely the reply is that the energies are fully present in the faithful, but their light, God’s light, can be “dimmed” by man’s stifling them with self.will, sin, etc.

    But this concession implies something very significant in the debate about grace.

    So before I unpack the implication, I need to clarify what you in fact are saying about grace and the energies and man’s will and theosis.

    Fr Patrick said:

    “Man has always remained free to accept God, even after the Fall.”

    EB replies:

    I need clarification here.

    Are you denying that man’s will was so impaired after the fall that he could not opt for God without the Spirit’s transforming grace?

    I doubt you are, which is why I am highlighting the ambiguity.

    If man was always free to favor God, what need for grace?

    If man, however, was not always free to favor God, but needed grace to elevate his will to faith, then it seems undeniable the fall DOES hinder/impair theosis (on the human side of things at least), since man post-fall required a grace he would not have needed pre-fall: the grace of conviction unto repentance.

    Man has NOT always been free to accept God; that’s the point of the Fall. “While we were still sinners…and enemies of God,” etc.

    Were the Israelites always free to worship God in Egypt? No. They had fallen into captivity and corruption. They were not free. Their will had to be aligned with that of God’s deliverer, Moses, a typus of the Christ.

    So we agree on the matter of God’s will becoming man’s but I think you downplay the gravity of the bondage of the fallen will and I think you concede too much (…to Thomism) with these ideas about divine grace being “appropriately appropriated” by the mode of human nature.

  6. Elliot,

    The starting point for theosis does not alter the perfection possible in theosis; the standard for this is God Himself. The end is not dependent on the starting place just as the speed of light is not dependent on the speed of the torch shining the light.

    Of course, it would have been better for there to be no Fall but for all men to live in holiness and the love of God but this doesn’t make the final place of any particular man any better in Christ. Men do not have any more or less responsibility to freely accept Christ pre or post Fall. We can all still live in holiness and love now, if we are willing. The result of the Fall didn’t separate man from God but only our disobedience and sin. Man has always remained free to accept God, even after the Fall. The Fall clarifies the consequences of sin and our need for repentance otherwise we would live forever in sin and never achieve theosis.

    God could not have prevented the Fall unless He didn’t create man in His image. Man has free-will because He is in the image of God and God’s free will can only become man’s will in freedom otherwise man does not have his will in the image and likeness of God. Man must have God’s will as his very own will and desire, not something forced from outside. We are not the slaves of God but sons. God couldn’t create man otherwise without denying Himself, which we know from St Paul He cannot do.

  7. Elliot B says:


    “I believe I need NOT demonstrate…”

  8. Elliot B says:

    Photios said:

    “Though it is true that Augustine never confirms to Limited Atonoment in textual form. But it is hard to see that if some are predestined to bliss from a massa damnata et damnabilis how Christ could have died for every man.”

    How do you see the foreknown spurned merits and earned demerits of the damned fitting into Augustine’s vision? Do you think St. Augustine taught positive (double) reprobation? As I see it, the damnation of the wicked consists precisely in their free refusal to be substantially human by being substantially reborn in Christ. The entire Augustinian schema is predicated on the assumptions, one, that mankind is one in the old Adam and, two, the new kingdom is one, and redeemed substantially, albeit not hypostatically case by case, in the new Adam. He may not use the same terms but he is saying the same thing: Christ died for all not voluntaristically, but substantially by virtue of dying for all AS a natural human, in substantial solidarity with all humans.

    So, it may be “hard” for you to see how Christ died for all men in Augustine’s theology, but that is leagues removed from proving he actually taught that Christ did not die for all.

    I believe I need demonstrate to you that St. Augustine repeatedly taught the complete death of Christ for all men, all nations, in all times––so I would like to know better why you hold him to a standard of later abused predestinarianism which he himself explicitly (quasi-preemptively) rejected.

    I would venture to say it is not nearly as “hard” to reconcile the issues in Augustinianism for a committed Augustinian as it is for you, so, I further venture, more is needed than voicing your own difficulties with Augustine as a committed anti-Augustinian.

    The Church has never dogmatically enshrined the excesses of Augustine, nor those of any Father, and is not formally (but only historically, and once much moreso) bound to him as a dogmatic source, so I find much of the Arch-Augustinian Angst on this blog to be academic, which is apt, considering the hosts are both…academics. If Gottschalk is what you fear Augustine ends in, well, the Church long ago excommunicated him as an Augustinian mutant manché; let the Calvinists have him, I say with the Church. The Augustinianism against which you write here is as alien to the Church, de fide, as the Scholasticism of a Berengarius is to that faith.

    When reading this blog, there are times I am inclined to say, “St. Augustine is St. Augustine and you are not”; and, “St. Thomas is St. Thomas and you are not”. Humility is a virtue, especially when practiced towards one’s––holy!––ideological enemies. Interestingly, I am also inclined to say, “St. Gregory Palamas is St. Gregory Palamas…in the Uniate fold, so what have I to lose for watching the contest within the larger canopy of Catholicism, a canopy which Orthodoxy seems only to grasp in part?” As I’ve said before, the debates you push here are either academic calisthenics which can only accidentally impinge on the Church or properly intra-Catholic affairs which can only be resolved in the Church.

  9. Elliot B says:


    Alas, I too agree with Fr Patrick in main. We must be having dialectical static interference.

    When he says this: “The Fall doesn’t mean man can achieve a better result than without the Fall, just that the final result of theosis is better than either condition man was in pre or post Fall.”, I am left scratching my head where the conflict is, or perhaps I am just left scratching my head. As far as agreement here goes, yes, the Incarnation brought about vastly superior results for humanity and the cosmos than either unfallen Adamic life or unredeemed life post-fall.

    But as far as my confusion goes, is Fr Patrick (I ask both him and you) saying a better end for man would NOT have come about without the fall? That strikes me as absurd. The fall is the greatest tragedy of creation, so any redemption from/of it, while ultimately “better”, must be balanced by the fact that had man not fallen, things would have been just as “better” (so to speak) but without the objective damage wrought by sin. If the Incarnation was God’s Plan A all along (which I am inclined to affirm), then I don’t believe the fall was a necessary component of that plan. I do believe man could have attained a better end without the fall, and I think that is exactly the thrust of the truth of the fall is vis-a-vis grace: the fall was “gratuitous”––it did not have to happen but did––and was met by a love equally gratuitous. That love would have been just as gratuitous had man not fallen, for it would have been a salvation we never knew we would have needed, being unaware of the fallen world.

    As for death, it IS natural in the present state of the world, but the irony is, the world, due to the fall, is itself only natural in a deathly sense. Creation was never designed with death in the picture, but death was a form of “structural redundancy” built into the creation, whereby God could secure a substantial “entry and exit point” for sin and the corrupted body of man. Death happened because of the fall (both Luciferian and Adamic), but death became the portal of life by its baptism in Christ’s blood on the cross.

    Death, as we know it, is a Luciferian mimicry of what God did originally plan, namely, a kind of deathless loss of self out of individuality into the deathless life of triune theosis. Meaning, man was never meant to exist on his own; he was always meant to “die to himself”, to “decrease that He may increase”; death as we know it did not alter that kenotic feature of human nature; it simply deformed it into a terror and a doom, hence man is naturally afraid of death. People hate death because we somehow instinctively know it is the wrong WAY for us to lose our selves to something greater. Natural death is a death of self into the vastness of the material cosmos (the degradation of the σόμα); God’s original plan for what death usurped was the dissembling the monadic self into the vastness of the trihypostatic cosmos.

    I know you disagree with St. Thomas. That’s the a large chamber of the heart of this blog. So I ask:

    α) Do you believe God willed evil int he world?

    β) Do you believe God permitted evil in our world?

    I doubt you believe the first.

    I think you affirm the second.

    Why, then, did He permit evil? I am looking for a Maximian response, is all. Thank you.

  10. anon says:

    Death is unnatural. Explain, then, why animals and plants die. Explain why there are remains of plants and animals that existed before human beings.

    Are you a proponent that animals and plants do not “naturally” die?

  11. Death is unnatural. The fear of death is natural.

  12. anon says:

    Is death unnatural or is the fear of death unnatural?

  13. And I couldn’t disagree with Aquinas more that God permits evil IN ORDER to make something better.

  14. Elliot B,

    I agree fully with Fr Patrick above. The Fall just creates a different set of circumstances for theosis. The Incarnation would have been sufficient pre-fall for Theosis. The cross is now necessary to destroy dialectic. Christ suffers dialectic to destroy dialectic.

    So what is death? Dialectic.


  15. Adding my two cents worth to the conversation, I understand that the Son of God would have become Incarnate regardless of the Fall. The Incarnation is required to unite creation to divinity in the Son, so that creation can find its true place and life within the Trinity for which it was created. Death was not the intention of God, but growth was because man needed to freely accept God and theosis; it could not be forced upon him. The great joy for creation is that death did not get in the way of the Incarnation and Christ could use death to His own advantage. Obviously, God knew this before the creation and whether Adam sinned, or one of his descendants sinned, and died would not frustrate God’s intentions for creation. God has always had the same aim for man and all creation with him, which is theosis via union with God by the Incarnation of the Son. The pre-fall condition was temporary(regarding theosis) as the post-fall but without sin or death, which God could not create nor desire to occur but were the appropriate consequences if man freely chose to disobey God. The Fall doesn’t mean man can achieve a better result than without the Fall, just that the final result of theosis is better than either condition man was in pre or post Fall.

  16. Elliot B says:

    Speaking loosely with the term “break”, I was trying to get at the fact that God’s power in Christ is and always was and always was meant to be greater than the rupture which the fall did produce. The fall left creation “bloodied but unbowed” as it were (not in its own right, but based on God’s power). Yes, death did break things, but no, death was not inherent in creation. The preeminent will of God is man’s union with Him in Christ; the fall “forced” a restructuring that allowed that union to take place through death, whereas a pre-fall order would, presumably, have brought about theandric union in some other way. (Perhaps a pneumatic divinization of man as profound as the theandric hypostatic union in Jesus?)

    Catholic Catechism 400 — The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination.

    Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man. Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”. Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground”, for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history. …

    412 But why did God not prevent the first man from sinning? St. Leo the Great responds, “Christ’s inexpressible grace gave us blessings better than those the demon’s envy had taken away.” And St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, “There is nothing to prevent human nature’s being raised up to something greater, even after sin; God permits evil in order to draw forth some greater good. Thus St. Paul says, ‘Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more’; and the Exsultet sings, ‘O happy fault,. . . which gained for us so great a Redeemer!'” — CCC

    Photios, Do you think the pre-fall creation was all God intended for mankind or was it subject to a transformation, an improvement, for the attainment of the theandric goal?

  17. Well the fall did “break” things apart. That’s why there is death now. Death did not reign from Adam’s creation to Adam’s sin. It reigned AFTER his sin. Death is the domain of the devil.

    There’s the constant tendency here, I detect, to see death as something natural to creation.


  18. Elliot B says:


    I see better what you mean. I think much of it has to do with three things.

    First, the inherent indeterminacy of quantum phase states, an indeterminacy that, formally at least, creates a “hypophysical” space for God to orchestrate the nomic order in different ways.

    Second, the metaphysical nature of redemption immediately “lifts” it from the strictly physical closure of the present cosmos. This is much of what I think is behind the glorified bodies in the eschaton and Christ’s own Ascension. The principles of nature are transcendentally trasnfigured beyond their own capacities to such a degree, Godwawrdly, that the world takes on a radically new nomic order.

    Third, the structure of the world is not prior to the Incarnation. It is not, as R. Knox said, that God found bread and decided it was an adequate sign of His theandric offering to Man in Christ, but rather that such theandric union was the very basis for creating a thing called bread which could, in the covenantal structure of the Church, signify that offering. Likewise, our pre-fall bodies and the pre-fall “cosmonomos” was not just there and now in need of reshaping but was in fact created with the inherent potential for and nisus towards its final glorification in Christ. Hence, the fall did not “break” the created capacities of the cosmos, but only “delayed” their eschaton, which is the state in which science finds them. The as-yet-incomplete nature of creation is the space in which atheism breathes and is why contemporary atheism feeds so much off science; science describes in rich detail the features of the fallen cosmos, but by stopping only at the descriptive, nomic level (dianoia), scientism is prevented from moving to the intrinsic diaphora of creation which was always meant to point towards the divine order.

    See. A. Nesteruk’s _Light from the East_, S. Jaki’s _The Road of Science_, T. Torrance’s Resurrection and Incarnation books, and D. Keefe’s _Covenantal Theology_ for more.

  19. Elliot B.,

    The principle that the laws governing the motions of humanity and the cosmos in the present are identical to those in the past implies that what the Incarnation redeems creation from was either present from the beginning or part of the original design. It is upon this assumption that scientists construct natural history, but if one accepts that there was a cosmic “fall” (from one state of existence into another) prompting divine redemption, then the true history of the cosmos from the beginning would not be ascertainable by methodologies grounded on the aforementioned principle.

  20. Elliot B,

    I’ll take a look at Keefe’s book if I can find it, but what it solves for me I don’t know. I believe Rome’s dogmatic commitments on the Eucharist to be false and Doscetist. Basically, that attributes of bread and wine remain without the underlying essences of bread and wine. I believe Luther’s doctrine to be far closer to the authentic tradition. I believe Wycliff, who believed in the Real Presence, to be correct in rejecting transubstantiation. For him, transubstantiation, was no real presence at all.


  21. Elliot B says:

    I don’t see how current physics entails conflict between the Incarnational faith. Are you talking about entropy and death? Or deterministic causality? Or the entropic arrow of time and divine sovereignty? Share more please.

  22. Elliot B says:

    I think the point of Fr. Keefe’s work is to show that the core of the Catholic faith––the One Flesh of the Eucharist––is and always will be “bigger” than any form of theologizing about it. And hence radical corrections back towards that foundation are not only to be expected but to be generated age after age. Aberrations from the truth don’t destroy the truth and all that jazz. I think you should read Keefe’s book before elucidating the “inconsistency” of Catholicism and Keefe’s telling of Eucharist history. Unfortunately, the book is not cheap and is hard to come by. Why am I drawn to the hardest books to find? Keefe, Farrell, Jaki, Duhem, et al. Sigh.

  23. Photios & all,

    Assuming the laws discovered by physics and the other natural sciences currently governing the cosmos have been operative throughout the entirety of our historical past to the present seems to imply the ultimate “normality” of death, evil and the like (nihilism), but to deny this premise and affirm that at one point humanity and the cosmos existed one way and then another bars epistemic access to the truth of the historical/scientific past by the natural sciences. What I am saying is that it appears that the presuppositions of and picture of the world painted by “Incarnational theology” cannot *ever* but conflict (somewhat) with those of contemporary science. Any thoughts?

  24. 1) Yes, by Augustinianism I mean precisely that. Though it is true that Augustine never confirms to Limited Atonoment in textual form. But it is hard to see that if some are predestined to bliss from a massa damnata et damnabilis how Christ could have died for every man. Following Farrell, this is why I call Hincmar a “muffled” Augustinian vs. the strict Augustinism of Gottschalk and Ratramnus. Hincmar attempts to solve the question of predestination from an Incarnational perspective, yet doesn’t use that same paradigm elsewhere (Eucharist, Trinity).

    2) Answered above.

    3) Augustinism views predestination as an overarching concept of how God deals with humanity prior to and consideration of the Incarnation itself.

    The quotes you give are irrelevent since they are uncontextualized. Calvin and Luther state the same thing.

    No I’m not familiar of that work, but I’m not surprised since others like Rahner said pretty much the same thing. It only highlights the inconsistency of being a Roman Catholic really. You can’t believe the insidiousness of dialectic in solving theolgoical questions and believe the filioque dogma since such a doctrine is based on a prior commitment to a structured order between faith and reason.


  25. T says:

    Did Augustine teach Limited Atonement?

  26. Elliot B says:

    Question(s) for clarification:

    1. By Augustinianism do you mean here the denial that Christ died for all humans?

    2. Do you mean by that term the basic claim that Christ’s death is voluntaristically applied (via inscrutable divine election) and the denial that redemption is covenantally consubstantial with humanity via the hypostatic union?

    3. Does Augustinianism, by your lights, amount to a rejection of this consubstantial grounding of predestination, or merely a disproportionate emphasis on the divine decree, without thereby denying the consubstantiality of redemption rooted above all in CHRIST?

    I provide the following quotes as measuring rods; where do they fit in the larger vision you hold behind this Hincmar post?

    St. Augustine: “In order to make gods of those who were merely human . . . one who was God made himself human.” Sermon 192.1.

    St. Maximus: “We lay hold of the divine to the same degree as that to which the Logos of God, deliberately emptying himself of his own sublime glory, became truly human.” On the Lord’s Prayer (PG 90:877A)

    St. Thomas Aquinas: “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.” Opusculum, 57. 1- 4.

    Are you familiar with the work of Fr. Donald Keefe on the cosmological subversion of the ordo theologiae in much Western medieval theology? He is sensitive to the problems of the hegemony of dialectic versus the primary order of the Eucharist, and I think his work would be of interest to you. Needless to say, as a Jesuit, he is far from ready to say problems with insidious dialectics negate or refute the core of the Catholic truth.

  27. Wow. No comments on this post. Is this just obvious to everyone now? Why is there a muffled “Augustinianism” here? Why is there a recall by Hincmar to view predestination through the lense of the Incarnation and Christology?

%d bloggers like this: