3

In a lecture, Reformed theologian and church historian Douglas Kelly says:

Hincmar controlled a council – it was not a really representative council. He stacked it. […] The semi-Augustinian, proto-Arminian folk at Quiercy under Hincmar declared against the sovereign grace people.1

He's referring here to the Second Council of Quierzy, which produced statements not in alignment with Reformed soteriology. Thus as a Reformed theologian he sides with the Augustinian Gottschalk of Orbais against Hincmar and this council.

I'd like to know what the basis is for this claim – did Hincmar take steps to exclude from this council those who disagreed with his views on election and predestination? If so, how did Hincmar do this?

Assuming such steps were taken, presumably Hincmar (and those who agree with him) will conclude that these actions were justified, just as Hincmar's opponents (then and now) will argue that they weren't. So I'm trying to understand what Hincmar actually did, not if he was right to do it.


  1. Medieval Theology, lecture 11, "The Carolingian Renaissance: Sovereign Grace and Predestination," minute 27.
  • The lectures seem to ignore the east. Is that because he is only concerned with the roots of Reformed theology? – guest37 Apr 13 '17 at 14:07
  • @guest37 He does focus pretty heavily on the West, probably for that reason and his own expertise. But he does periodically point out the contributions of major figures in the East, such as John of Damascus. – Nathaniel is protesting Apr 13 '17 at 14:25
  • This book might be of interest: The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church. It discusses how Augustinian/semi-Augustinian doctrines of free will and predestination were received in the east. – guest37 Apr 13 '17 at 14:34
  • @guest37 Looks interesting; thanks! – Nathaniel is protesting Apr 13 '17 at 15:05
  • You could also look into Photius the Great and Mark of Ephesus - these were major east-west contact foci (Photius pre-schism, Mark at the Council of Florence). They articulated major differences the east had with Roman doctrine. It is outside the medieval timeframe, but you might also look at the Confession of Dositheus (1672). It is probably the most comprehensive statement on Calvinism to come out of the eastern Church. – guest37 Apr 13 '17 at 17:01

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.