The Catholic Doctrine of Predestination from Luther to Jansenius

Copyright © 2014 by Guido Stucco.

ISBN: Softcover 978-1-4931-9761-3

eBook 978-1-4931-9760-6

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

Cover picture is a painting by Leandro da Bassano, Honorius III approves the Rule of St. Dominic in 1216. The painting is found in Saints John and Paul parish church, in Venice, Italy.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

This book was printed in the United States of America.

Scripture taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 Biblica. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.

Rev. date: 04/25/2014

To order additional copies of this book, contact:

Xlibris LLC

1-888-795-4274

www.Xlibris.com

552782

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements

Introduction

Chapter One The Reformers’ Views On Free Will And Predestination

Martin Luther

Luther’s The Bondage Of The Will

John Calvin

Calvin’s Consensus Genevensis

Similarities Between Calvin’s And Gregory Of Rimini’s Views

Chapter Two Pre-Conciliar Controversies

Preaching And Predestination

Agostino Mainardi

Agostino Museo

Chapter Three The Council And The Patriarch

The Council Of Trent’s Decree On Justification (January 13, 1547)

The Grimani Affair

Chapter Four Molina And His Concordia

Ignatius Of Loyola (1491-1556)

Molina’s Concordia

Outline Of Molina’s Concordia

Molina’s Epilogue

Molina’s Concordia’s Section Vii

Articles I-III

Articles IV, V

Key Concepts Found In Concordia’s Section Vii

Chapter Five The Contribution Of Domingo Banez, O.P.

Domingo Banez

Banez’s Apologia, Pars Prima

Chapter 22: Containing The False Beliefs Of Molina Concerning The Mystery Of Predestination

Chapter 23: Overall Critique Of Molina’s Teachings On Predestination

Chapter 24: Specific Criticisms Of Molina’s Core Beliefs

Chapter 25: In Which It Is Shown That Molina’s Excuses Are Of No Consequence

Chapter 26: In Which The Remaining Sayings Of Molina Concerning Predestination Are Met With Due Criticism

Chapter Six The Controversy De Auxiliis (1597-1607)

Introduction

A. Reconstructing The Events

An Annotated Bibliography

The Beginning Of The Controversy About Grace And Free Will

The Congregation De Auxiliis’ Early Activities (1597-1601)

The Congregatio De Auxiliis Under Clement Viii (March 20, 1602—Jan 22, 1605): 68 Sessions, 37 Debates

Thomas Of Lemos’ Acts Of The Congregations

Lemos’ Account Of The Thirty-Sixth Debate

Finals Thoughts Concerning The Triennium 1602-1605

The Congregatio De Auxiliis Under Paul V (September 14, 1605—March 1, 1606): 17 Sessions, 10 Debates.

The Outcome

Proposed Solutions

The Aftermath

B. Summary Of The Competing Theological Views

Free Will And Its Natural Powers

Efficacious Grace

Predestination

Predetermination

Trent

C. Tentative Conclusions

Chapter Seven Jansenius And His Masterpiece

Jansenius

The Augustinus

The Augustinus’ Table Of Contents

Predestination And Reprobation In Jansenius’ Augustinus

Appendix

Conclusion

Appendix A Lessius’ Statements Censored By The Theology Faculty Of Louvain

Appendix B Molina’s Twenty Censored Propositions.

Appendix C Theological Consultants Of The Congregation De Auxiliis

Bibliography

Endnotes

Ad Adriana Biondi, una donna meravigliosa che ha speso decenni ad insegnarmi: ‘Era cosi’ bianco che non poteva non essere nero!’ Con gioiosi affetto, stima e gratitudine.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

There have been real gentlemen and ladies, polite, compassionate, generous scholars behind my scholarly pursuits over the years. First of all, I would mention Dr. Christopher Schabel, professor at the Department of History at the University of Cyprus, whose generous help in procuring indispensable materials in my composition of my previous, third installment of the history of the doctrine of predestination, was most appreciated, together with his positive comments and encouragements. I also appreciated and greatly benefited from the assistance of several Italian scholars: Gaetano Lettieri, Professor of History of Christianity at the Sapienza University in Rome, a great Augustine scholar, author of L’altro Agostino; Professor Giuseppe Trebbi, Professor of History at the University of Trieste, who unfailingly and most helpfully answered several queries I had about some of the figures involved in the controversy de auxiliis and referred me to valuable web sites; and his colleague Andrea Del Col, who emailed me his article about and translation of a text by the Patriarch Giovanni Grimani I was not able to find on the Internet. I also appreciated Dr. Carlo Urbani, at the Istituto veneto di scienze ed arti, for emailing me an otherwise unavailable 1916 article. I also appreciate the prompt response and most valuable assistance of various European librarians: Yannick Nexon, Chef du département de la Réserve Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève; Raffaella Alterio, Biblioteca Angelica; Daniela Scialanga, with the Fondazione Firpo, Torino, Italy. Thank you all, for your kind assistance!

All it took for me was to tell these generous scholars that I was doing research on the history of the doctrine of predestination and that I needed their help. They never second guessed me, rebuffed me, ignored me, or questioned my credentials or motives; instead, they just extended me the professional, courteous assistance that many American scholars un-explicably denied me. May God bless them, and may I become like them when dealing with amateur researchers like myself in the future!

INTRODUCTION

This book is the fourth installment of my tracing the history of the Catholic doctrine of predestination beginning with Augustine. Such comprehensive effort has consumed about fifteen years of my life, and it goes without saying that I am very proud of it. In this Introduction I decided to document the road blocks I encountered in my research, in order to encourage other Ph.D. researchers, if and when they encounter obstacles on their path in the form of hyper-criticism, hostility, indifference or rudeness from other scholars, the way I have: persevere and incorporate constructive criticisms, un-hesitatingly laughing off any comments that are off the mark!1

For this purpose I wanted to begin by briefly describing the vicissitudes I encountered when I attempted to publish my first book on the history of the Catholic doctrine of predestination, from Augustine to the early Middle Ages, entitled Not Without Us.2 Since I am no sore loser, I acknowledge from the start that my topic and style of exposition are probably not very fashionable these days, when much interest (if not downright obsession, tunnel-vision, or bias) in the theological establishment in this country focuses on historical rather than systematic theology. Moreover, I am well aware of my limits as a writer, researcher, and translator, though I have been consistently open to suggestions, corrections and criticisms.

At the end of 2003, I sent the manuscript of Not Without Us to Dr. Greg LaNave, managing editor at Catholic University of America Press. In my letter of introduction I explained that the purpose of my research was threefold: 1) To provide the most comprehensive summary of the development of the doctrine of predestination in the Catholic Church, with one very important proviso: unlike other doctrines (e.g., the salvation of the un-evangelized), the doctrine of predestination does not discernibly reflect changes in the economic, political, geographical or social context from which it arose, and therefore, any and all developments I documented belong more to the field of systematic rather than historical theology; 2) To introduce for the first time in the English language the content of very important Latin texts, previously ignored or translated in other languages; 3) To offer a very modest contribution to the ongoing theological discussion by setting forth my own opinions and views, when I deemed necessary to do so: I called that, dialoguing with the texts. I believe that spending years reading, translating and summarizing texts gives me the privilege, if not the right, to express my opinion in a few paragraphs of my book, regardless of condescending comments by some people to the effect that I use a preaching or popular approach to the subject matter (as if my book was a long monologue-harangue!)

In any event, Dr. LaNave and I went back and forth in an exchange of emails that lasted for a month or so: he pointed out some revisions he felt I needed to make. He also wanted me to decide whether my text was meant as a textbook or as a scholarly treatise (I had no idea how to figure that out, never mind how to create the necessary alterations to my manuscript that would result from choosing one or the other); and finally, he was uncomfortable with some comments I made through the text. The following email best expresses what he wanted to convey:

Dear Dr. Stucco

I’ve reread your final chapter, as well as selected portions throughout the rest of the book. I think I’m having some difficulty with the cross between a scholarly study and a popular presentation. The nature of the book—a study of the early debates on predestination—leads me to think that it should fall in the former category; a scholarly study written in such a way as to be useful in a classroom context. However, approaching the text with that view I repeatedly am brought up short by passages such as Augustine had an unsurpassable familiarity with the biblical text, in a day and age when there were no biblical concordances, lexicons and dictionaries… It is therefore presumptuous for anyone to think that their exegesis is much better than Augustine’s…; Today hardly anyone believes that a person will go to hell just in virtue of original sin… (p. 27); While it is possible to develop all kinds of theories and theological insights, if they clearly contradict what Scriptures teach, we must conclude from a Christian point of view that they are not viable (p. 26).

The scholarly reader, who knows anything about 1) the history of theology, 2) soteriology, and 3) exegesis and doctrine, will not find these judgments helpful, as they are aimed at presuppositions that he does not share. Nor are they very helpful ways of phrasing things for a classroom (i.e., students who are assigned a book on predestination in the early Church will, one hopes, already have covered the nature of theological discourse). They belong to a conversational style that is best suited to a book written for a general audience. But is this what you are trying to write?

I think we need to get clear on this point. Let me know what you think.

Best wishes,

Greg LaNave

I responded by saying that my text was meant for a general audience, but if he decided it should be addressing a scholarly audience, he should feel free to take out any comment I made, in order to accommodate his recommendations. In other words, as a new and untested author, I completely deferred to his judgment and expertise. Then, we went to the next phase: CUA Press, like most publishing houses, sends to scholars of its choice the book proposals it is interested in, for an initial informal review; scholars are required to answer the following seven questions, in what is labeled as Reader’s Report Cover Sheet.

I will now quote these questions, followed by the response (marked in italics) of an anonymous reviewer CUA Press consulted, as well as by my comments to LaNave (marked in bold), addressing some of the reviewer’s unhelpful criticisms:

1) Please tell us something about your own work in the field as background for your evaluation. If you indicate below that you do not wish your identity revealed to the author, we will mask this portion of your comments before passing them on.

[The scholar’s response was intentionally left out the email I received.]

2) Please summarize the author’s thesis and principal arguments.

The author is trying to accomplish several things—perhaps too many-in this work. He is trying, by way of a brief history of the semi-Pelagian controversy, to demonstrate that a vigorous predestinarianism existed within Catholicism from early on; he is convinced that discussions of the doctrine have seldom aired outside of a reformational/post-reformational context. Along the way, he is eager to rescue Augustine from caricature as a complete fatalist or rigid dual predestinarian. He also makes several applications of a more or less pastoral nature, arguing, for example, that within the semi-Pelagian range of positions are several that one can hold and still be within the realm of orthodox belief.

3) What is the nature of the author’s contribution to the study of the topic? Is that contribution significant?

With respect to the historiography of doctrine this works adds little if anything, rehashing ground already fairly well trodden, and continuing longstanding taxonomies of the doctrine of grace.

I may not have invented the wheel, but who really does, when writing a history of a doctrine?

His notion of a general unawareness of a Catholic doctrine of predestination is simply wrong: anyone who has studied the history of Catholic theology is well aware of this doctrine. The most interesting work in fifth and sixth century scholarship on Christianity is much more engaged with the larger historical context of changing roles and identities as the Roman world was being transformed. The present work is more in the mold of old fashioned histories of dogma.

How many people, among the general Catholic population are really aware of this doctrine? Moreover, I wanted to write a systematic theology book, and not a sociological text about the downfall of the Roman Empire.

It does, however, through its lively translations of texts in their context, give English-speaking readers a nice feel for the kinds of arguments that were being advanced in these controversies. I do not think, on the whole, that the work as it stands makes a significant contribution to the field.

Well, let’s see. The fact that I have introduced to the readers TEN texts never translated before, obviously means nothing to this reviewer. And by the way: does every new book being published have to make radically new and innovative contributions? My goal in writing my manuscript was not to be innovative, but to add a fresh, comprehensive, easily readable summary of a relatively unknown controversy. In the process of doing that, I also managed to: a) Translate from the Latin an entire text (Arnobius’ Praedestinatus); b) Document how the Semipelagian agenda has survived in the ICEL’s translation of the Roman Sacramentary; c) Argue my own thesis (contra Weaver) that the real underlying conflict between the Augustinians and the Semipelagians was not sociological (monastic vs secular milieus) but ethnic (African rigorism vs. the Greek theological and spiritual tradition), and ecclesiological (the independent monastic lifestyle vs. the diocesan subordination to the local bishop) in nature. Is that NO contribution at all?

But parts of it hold potential to be a very useful tool: the translation of the Praedestinatus is important. It seems to me that the author, instead of trying to argue several disparate theses, simply do a texts-with-commentary volume, something Three Early Controversies on Grace. Most people are aware that controversy over predestination took place in the fifth and sixth centuries, but most are not at all familiar with the texts.

I have absolutely no intention, desire or ability to do so. Not going to happen.

4) Is the author’s scholarship sound? Have the proper sources been used? Are quotations and translations accurate? Is the documentation proper and sufficient?

I do not think the author shows sufficient acquaintance with the works of those like Torgny Bohlin, whose now somewhat dated study showed fairly conclusively how much of a caricature or straw man Pelagianism is. The author seems to accept a dated, one-sided portrait of Pelagianism. I certainly do not detect any scholarship on Pelagius here, except for a fleeting reference to Rees, whose work is only a small bit of the landscape.

This has to be my favorite Most Ignorant Comment in this review. Who in the world is Torgny Bohlin (a Swedish theologian, whose name the reviewer parades as a household name, as popular as Barth)? He wrote one book (in German, a language I do not know) on the history of Pelagianism. Am I supposed to be familiar with every single minor author who wrote in every single language on every single subject? Again, please consider, Pelagianism is not the topic of my research. Period. The reader will not be able to detect any scholarship on Pope Gregory the Great, the Council of Nicaea or anything that is not immediately related to my topic, either.

The use of the immediate primary and secondary sources is sound, and the translation quality seems generally good. The overall impression remains of a certain lack of historical circumspection. The bibliography is quite thin.

The bibliography is quite thin? I wrote in my Introduction: Despite the magnitude and importance of the Semipelagian controversy, it is surprising that very little has been published in the English language to document its inception and content. Most sources on Semipelagianism are in French, German and Italian. Having cited in my bibliography the relevant literature in those languages, what else was I supposed to do? Invent titles?

5) Are there other books in the field with which the manuscript could be expected to compete? How does it compare with them?

It is difficult to know about the competitive position of the book, because the book itself defies categorization. Its tone and content are variously scholarly, popular, pastoral, polemical, and occasionally like classroom lecture notes. In terms of a history of the Semi-Pelagian episodes,

Rebecca Weaver covers the territory in more or less complete fashion.

And what exactly did Weaver say that I did not? It seems to me the truth is the other way around, as I described and quoted from texts she never dealt with, or even mentioned!

It is difficult to imagine exactly the market for this work: scholars will be interested in the controversy, but would not need or enjoy the pastoral or polemical aspects of the book.

Polemical aspects of the book? Using the plural (like how many? Two, three, or more?) and giving no examples, does not help me understand what the reviewer is referring to.

I endeavored to avoid expressing my personal bias: where did I fail?

Undergraduates would find it too specialized and narrow. I imagine that a seminary audience might find such a work useful, in that it tries to show the pastoral and practical relevance of the doctrines of grace.

How about the general educated population interested in theological matters? Laypeople, religious, graduate students, besides seminary students?

6) Please comment on the author’s style

As noted above, the author’s style seems, to me at least, peculiar and inconsistent: sometimes careful and circumspect, sometimes preachy and popular, sometimes using very subtle philosophical and textual analysis, sometimes dismissing other positions lightly.

Sometimes dismissing other positions lightly! Any examples? If anything, it seems to me I have been more than fair when dealing with theological opinions I do not agree with.

7) What is the principal audience for the manuscript? Are there any secondary audiences? Would it have any appeal for use in college-level courses? Would it appeal to a wider, more general audience?

I think I have inadvertently answered this question in # 5, but I think audience is a serious question here. The topic is quite narrow and particular, and most people who are very interested in this area will have already known much about the controversies. As noted in my earlier comments, I would see this book as much more successful as a texts-with-commentary volume that would be a primary-source companion to a church history course, probably at a seminary level.

The final recommendation of the anonymous reviewer, was: I recommend publication of the manuscript after revision in light of the suggestions made herein (i.e., revamping to text with commentary).

My overall response to these comments was that the reviewer failed to see the forest for the trees. Fortunately, instead of dismissing my project, Dr. LaNave sent it to a second reviewer, whose judgment however turned out to be more implacable than the first one. The following is the evaluation the second anonymous reviewer sent back to him in late April 2005 (I have added in bold a few of the comments/responses to the reviewer’s criticisms I wrote in a separate, indignant email to Dr. LaNave):

Report on reading Not without Us: A Brief History of the Forgotten Catholic Doctrine of Predestination

This study covers an important doctrine in an important period of the church’s attempt to come to terms with it. Moreover, it reports the fifth and sixth century discussion with a completeness and in a detail which is not otherwise achieved in English. The other recent studies are those of Rebecca Weaver and Thomas Smith take [sic] a somewhat different approach to the question and are not as exhaustive in their treatment.

The author’s intention is theological: the interest is in the truth or falsity of the doctrine itself rather than an understanding of the historical circumstances in which it arose and developed.

Not true at all! How preposterous!

Thus the mode of investigation and analysis is in the history of ideas tradition than in the social history mode, which is currently more in favor among historians of doctrine.

Absolutely! And the problem is? It is my book and I write it any way I want to! But is the reviewer even aware that Pelikan wrote in his The Growth of Medieval Theology (p. 7): "We are also continuing our practice in the first two volumes of paying attention only to the history of the doctrine [emphasis mine], even at the expense of fascinating and important questions outside the area of doctrine"?

Even within this framework, however, the author freely uses contemporary Roman Catholic teaching to guide the analysis and evaluation of the ancient arguments. This practice would not have been followed, at least not so openly, by either historians or historical theologians. Thus, in its methods, the study appears to something [sic] of a cross between historical and systematic theology. This reader found that in its present form it succeeds at neither.

The title, A Brief History, is misleading because the study covers so little of the actual history. The author recognizes that the fifth and sixth century materials which are discussed hardly constitute a history of the doctrine of predestination, even from the Catholic side. The discussion of Augustine’s own work is far too brief and does not consider the development of the doctrine in his own work. Prior and contemporary discussions are also overlooked. The explicit rejection of the doctrine of predestination, particularly in the Origenist school, must be a fuller part of the discussion. The Latin translations in which so much of Origen’s thinking on this subject survived were made at the very time that Augustine was coming to accept it.

I am not an Augustinian scholar. Mine is not a work on Augustine’s doctrine of predestination, but on the history of the doctrine during the fifth and sixth centuries. The brief description in my book about his evolving thought will have to do. By the way, in order to address the reviewer’s complaint about my neglecting the Origenist school, I was referred by Fr. McLeod, S.J. to another patristic scholar, Fr. Robert Daly, S.J., Professor Emeritus at Boston College. I asked Fr. Daly if indeed there was such as thing an explicit rejection of the doctrine of predestination in the Origenist school, since my reviewer was so adamant it should be a fuller part of the discussion, or if the theme of predestination had been dealt at all in a significant manner prior to Augustine. This is what Fr. Daly emailed me on May 5, 2004:

Dear Guido,

a very strange question. I am not aware that Origen dealt with it at all, except, perhaps in relation to apokatastasis. There is no entry under Predestinazione in the superb Origene. Dizionario, edited by Adele Monaci (Citta’ Nuova Editrice, 2000), nor is there any mention of Origen or of anyone in the third century for that matter in the entry Predestination in J. Patout Burns’ article in the Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, edited by E. Ferguson (New York, 1997). So I am afraid I can’t help you—or maybe this negative information (which you may forward to whomever you wish) is a help.

Blessings!

Bob Daly, S.J.

The subsequent history is no less important: the resurrection and rejection of the doctrine in the eight century, medieval attempts to deal with its components (including the work of Aquinas), and the fourteenth century reconsiderations of divine freedom and choice are relegated to a later study. These are essential even to a brief history of doctrine. Thus, the study should be expanded or retitled.

As far as the later developments of the doctrine from VI century on are concerned, the reviewer is obviously unaware of what you and I discussed at the beginning of our correspondence last year, namely the possibility of me writing a detailed second part, dealing with medieval developments extending to the Middle Ages.

This reader also found the use of the term Catholic puzzling. Despite the rhetoric of some of the Sixteenth-century Reformers, the development of doctrine in the churches of the Western Reformation owed much to Augustine and his critics, though they might not have been read with the same authority as medieval writers had accorded them. What is the term Catholic meant to stand over-against in this study? In Augustine’s Africa, of course, its opposite would have been Donatist; in Gaul it might have been Arian. Yet the author seems to want to take the alternative as Protestant, though the study does acknowledge that the Reformers were divided on this teaching, as were the Catholics. In short, the fifth-century debaters are not Catholics in the post-Reformation sense of that term.

The reasons for my use of the word Catholic has been sufficiently described in my Introduction. The reviewer can disagree with me, but cannot say I did not explain myself.

A book which met the title would actually be quite helpful.

All I have to do is to add during the Semipelagian controversy to my subtitle, and voila’ . . . . Why couldn’t he suggest that himself? What a smart ass comment!

At a minimum, it would have to show that Augustine was an innovator in his teaching on the gratuity of efficacious grace; it would then include the study which the author has provided of the debate which culminated in the Synod of Orange. Some discussion of the Carolingian debates and the scholastic treatments would be necessary—not neglecting the Nominalism of the fourteenth century which set up the Reformation debate. It might end at the Council of Trent or the papal suppression of the Dominican-Jesuit debate. That would be a really useful book and the author seems to know much of the material well enough to write it.

The current mode of exposition will have to be changed radically.

I will most certainly not re-write my book: I do not want to, and I wouldn’t know how to!

Providing summaries of a series of documents is not writing history. The summaries which the author has provided are the first step in his own process of charting the movement of a debate.

You’ve got to be kidding me! Read Rebecca Weaver’s book, published by Mercer, and tell me to my face that it is not a well written summary of the documents involved! Moreover, she does not even interact with the texts, offering no insights or criticisms whatsoever, even though one can read between the lines a sympathetic attitude towards Semipelagians. Secondly, has the reader failed to notice that the overwhelming majority of my summaries are from previously untranslated texts which even scholars have not read in the original Latin? Thus, by providing their summaries, not only I am indeed documenting the development of the debate about predestination, but I am actually doing a favor to the scholarly community by making the texts available to them!

The exposition should be revised to focus on the issues involved in the documents rather than the documents themselves. A chapter in almost any history of doctrine, such as Pelikan’s, will provide a model.

But what if I decided instead to follow A.McGrath’s Iustitia dei as my model?

The text should read through in one language, English, rather than including the Latin text, which should be provided in the notes. Technical terms might be kept in the text but always with an English equivalent. No one writing for a contemporary American audience, even an academic one, may presume facility in Latin.

McGrath’s book is replete with lengthy paragraphs in Latin: as far as I know, his book has been favorably reviewed by scholars in this country, which obviously shows that my brief Latin quotes are not an issue other than in the reviewer’s mind.

I cannot recommend the publication of the manuscript in its present form.

Dr. LaNave, in an email dated February 24, 2004, addressed the substance of the reviewer’s critique. He wrote:

It seems to me you are trying to achieve two goals in the manuscript: 1) to give a detailed presentation of what was really going on in the patristic semi-Pelagian controversy, and 2) to open the reader’s eyes to the actuality of the question, and to enable him to confront, as you did, the question of whether he is Augustinian or semi-Pelagian. I applaud the purpose; but it may be that there should be more conscious, methodological separation of those two motives . . . The reviewer faults the mode of exposition: providing summaries vs charting the movement of a debate. I see his point. I don’t have a copy of Weaver’s book for comparison. But it is certainly true that a good bit of your text is a simple summary of the documents in question. That’s not an illegitimate procedure, but again the result is not so much the history of an idea as a presentation of source material; a clarification of the nature and method of the manuscript is in order.

LaNave’s advice in late December 2004 sounded more hopeful:

Perhaps it would make more sense to coalesce all such judgments and argumentation into a single, final chapter. Thus, the first four chapters would lay out the substance of the historical dispute, and the final chapter would offer some reflections on the whole on the basis of, for example, biblical exegesis and modern Church teaching—and I was happy to oblige. I would have done that earlier on, had anybody suggested it.

LaNave was also sympathetic to my project. In the same email he wrote:

The question then is, would patristic theologians, or students of the era, find such a summary useful? The first reader seems to think not. I myself find it useful. I regret that the weight of these comments is negative. I actually am impressed with your mastery of the sources and I think you have a nice engaging, judicious style of setting out and explaining the arguments. But I don’t think you have yet provided a proper explanation of what you are doing—and the rationale for some of your own contribution appears far too personal and idiosyncratic.

Unfortunately, due to either my stubbornness, or inability to make the necessary changes, or laziness/unwillingness at the thought of having to do an overhaul of my work to accommodate the reviewer’s critiques, I finally reached the end of the road. On May 23, 2005, Dr. LaNave regretfully informed me that the manuscript as it stands will go no further here. One may argue with one or another of the reader’s criticisms, but the fact remains that with this, and the earlier reader report in hand, there is no chance that our editorial committee will accept this manuscript.

After my book proposal was rejected, I decided to go solo and ended up self-publishing my book with Fenestra Books. Scarcely containing my enthusiasm, I sent a freshly minted copy to Rebecca Weaver, Professor of Church History at Union Presbyterian Seminary, Richmond, Va. and kindly solicited her opinion about it, since she wrote her doctoral dissertation on Semipelagianism. Very disappointing to me, I never heard back from her. Ever. I guess she felt jealous or over-protective of her subject matter, or just could not care less to help a rookie author.

I also contacted Lauren Pristas, Professor of Theology at Caldwell College, and an expert in ancient Latin liturgical prayers, to ask her advice and solicit her opinion. In an exchange of emails I had with her, she came across as extremely condescending (she wouldn’t let it rest that I had used the term sacramentary according to popular usage, in reference to the Leonine Sacramentary—by golly! It isn’t a sacramentary! My bad!); when I asked her if I could use her name in my book’s acknowledgments, she flatly denied me the privilege. In other words, she would not want her name to be associated with such an up starter and amateur as myself.

I did not have better luck with my third book on the history of the doctrine of predestination, either.3 When I contacted attorney and Catholic apologist John Salza, who authored his own treatise on the subject, introducing myself and soliciting his opinion on my work, all I got back from him was a puzzlingly laconic response: A very intriguing doctrine indeed! That’s all he wrote! Not even the politeness to discuss the tropic we both cared and wrote about: I guess I was not worthy of his time. Even more perplexing was the silence of evangelical scholars. In late October 2010 I wrote a letter to ninety-five Ph.Ds teaching at evangelical seminaries and theological colleges (plus two Catholic ones), soliciting their opinion about my book. I did not select their names randomly, but ascertained that each and every one of them taught either Systematic Theology or History of Christian Thought, and were therefore very well aware of the importance of the doctrine of predestination.

My letter read:

Dear So and So,

My book examines the Catholic doctrine of predestination from Augustine to the Renaissance through a detailed exposition of previously un-translated literature, spanning over this period of church history. My original research is the result of an eight-year project attempting to place in historical context various insights concerning the theology of predestination formulated within the Catholic Church prior to the Reformation.

I believe you will find much of value in this work of historical theology, and that your colleagues and students will find some use for the vast amount of information I have introduced to support my argument that the doctrine of predestination was an integral part of Catholic dogmatic teaching, centuries before the doctrine became co-opted by Reformed theology.

I will be happy to answer any questions and clarifications you may have concerning my project. I do hope that you will consider using my text for research and teaching purposes as well as reviewing the work within your