Yet Eriugena does offer arguments as well as quotations. He complains that, in addition to that fundamental confusion between God’s knowing a thing and causing it to happen, Gottschalk has ascribed a double predestination to a God who is purely one. It’s an early sign of his Neoplatonic leanings that Eriugena hammers relentlessly on this point (as at §2.6, 3.5). Gottschalk’s position would require that God exercises two distinct and contrary kinds of predestination over His creation, and this is inconsistent with God’s simplicity. Instead, everything that God does proceeds from one essence.
