The ever changing story of Augustine and other fathers according to Ken Wilson on infant baptism

 Regardless of the recent spins by Leighton Flowers and Soteriology101 that baptism issue has little to do with Ken Wilson’s thesis, here’s what Ken Wilson’s book The Foundation of Augustinianism-Calvinism, page 78 said of what Augustine’s “novel” theology of predestination, grace and freewill were based on:

“The critical foundation of infant baptism for salvation in Augustine's novel theology cannot be overstated.”

What were Wilson’s arguments on this? Augustine, according to him, ended up holding to “Calvinistic” views because he needed to find justification in the Pelagian debate for infant baptism practice that he and all other fathers, according to Wilson, had no idea why it was done prior to 412 AD. Augustine was stated as inventing original sin guilt and infant baptismal salvation (which in turn bred “Calvinist” views like faith is a gift of God”) out of reverting back to his former views of Manichaeanism, Gnosticism and other forms of “paganism.”

On page 56, he wrote: “About 405 CE, Augustine admitted that he did not know why infant baptism was practiced.” 

In the footnote for that, Wilson said,  

“Augustine, an.quant.80: "In this context, also, how much benefit is there in the consecration of infant children? It is a most difficult (obscure) question. However, that some benefit exists is to be believed. Reason will discover this when it should be asked.’”

The writing Wilson quoted from Augustine was an.quant. which was written in 386/7 AD, a year after Augustine coming to faith, not almost two decades after that. So right off the bat, Wilson is presenting false information. And he knew it, too, since his dissertation book Augustine’s Conversion from Traditional Free Choice to “Non-free Free Will” page 96 referred to that writing as in 386/7 AD.

And that is besides the fact the quote he have from Augustine does not say what Wilson wanted him to say. The church father didn’t even use the word baptism. But if Wilson wants to claim consecrate referred to in the quote meant baptism, then he defeated his own claim that Augustine had no explanation for infant baptism, since that explanation would be to consecrate (or save) the infant.

Wilson used this false claim to push these ideas on page 97:

“Prior to 412 CE, even Augustine had viewed baptism as unnecessary for salvation and infant baptism had no explanation.”

(By the way, he pushed the same false claim in page 282 in his longer dissertation book that in 400 AD, Augustine didn’t know why infant baptism was practiced.)

Both the claim that 1) Augustine (and prior fathers) rejected baptism is necessary to salvation and 2) had no explanation for infant baptism are false. As a side note, Wilson claimed to Flowers in his interview that until 412, no one, not even Augustine, knew why infant baptism was practiced at the 7:40 minute mark of this video:

https://youtu.be/BnOMORGM2Qw

The same book he pushed this lie actually refuted that lie. On page 42, Wilson wrote, “About 404 CE, Augustine praised the faith of the thief on the cross as sufficient for salvation without water baptism (Bapt.4.29–30). Baptism only avails for infants' dedication to God and a first step toward salvation, not the forgiveness of guilt from original sin (Bapt.4.32).”

Granted, though what Wilson claimed was a distortion there (Augustine didn’t treat infant baptism as baby dedication like many modern evangelicals do baby waterless dedications), but for the sake of the argument, let’s assume he was right (ignoring early Augustine’s salvation theme on it). That meant Augustine nevertheless prior to 412 AD had at least one explanation for infant baptism. That’s not to mention, 404 AD is prior to 405 AD (if we go by that bogus date Wilson gave for a 386/7 AD writing by Augustine).

So which is it, Wilson? Augustine had no explanation for infant baptism prior to 412 AD? Or he had an explanation for infant baptism in 404 AD which was prior to 412 AD (or 405 AD false dating of a writing that did not say what Wilson wanted it to say)?

For the sake of accuracy, let’s show what Augustine actually said in 404 AD writing.

Augustine in On Baptism 4:32 saw baptism first as parallel with circumcision in terms of even infants counted for righteousness when given the sacrament:

“Why, therefore, was it commanded him that he should circumcise every male child in order on the eighth day, Genesis 17:9-14 though it could not yet believe with the heart, that it should be counted unto it for righteousness, because the sacrament in itself was of great avail?”

He then cited the example of Moses’ son facing death if not circumcised (as analogy in regards to infants needing baptism):

“And this was made manifest by the message of an angel in the case of Moses' son; for when he was carried by his mother, being yet uncircumcised, it was required, by manifest present peril, that he should be circumcised, Exodus 4:24-26 and when this was done, the danger of death was removed.”

He added then that infants were given via “the sacrament of regeneration” the seal of the righteousness of faith:

“And as in Isaac, who was circumcised on the eighth day after his birth, the seal of this righteousness of faith was given first, and afterwards, as he imitated the faith of his father, the righteousness itself followed as he grew up, of which the seal had been given before when he was an infant; so in infants, who are baptized, the sacrament of regeneration is given first, and if they maintain a Christian piety, conversion also in the heart will follow, of which the mysterious sign had gone before in the outward body.”

So when Augustine used the term dedication in regards to baptism it was in regards to infants being saved by baptism, that covers them should they die (Augustine offered no such hope for the unbaptized infants even here), not by own faith but faith of own parents:

“So in infants who die baptized, we must believe that the same grace of the Almighty supplies the want, that, not from perversity of will, but from insufficiency of age, they can neither believe with the heart unto righteousness, nor make confession with the mouth unto salvation. Therefore, when others take the vows for them, that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete in their behalf, it is unquestionably of avail for their dedication to God, because they cannot answer for themselves.”

There’s more. On page 76, Wilson wrote,

“Before 412 CE, Augustine cited it similarly (e.g., Conf.1.7; Enar. Ps.51.10). His early use follows the Jewish and early Christian interpretation that "(Ps.51:7; 50:7), merely means that everyone born of a woman becomes a sinner in this world, without fail."[147] Augustine's more Manichaean interpretation (babies are born damned from Adam's sin) first appears in 412 CE in Pecc. merit.1.34 and 3.13 (alongside Job 14:4 supporting infant baptism and infant participation in the Eucharist).”

Take note that by Wilson’s own admission, Augustine’s Psalm 51.10 exposition was prior to 412 AD. What Wilson didn’t tell you was Augustine giving an explanation for why infant baptism was practiced, saying infants are born guilty of sin from Adam and need baptism for their forgiveness. So in other words, the very views Wilson claimed were Manichaean novelties from 412 AD onwards out of Augustine, appeared in Augustine’s writing that by his own admission was prior to 412 AD (and his debate with the Pelagians). That’s not to mention Augustine not only had an explanation for infant baptism prior to 412 AD, but contrary to what Wilson claimed, treated baptism as necessary to salvation prior to 412 AD as well.

Here’s what pre-412 AD Augustine wrote in that writing:

“10. For, behold, in iniquities I was conceived Psalm 50:5. As though he were saying, They are conquered that have done what thou, David, hast done: for this is not a little evil and little sin, to wit, adultery and man-slaying. What of them that from the day that they were born of their mother's womb, have done no such thing? Even to them do you ascribe some sins, in order that He may conquer all men when He begins to be judged. David has taken upon him the person of mankind, and has heeded the bonds of all men, has considered the offspring of death, has adverted to the origin of iniquity, and he says, For, behold, in iniquities I was conceived. Was David born of adultery; being born of Jesse, 1 Samuel 16:18 a righteous man, and his own wife? What is it that he says himself to have been in iniquity conceived, except that iniquity is drawn from Adam? Even the very bond of death, with iniquity itself is engrained? No man is born without bringing punishment, bringing desert of punishment. A Prophet says also in another place, No one is clean in Your sight, not even an infant, whose life is of one day upon earth. For we know both by the Baptism of Christ that sins are loosed, and that the Baptism of Christ avails the remission of sins. If infants are every way innocent, why do mothers run with them when sick to the Church? What by that Baptism, what by that remission is put away? An innocent one I see that rather weeps than is angry. What does Baptism wash off? What does that Grace loose? There is loosed the offspring of sin. For if that infant could speak to you, it would say, and if it had the understanding which David had, it would answer you, Why do you heed me, an infant? Thou dost not indeed see my actions: but I in iniquity have been conceived, And in sins has my mother nourished me in the womb.”

So Augustine well even before his 412 AD knew why infant baptism was being practiced and was not shy in saying it was done to save and forgive the infant. Yet Wilson in his interview with Flowers claimed that Augustine made such ideas up in 412 AD to justify infant baptism against Pelagius since 1) Pelagius was essentially Baptist who held to believer’s baptism and one needs to be old enough to make choice to be reborn and 2) Augustine didn’t know until then why infant baptism was practiced.

As pointed out above, the latter claim is totally untrue, and Wilson knew it was untrue. The first claim (on Pelagius being essentially Southern Baptist) was also untrue, and Wilson knew that as well.  On page 210 of his longer dissertation book, Wilson wrote that Pelagius and Julian approved of infant baptism.

So as in regards to whether Augustine had an explanation for infant baptism prior to 412 AD or not, Wilson’s story in regards to whether or not Pelagius and his allies affirmed infant baptism changes when convenient.

Augustine even acknowledged the Pelagians affirmed infant baptism for entrance into the kingdom of God (per John 3:5 refuting the lie that post-411 AD Augustine originated baptismal view of it) in his On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants (Book I) while pointing they were being inconsistent with their denials of original sin in doing so:

“Chapter 58 [XXX.]— In What Respect the Pelagians Regarded Baptism as Necessary for Infants.

“Let us now examine more carefully, so far as the Lord enables us, that very chapter of the Gospel where He says, Unless a man be born again — of water and the Spirit — he shall not enter into the kingdom of God. If it were not for the authority which this sentence has with them, they would not be of opinion that infants ought to be baptized at all. This is their comment on the passage: Because He does not say, 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he shall not have salvation or eternal life,' but He merely said, 'he shall not enter into the kingdom of God,' therefore infants are to be baptized, in order that they may be with Christ in the kingdom of God, where they will not be unless they are baptized. Should infants die, however, even without baptism, they will have salvation and eternal life, seeing that they are bound with no fetter of sin. Now in such a statement as this, the first thing that strikes one is, that they never explain where the justice is of separating from the kingdom of God that image of God which has no sin. Next, we ought to see whether the Lord Jesus, the one only good Teacher, has not in this very passage of the Gospel intimated, and indeed shown us, that it only comes to pass through the remission of their sins that baptized persons reach the kingdom of God; although to persons of a right understanding, the words, as they stand in the passage, ought to be sufficiently explicit: Unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God; John 3:3 and: Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John 3:5 For why should he be born again, unless to be renewed? From what is he to be renewed, if not from some old condition? From what old condition, but that in which our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed? Romans 6:6 Or whence comes it to pass that the image of God enters not into the kingdom of God, unless it be that the impediment of sin prevents it? However, let us (as we said before) see, as earnestly and diligently as we are able, what is the entire context of this passage of the Gospel, on the point in question.”

Wilson did the same thing with pre-Augustine fathers as well. Remember, Wilson on page 97 (and even more explicitly in his interview with Flowers) claimed Augustine and other fathers had no idea why infant baptism was practiced and denied baptismal salvation. My previous article refuted the latter claim by citing fathers on John 3:5 and pointing out they to the man saw it as baptismal salvation requirement. For the sake of space, I refer people to that here:

https://g2witt.blogspot.com/2020/06/lead-augustine-scholar-ken-wilson-using.html?m=1

Here, we will deal with his claim that no one prior to 412 AD knew why infant baptism was done. Besides the pre-412 AD Augustine writings mentioned above, take Cyprian, for example. On page 90 of his longer dissertation book, Wilson listed Cyprian’s ten different reasons for infant baptism. While omitting statements from Cyprian on Adam’s sins, as to what sins infants are forgiven for in baptism and on baptizing infants as soon as possible after birth  to see that none are lost (to accuse Augustine of originating such views out of Manichaeanism and Gnosticism), just mention of these showed Wilson knew that the claim no one prior to 412 AD knew why infant baptism was practiced was a lie he told in his shorter book and in his interview with Flowers. (Ironically one of the reasons he did list from Cyprian for infant baptism- receiving forgiveness of sins- refuted his claim on page 167 that Augustine originated the idea of infants receiving forgiveness of sins in baptism.)

On page 248 of his longer dissertation book, he wrote of earlier Augustine and earlier fathers on infant baptism: 

“This follows Origen and Ambrose in traditional paedobaptism for an unclean (blood?) stain at birth (Enar. Ps. 51.10).” 

Taking aside the fact as the quotes posted earlier in the article from early Augustine’s Psalm 51.10 exposition showed Wilson’s claim was false in denying he held to prior 412 AD the forgiveness of sins inherited from Adam for infants in baptism, even assuming these statements are true showed that Wilson was not telling the truth when he claimed nobody, not even Augustine, prior to 412 AD knew why infant baptism was practiced.

The fact of the matter is that contrary to Wilson’s distortions, all three held to infant baptism remits sins that infants were born with.

In the Homily on Leviticus 8.3, Origen said,

“But if it pleases you to hear what other saints also might think about this birthday, hear David speaking, ‘In iniquity I was conceived and in my sins my mother brought me forth,’ showing every soul which is born in flesh is polluted by the filth ‘of iniquity of sin’; and for this reason we can say what we already have recalled above, ‘No one is pure from uncleanness even if his life is only one day long.’ To these things can be added the reason why it is required, since the baptism is given for the forgiveness of sins, that, according, to the observance of the Church, that baptism also be given to infants; since, certainly, if there were nothing in infants that ought to pertain to forgiveness and indulgence, then the grace of baptism would appear superflous.”

Augustine’s mentor and bishop of Milan, Ambrose, wrote in On Abraham, 2.84: 

“Unless a man be born of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. Surely, He exempts none, not the infant, not one hindered by any necessity: but although they may have a hidden immunity to punishments, I know not whether they have the honour  of the Kingdom.”

Ambrose made his statement of even infants needing baptismal rebirth after spending several pages building his case for that. In On Abraham 2.79, he stated, 

“Let both the household slave and foreign-born, the righteous and the sinner, be circumcised with the remission of sins, so sin will have no more have effect, because none has ascended to the Kingdom of the Heavens save through the Sacrament of Baptism.”

Besides seeing John 3:5 as prooftext for baptismal saving necessity, even for infants (contrary to Wilson claiming that originated with Augustine), he argued the following page in 2.81 linking circumcision to baptism and showing infants have sin guilt that baptism needs to forgive and call them from:

“No age should be devoid of tutelage, because none is devoid of guilt. Even a baby is to be called back from sin, lest he be stained by the infection of idolatry, and lest he become accustomed to worship an idol and fondly kiss an image, to disobey his father’s will, to offend against piety. At the same time, lest anyone be haughty, in that he seems to himself to be righteous, Abraham is ordered to be circumcised. Therefore, neither an old proselyte nor a home-born baby, because every age is subject to sin, and therefore every age is fit to receive the Sacrament.”

As stated though, even if we disregard all these statements and go by what Wilson said on Origen, Ambrose and early Augustine in his longer dissertation book, his claim in Foundation and to Flowers that no one knew why infant baptism was done prior to 412 AD is debunked by his own words in his dissertation. 

Another case of Wilson changing his story when it suits him.

But with these quotes from these fathers, it debunked his claim that original sin guilt and infant baptismal salvation to forgive them originated from Augustine out of Manichaeanism and Gnosticism.

And if Wilson wanted to argue, the foundations of Calvinism are these views, then going by true facts of history, Calvinism would be rooted deep in church history from fathers long before Augustine.

Obviously, we aren’t Calvinists here but the smears against Augustine go far beyond them since Augustine’s views on infant baptismal salvation and losable regeneration after baptism were far closer to us Lutherans than Calvinists.

Here we stand.

Post Tenebras Lux - a Short Story

Post Tenebras Lux is a Latin phrase. It means, After Darkness, Light. It was one of the rallying cries of the Protestant Reformation. But this short story isn't about the Reformation. It's about a man. Well, not one man, but three.

The man violently erupted, like a volcano hell bent on destruction. He blew up over something God knows he should not have. His love was being attacked, in a way. Someone was trying to move in, seeing in his love what the man saw. And who can blame him? For she is a rare gem.

The story of the man starts years before. The man has a history of failing. He finds ways to give in to the Darkness and lose. In fact, the Darkness beats him every time. The man has a history, and his history is failure.

The Darkness spews forth. He tells the man; you have failed repeatedly, and you will fail again. Every time in the past that I have challenged you, I have won. You will surely lose again.

The Darkness reminds the man that he himself has failed. The Darkness admits that he has brought temptation and chaos, but it is the man who has failed. The Darkness tells the man that he has failed twice in the eyes of the Lord.

I have brought you spite, and I have brought you abuse, and I have brought you terror and strife. I've even driven you to the point of suicide. I'm pretty good at this, and you are not, says the Darkness. I've even tried to destroy your children! And I think I've done pretty well!

The man cannot disagree. Life has been tough. The Darkness has wreaked havoc on him, and his children. The Darkness is a force to be reckoned with. The man submits. He cannot beat the Darkness. The Darkness is much more seasoned and smarter than he is.

The Darkness taunts the man. Where is your resolve? Where is your Savior? You are an unworthy servant! Your Christ cannot do anything! You, man, are weak! I own you! everything I have thrown at you; I have beaten you. I am undefeated. You have destroyed your life. You have desecrated everything Christ says is Holy. What makes you think that this beautiful gift of love that you have been given won't fail? Everything else in your life has failed. You, O man, will destroy this love. For I, the Darkness, will make sure of it.

The man despairs. The Darkness has won. The man is afraid. For the man sees that God has given him a wonderful gift. But the man also sees that the Darkness is right there every step of the way, trying to assert himself to destroy the gift.

The man cries. He falls asleep, despairing that he has lost to the Darkness yet again, and that by his eruption his love is gone.

The man awakes. This time he finds himself in the sanctuary of the saints. The gentle morning light refracts through the stained glass windows. It is beautiful. The man has his children with him. In the sanctuary, there are many saints, from very young to very old.

Another man appears. This is the second man. He is dressed in a white robe and a green chasuble, to mark the time of the church. This man is not the Christ, but he is sent by Christ himself.

The second man is the called and ordained servant of Christ, standing on his behalf.

Light emanates from the mouth of the second man in radiant glory. He proclaims: As a called and ordained servant of Christ, I forgive you all of your sins in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

The Darkness cowers. The Darkness has no power against this. The Light has driven out the Darkness.

The second man only acts as a servant. He acts on behalf of the third man. The third man is the Son of God, who was delivered up for our transgressions and raised for our justification. The third man is the God of the Universe, Jesus Christ. It is the third man, who is the second Adam, who gives the power to the second man. Yet the second man doesn't have any power in himself. It is only by the authority and power of the third man, Christ, that he is authorized to forgive.

More light comes forth. The second man teaches us about Christ. He tells us that only Christ can love perfectly, and that as a result, we are to love our neighbors. Christ is the Good shepherd. He is also the Good Samaritan. Only Christ can love perfectly. We fail. We need him. He gives himself to us.

The Darkness flees, once again.

The second man continues to act on behalf of the third man. He repeats the strong words of Christ, consecrating ordinary bread and wine to be the body and blood of Christ.

The man comes forward. Here is the true body of Christ, given into death. For you. The second man feeds the first, giving him Christ's body.

This is the true blood of Jesus Christ, shed for you for the forgiveness of sins. And the man drinks. 

The man is satisfied. The Light has driven out the Darkness. The Light has forgiven all of his sins; and his sins are too numerous to count. They are grievous and deserving of hell. The man has failed repeatedly. The Darkness reminds him of that, all too often.

Yet, the Light has forgiven him. His sins are driven away. The Darkness recedes.

Today, the Darkness cannot win. He is impotent against the Light. The Light has driven him out. The Light did so 2000 years ago on the cross and then was vindicated by rising from the dead. The Light continues to drive away the Darkness with his strong Word, given in word and Sacrament.

For today, the man may rest in peace and worry about nothing. Yes, the man has failed in the past. He has failed grievously. But today, the Light has driven away the Darkness. He has forgiven the man, and the man may rest in peace. His love knows this too.

All is well. Christ has won, is winning, and will win.

The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. -St. John 1:5

Response to Leighton Flowers video on Luther vs Calvin, part 5: Rejection of decision theology from Lutheran perspective on law and gospel distinction

This is the fifth part of the response to Leighton Flowers video in regards to Luther vs Calvin (two Reformers who carried forth two different stream of Augustinian predestination thoughts).

Flowers’ video can be found here:

https://youtu.be/pZrTO88WmDg

Leighton Flowers claimed that only Calvinists say to hold to things like we don’t save ourselves (see 15:21 minute mark), unmerited grace (see 19:22 minute mark), and faith doesn’t do anything to earn  salvation (see 21:27 minute mark) must be dependent on us rejecting decision theology (see 25:21 minute mark)- or the idea we can have faith on our own (see 1 hour and 30 minute mark)- and affirming the unregenerate nature is by nature bound to sin (see 1 hour and 8 minute mark. Unknowingly, he refuted himself at the 1 hour and 27 minute mark when he complained that Luther conflated holding to the bound will and works of the flesh as doing nothing towards salvation. Regardless of his attempts to paint Luther as a Calvinist, he was not a a Calvinist but in line with confessional Lutheran beliefs of salvation is all of God (elective unto salvation, faith is a monergistic or effectual gift of God) and damnation is all of man (God wants all to be saved, Christ died for all, God’s work to give faith to all can be resisted, salvation can be lost).

That goes into the point here that it is not just Calvinists that Flowers object to here (regardless of his claim that only Calvinists would say such things), but also Lutherans. At the heart of why Lutherans would say all the above things, that Flowers claimed only Calvinists would say, without actually being Calvinists, is the strict distinction between law and gospel. Such a distinction that is so central to Lutheran theology.

Luther in fact raised this strict law and gospel distinction throughout his famous Bondage of the Will response to the Catholic humanist Erasmus’ Diatribe Concerning Freewill. Indeed, the Reformer bluntly stated, 

“Sect. 60.—IN these passages, our friend Diatribe makes no distinction whatever, between the voice of the Law and the voice of the Gospel: because, forsooth, it is so blind and so ignorant, that it knows not what is the Law and what is the Gospel. For out of all the passages from Isaiah, it produces no one word of the law, save this, 'If thou wilt;' all the rest is Gospel, by which, as the word of offered grace, the bruised and afflicted are called unto consolation. Whereas, the Diatribe makes them the words of the law. But, I pray thee, tell me, what can that man do in theological matters, and the Sacred Writings, who has not even gone so far as to know what is Law and what is Gospel, or, who, if he does know, condemns the observance of the distinction between them? Such an one must confound all things, heaven with hell, and life with death; and will never labour to know any thing of Christ. Concerning which, I shall put my friend Diatribe a little in remembrance, in what follows.”

Luther further admonished Erasmus to learn that distinction:

“But, to away with vanities, the word TURN is used in the Scriptures in a twofold sense, the one legal, the other evangelical. In the legal sense, it is the voice of the exactor and commander, which requires, not an endeavour, but a change in the whole life. In this sense Jeremiah frequently uses it, saying, ‘Turn ye now every one of you from his evil way:’ and, ‘Turn ye unto the Lord:’ in which, he involves the requirement of all the commandments; as is sufficiently evident. In the evangelical sense, it is the voice of the divine consolation and promise, by which nothing is demanded of us, but in which the grace of God is offered unto us. Of this kind is that of Psalm cxxvi. 1, ‘When the Lord shall turn again the captivity of Zion;’  and that of Psalm cxvi. 7, ‘Turn again into thy rest, O my soul.’  Hence, Malachi, in a very brief compendium, has set forth the preaching both of the law and of grace. It is the whole sum of the law, where he saith, ‘Turn ye unto me;’ and it is grace, where he saith, ‘I will turn unto you.’ Wherefore, as much as "Free-will" is proved from this word, ‘Love the Lord,’ or from any other word of particular law, just so much is it proved from this word of summary law,

"'TURN YE.’ It becomes a wise reader of the Scriptures, therefore, to observe what are words of the law and what are words of grace, that he might not be involved in confusion like the unclean Sophists, and like this sleepily-yawning Diatribe.”

Note that while Luther continually to pushed his point of law and gospel distinction as central to his theme of why freewill of man profits nothing towards salvation, he also took the viewpoint of God’s universal desire and will to save as the gospel promise:

“It is the Gospel voice, and the sweetest consolation to miserable sinners, where Ezekiel saith, "I desire not the death of a sinner, but rather, that he should be converted and live," and it is in all respects like unto that of Psalm xxx. 5.; "For His wrath is but for a moment, in His willingness is life." And that of Psalm xxxvi. 7., ‘How sweet is thy loving-kindness, O God.’ Also, ‘For I am merciful,’ And that of Christ, (Matt. xi. 28.) ‘Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.’ And also that of Exodus xx. 6, ‘I will shew mercy unto thousands of them that love me.’

“And what is more than half of the Holy Scripture, but mere promises of grace, by which, mercy, life, peace, and salvation, are extended from God unto men? And what else is the whole word of promise but this:—‘I desire not the death of a sinner?’ Is not His saying, ‘I am merciful,’ the same as saying, I am not angry, I am unwilling to punish, I desire not your death, My will is to pardon, My will is to spare? And if there were not these divine promises standing, by which consciences, afflicted with a sense of sin and terrified at the fear of death and judgment might be raised up, what place would there be for pardon or for hope! What sinner would not sink in despair! But as ‘Free-will’ is not proved from any of the other words of mercy, of promise, and of comfort, so neither is it from this:—"I desire not the death of a sinner," &c.

“But our friend Diatribe, again making no distinction between the words of the law, and the words of the promise, makes this passage of Ezekiel the voice of the law, and expounds it thus:—‘I desire not the death of a sinner:’ that is, I desire not that he should sin unto death, or should become a sinner guilty of death; but rather, that he should be converted from sin, if he have committed any, and thus live. For if it do not expound the passage thus, it will make nothing to its purpose. But this is utterly to destroy and take away that most sweet place of Ezekiel, ‘I desire not the death.’ If we in our blindness will read and understand the Scriptures thus, what wonder if they be 'obscure and ambiguous.' Whereas God does not say, ‘I desire not the sin of man, but, I desire not the death of a sinner,’ which manifestly shews that He is speaking of the punishment of sin, of which the sinner has a sense on account of his sin, that is, of the fear of death; and that He is raising up and comforting the sinner lying under this affliction and desperation, that He might not ‘break the bruised reed nor quench the smoking flax,’ but raise him to the hope of pardon and salvation, in order that he might be further converted, that is, by the conversion unto salvation from the fear of death, and that he might live, that is, might be in peace and rejoice in a good conscience.

“And this is also to be observed, that as the voice of the law is not pronounced but upon those who neither feel nor know their sins, as Paul saith, ‘By the law is the knowledge of sin;’ (Rom. iii. 20,) so, the word of grace does not come but unto those, who, feeling their sins, are distressed and exercised with desperation. Therefore, in all the words of the law, you will find sin to be implied while it shews what we ought to do; as on the contrary, in all the words of the promise, you will find the evil to be implied under which the sinners, or those who are raised up, labour: as here, ‘I desire not the death of a sinner,’ clearly points out the death and the sinner, both the evil itself which is felt, and the sinner himself who feels it. But by this, 'Love God with all thine heart,' is shewn what good we ought to do, not what evil we feel, in order that we might know, how far we are from doing good.”

Luther affirmed God’s desire to save all bound to sin and helpless to save themselves here as well  

“Sect. 63.—NOTHING, therefore, could be more absurdly adduced in support of "Free-will" than this passage of Ezekiel, nay, it makes with all possible force directly against ‘Free-will.’ For it is here shewn, in what state "Free-will" is, and what it can do under the knowledge of sin, and in turning itself from it:—that is, that it can only go on to worse, and add to its sins desperation and impenitency, unless God soon come in to help, and to call back, and raise up by the word of promise. For the concern of God in promising grace to recall and raise up the sinner, is itself an argument sufficiently great and conclusive, that ‘Free-will,’ of itself, cannot but go on to worse, and (as the Scripture saith) 'fall down to hell:' unless, indeed, you imagine that God is such a trifler, that He pours forth so great an abundance of the words of promise, not from any necessity of them unto our salvation, but from a mere delight in loquacity! Wherefore, you see, that not only all the words of law stand against ‘Free-will,’ but also, that all the words of the promise utterly confute it; that is, that, the whole Scripture makes directly against it.

“Hence, you see, this word, ‘I desire not the death of a sinner,’  does nothing else but preach and offer divine mercy to the world, which none receive with joy and gratitude but those who are distressed and exercised with the fears of death, for they are they in whom the law has now done its office, that is, in bringing them to the knowledge of sin. But they who have not yet experienced the office of the law, who do not yet know their sin nor feel the fears of death, despise the mercy promised in that word.”

And further down, he made it clear in regards to 1 Timothy 2:4, Matthew 23:37, and Ezekiel 18:23, he took the view of God desiring to save all earnestly while not compromising on his stance that the bound will can do nothing towards salvation:

“Therefore it is rightly said, 'if God does not desire our death, it is to be laid to the charge of our own will, if we perish:' this, I say, is right, if you speak of GOD PREACHED. For He desires that all men should be saved, seeing that, He comes unto all by the word of salvation, and it is the fault of the will which does not receive Him: as He saith. (Matt. xxiii. 37.) "How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldest not!" But WHY that Majesty does not take away or change this fault of the will IN ALL, seeing that, it is not in the power of man to do it; or why He lays that to the charge of the will, which the man cannot avoid, it becomes us not to inquire, and though you should inquire much, yet you will never find out: as Paul saith, (Rom. ix, 20,) ‘Who art thou that repliest against God!’- Suffice it to have spoken thus upon this passage of Ezekiel.”

The point in all this is the command for us to do is law and the promise of salvation and forgiveness to us is gospel. His point was if God’s command can be done, then there would be no need for gospel as God’s word of promise to rescue us from our sins. If it is in our power to exert faith, just because it is treated as something in us to do, then us “doing” our faith would be law, not gospel. And the law brings wrath since no one can keep God’s commands as required.

And as shown here, Luther wasn’t a Calvinist in regards to his view of universal grace and atonement that can be resisted (though he rejected the synergistic view of conversion).

So it isn’t just Calvinists that Flowers was objecting to. As seen later in this article, Luther did indeed speak for Lutherans. 

Luther hammered that law and gospel distinction point home as to why the will bound to sin is useless towards conversion to Erasmus;

 “Sect. 65.—THE Diatribe next argues—‘If what is commanded be not in the power of every one, all the numberless exhortations in the Scriptures, and also all the promises, threatenings, expostulations, reproofs, asseverations, benedictions and maledictions, together with all the forms of precepts, must of necessity stand coldly useless.’

“The Diatribe is perpetually forgetting the subject point, and going on with that which is contrary to its professed design: and it does not see, that all these things make with greater force against itself than against us. For from all these passages, it proves the liberty and ability to fulfil all things, as the very words of the conclusion which it draws necessarily declare: whereas, its design was, to prove 'that ‘Free-will’ is that, which cannot will any thing good without grace, and is a certain endeavour that is not to be ascribed to its own powers.' But I do not see that such an endeavour is proved by any of these passages, but that as I have repeatedly said already, that only is required which ought to be done' unless it be needful to repeat it again, as often as the Diatribe harps upon the same string, putting off its readers with a useless profusion of words.

“About the last passage which it brings forward out of the Old Testament, is that of Deut. xxx. 11-14. ‘This commandment which I command thee this day, is not above thee, neither is it far off. Neither is it in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who of us shall ascend up into heaven and bring it down unto us, that we may hear it and do it. But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.’ The Diatribe contends—'that it is declared by this passage, that what is commanded is not only placed in us, but is down-hill work, that is, easy to be done, or at least, not difficult.'

“I thank the Diatribe for such wonderful erudition! For if Moses so plainly declare, that there is in us, not only an ability, but also a power to keep all the commandments with ease, why have I been toiling all this time! Why did I not at once produce this passage and assert ‘Free-will’ before the whole world! What need now of Christ! What need of the Spirit! We have now found a passage which stops the mouths of all, and, which not only plainly asserts the liberty of the will, but teaches that the observance of all the commandments is easy!—What need was there for Christ to purchase for us, even with His own blood, the Spirit, as though necessary, in order that He might make the keeping of the commandments easy unto us, when we were already thus qualified by nature! Nay, here, the Diatribe itself recants its own assertions, where it affirmed, that '’Freewill’ cannot will any thing good without grace,' and now affirms, that ‘Free-will’ is of such power, that it can, not only will good, but keep the greatest, nay, all the commandments, with ease.”

The gospel, which is Christ crucified to obtain forgiveness for our sins, must be kept central:

“But we have here to speak upon two things. First, upon the precepts of the New Testament. And next, upon merit. We shall touch upon each briefly, having already spoken upon them more fully elsewhere.

“The New Testament, properly, consists of promises and exhortations, even as the Old, properly, consists of laws and threatenings. For in the New Testament, the Gospel is preached; which is nothing else than the word, by which, are offered unto us the Spirit, grace; and the remission of sins obtained for us by Christ crucified; and all entirely free, through the mere mercy of God the Father, thus favouring us unworthy creatures, who deserve damnation rather than any thing else.”

Exhortations to good works are given to those whose wills are already freed by the power of God to give faith, through the gospel word of promise,  not for those whose wills are still in bondage to sin and need regeneration by the Holy Spirit:

“And then follow exhortations, in order to animate those who are already justified, and who have obtained mercy, to be diligent in the fruits of the Spirit and of righteousness received, to exercise themselves in charity and good works, and to bear courageously the cross and all the other tribulations of this world. This is the whole sum of the New Testament. But how little Erasmus understands of this matter is manifest from this:—it knows not how to make any distinction between the Old Testament and the New, for it can see nothing any where but precepts, by which, men are formed to good manners only. But what the new-birth is, the new-creature, regeneration, and the whole work of the Spirit, of all this it sees nothing whatever. So that, I am struck with wonder and astonishment, that the man, who has spent so much time and study upon these things, should know so little about them.

“This passage therefore, ‘Rejoice, and be exceeding glad, for great is your reward in heaven,’ agrees as well with "Free-will" as light does with darkness. For Christ is there exhorting, not ‘Free-will,’ but His apostles, (who were not only raised above ‘Free-will’ in grace, and justified, but were stationed in the ministry of the Word, that is, in the highest degree of grace,) to endure the tribulations of the world. But we are now disputing about ‘Free-will,’ and that particularly, as it is without Grace; which, by laws and threats, or the Old Testament, is instructed in the knowledge of itself only, that it might flee to the promises presented to it in the New Testament.”

The Lutheran Confessions affirmed Luther’s view of law and gospel distinction taught in Bondage of the Will. The Solid Declaration of the  Formula of Concord (written by the “second Martin” Chemnitz three decades after Luther’s death) said in article V (on law and gospel):

“1] As the distinction between the Law and the Gospel is a special brilliant light, which serves to the end that God's Word may be rightly divided, and the Scriptures of the holy prophets and apostles may be properly explained and understood, we must guard it with especial care, in order that these two doctrines may not be mingled with one another, or a law be made out of the Gospel, whereby the merit of Christ is obscured and troubled consciences are robbed of their comfort, which they otherwise have in the holy Gospel when it is preached genuinely and in its purity, and by which they can support themselves in their most grievous trials against the terrors of the Law.”

It summarized Luther’s distinction between law and gospel:

“12] Anything that preaches concerning our sins and God's wrath, let it be done how or when it will, that is all a preaching of the Law. Again, the Gospel is such a preaching as shows and gives nothing else than grace and forgiveness in Christ, although it is true and right that the apostles and preachers of the Gospel (as Christ Himself also did) confirm the preaching of the Law, and begin it with those who do not yet acknowledge their sins nor are terrified at [by the sense of] God's wrath; as He says, John 16:8: 13] ‘The Holy Ghost will reprove the world of sin because they believe not on Me.’ Yea, what more forcible, more terrible declaration and preaching of God's wrath against sin is there than just the suffering and death of Christ, His Son? But as long as all this preaches God's wrath and terrifies men, it is not yet the preaching of the Gospel nor Christ's own preaching, but that of Moses and the Law against the impenitent. For the Gospel and Christ were never ordained and given for the purpose of terrifying and condemning, but of comforting and cheering those who are terrified and timid. And again: Christ says, John 16:8: ‘The Holy Ghost will reprove the world of sin’; which cannot be done except through the explanation of the Law.”

As did Luther, the Formula highlighted the futility of man’s corrupt human nature in regards to keeping the law which it is hostile and opposed to:

“20] However, now that man has not kept the Law of God, but transgressed it, his corrupt nature, thoughts, words, and works fighting against it, for which reason he is under God's wrath, death, all temporal calamities, and the punishment of hell-fire, the Gospel is properly a doctrine which teaches what man should believe, that he may obtain forgiveness of sins with God, namely, that the Son of God, our Lord Christ, has taken upon Himself and borne the curse of the Law, has expiated and paid for all our sins, through whom alone we again enter into favor with God, obtain forgiveness of sins by faith, are delivered from death and all the punishments of sins, and eternally saved.”

Article II of the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord (on freewill) affirmed Luther’s view of the bound will cannot cooperate towards conversion:

 “17] Secondly, God's Word testifies that the intellect, heart, and will of the natural, unregenerate man in divine things are not only turned entirely away from God, but also turned and perverted against God to every evil; also, that he is not only weak, incapable, unfit, and dead to good, but also is so lamentably perverted, infected, and corrupted by original sin that he is entirely evil, perverse, and hostile to God by his disposition and nature, and that he is exceedingly strong, alive, and active with respect to everything that is displeasing and contrary to God. Gen. 8:22: The imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth. Jer. 17:9: The heart of man is deceitful and desperately wicked, or perverted and full of misery, so that it is unfathomable. This passage St. Paul explains Rom. 8: The carnal mind is enmity against God. Gal. 5:17: The flesh lusteth against the spirit; and these are contrary the one to the other. Rom. 7:14: We know that the Law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin. And soon after, 18:23: I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing. For I delight in the Law of God after the inward man, which is regenerate by the Holy Ghost; but I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin.

“18] Now, if in St. Paul and in other regenerate men the natural or carnal free will even after regeneration strives against God's Law, it will be much more obstinate and hostile to God's Law and will before regeneration. Hence it is manifest (as it is further declared in the article concerning original sin, to which we now refer for the sake of brevity) that the free will from its own natural powers, not only cannot work or concur in working anything for its own conversion, righteousness, and salvation, nor follow [obey], believe, or assent to the Holy Ghost, who through the Gospel offers him grace and salvation, but from its innate, wicked, rebellious nature it resists God and His will hostilely, unless it be enlightened and controlled by God's Spirit.”

And as it did Luther, it highlighted the distinction between those under law (by which they are under wrath, bound to their sins) and under the gospel (that freed them from their slavery to sin and forgave them their sins, for Christ’s sake):

“63] But when man has been converted, and is thus enlightened, and his will is renewed, it is then that man wills what is good (so far as he is regenerate or a new man), and delights in the Law of God after the inward man, Rom. 7:22, and henceforth does good to such an extent and as long as he is impelled by God's Spirit, as Paul says, Rom. 8:14: For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. 64] And this impulse of the Holy Ghost is not a coactio, or coercion, but the converted man does good spontaneously, as David says, Ps. 110:4: Thy people shall be willing in the day of Thy power. And nevertheless that also [the strife of the flesh and spirit] remains in the regenerate of which St. Paul wrote, Rom. 7:22f : For I delight in the Law of God after the inward man; but I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. Also, v. 25: So, then, with my mind I myself serve the Law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin. Also, Gal. 5:17: For the flesh lusteth against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary the one to the other, so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.”

And here as well:

“67] Therefore there is a great difference between baptized and unbaptized men. For since, according to the doctrine of St. Paul, Gal. 3:27, all who have been baptized have put on Christ, and thus are truly regenerate, they have now arbitrium liberatum (a liberated will), that is, as Christ says, they have been made free again, John 8:36; whence they are able not only to hear the Word, but also to assent to it and accept it, although in great weakness.

“68] For since we receive in this life only the first-fruits of the Spirit, and the new birth is not complete, but only begun in us, the combat and struggle of the flesh against the spirit remains even in the elect and truly regenerate men; for there is a great difference perceptible among Christians not only in this, that one is weak and another strong in the spirit, but each Christian, moreover, experiences in himself that at one time he is joyful in spirit, and at another fearful and alarmed; at one time ardent in love, strong in faith and hope, and at another cold and weak.”

Yet, as did Luther, it affirmed universal grace and desire of God to save all that can be resisted by men who are by nature opposed to the things of God in the first place:

“57] But if a man will not hear preaching nor read God's Word, but despises the Word and congregation of God, and thus dies and perishes in his sins, he neither can comfort himself with God's eternal election nor obtain His mercy; for Christ, in whom we are chosen, offers to all men His grace in the Word and holy Sacraments, and wishes earnestly that it be heard, and has promised that where two or three are gathered together in His name and are occupied with His holy Word, He will be in their midst.”

58] But when such a person despises the instrument of the Holy Ghost, and will not hear, no injustice is done to him if the Holy Ghost does not enlighten him, but allows him to remain in the darkness of his unbelief and to perish; for regarding this matter it is written: How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings; and ye would not! Matt. 23:37.”

And:

“70] For this is certainly true that in genuine conversion a change, new emotion [renewal], and movement in the intellect, will, and heart must take place, namely, that the heart perceive sin, dread God's wrath, turn from sin, perceive and accept the promise of grace in Christ, have good spiritual thoughts, a Christian purpose and diligence, and strive against the flesh. For where none of these occurs or is present, there is also no true conversion. 71] But since the question is de causa efficiente (concerning the efficient cause), that is, who works this in us, and whence man has this, and how he attains it, this doctrine informs us that, since the natural powers of man cannot do anything or help towards it, 1 Cor. 2:14; 2 Cor. 3:5, God, out of His infinite goodness and mercy, comes first to us [precedes us], and causes His holy Gospel to be preached, whereby the Holy Ghost desires to work and accomplish in us this conversion and renewal, and through preaching and meditation upon His Word kindles in us faith and other godly virtues, so that they are gifts and operations of the Holy Ghost alone. 72] This doctrine, therefore, directs us to the means whereby the Holy Ghost desires to begin and work this [which we have mentioned], also instructs us how those gifts are preserved, strengthened, and increased, and admonishes us that we should not let this grace of God be bestowed on us in vain, but diligently exercise it [those gifts], and ponder how grievous a sin it is to hinder and resist such operations of the Holy Ghost.”

Lutheran theologian John Theodore Mueller summarized why Luther and the Lutheran Confessions, as affirmed by all Confessional Lutherans then and now, took such a strong stance against the decision theology that Erasmus and now Leighton Flowers so espoused:

“Synergism derives its doctrines ‘not from any clear statements of the Bible, but by a process of anti-Scriptural and fallacious reasoning’ (ibid.); and it is all the more dangerous and pernicious since ‘it reduces man’s cooperation to a seemingly harmless minimum and clothes itself in ambiguous phrases and apparently pious and plausible formulas’ (ibid). Its line of reasoning is: ‘Since all who are not converted or finally saved must blame, not God, but themselves for rejecting grace, those, too, who are converted must be credited with at least a small share in the work of their salvation, that is to say, with a better conduct toward grace than the conduct of those who are lost.’ This, however, in its final effect, overthrows the entire Gospel of free grace. It was for this reason that Luther and all confessional Lutherans so inculcated the monergism of divine grace”(Christian Dogmatics, pages 361-2).

Fellow Lutheran theologian (and founder of the Lutheran seminary Concordia Theological Semimary) CFW Walther in his twenty-forth lecture on law and gospel distinction put it this way on why decision theology violates law and gospel distinction, since it turned faith into law as something we do unbiblically:

“Thesis XIII.

“In the ninth place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when one makes an appeal to believe or at least help towards that end, instead of preaching faith into a person’s heart by laying the Gospel promises before him.

“This thesis does not score as an error the demand on the part of the pastor, be it ever so urgent, that his hearers believe the Gospel. That demand has been made by all the prophets, all the apostles, yea, by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. When demanding faith, we do not lay down a demand of the Law, but issue the sweetest invitation, practically saying to our hearers: ‘Come; for all things are now ready.’ Luke 14, 17. When I invite a halfstarved person to sit down to a well-furnished board and to help himself to anything he likes, I do not expect him to tell me that he will take no orders from me. Even so the demand to believe is to be understood not as an order of the Law, but as an invitation of the Gospel.

“The error against which this thesis is directed is this, that man can produce faith in himself. Such a demand would be an order of the Law and turn faith into a work of man. That would be plainly mingling Law and Gospel. A preacher must be able to preach a sermon on faith without ever using the term faith. It is not important that he din the word faith into the ears of his audience, but it is necessary for him to frame his address so as to arouse in every poor sinner the desire to lay the burden of his sins at the feet of the Lord Jesus Christ and say to Him:  ‘Thou art mine, and I am Thine.’”

In his second lecture on law and gospel distinction, he reminded us of why we must safeguard this distinction between law and gospel:

“The difference, then, between the Law and the Gospel is this: The Law makes demands of things that we are to do; it insists on works that we are to perform in the service of God and our fellow-men. In the Gospel, however, we are summoned to a distribution of rich alms which we are to receive and take: the loving-kindness of God and eternal salvation. Here is an easy way of illustrating the difference between the two: In offering us help and salvation as a gift and donation of God, the Gospel bids us hold the sack open and have something given us. The Law, however, gives nothing, but only takes and demands things from us. Now, these two, giving and taking, are surely far apart. For when something is given me, I am not doing anything towards that: I only receive and take; I have something given me. Again, when in my profession I carry out commands, likewise when I advise and assist my fellow-man, I receive nothing, but give to another whom I am serving. Thus the Law and the Gospel are distinguished as to their formal statements (in causa formali): the one promises, the other commands. The Gospel gives and bids us take; the Law demands and says, This you are to do.”

Here we stand.

Ken Wilson’s use and abuse of early church scholars to slime Augustine part 1: Stephen Cooper and his work on the “Augustine before Augustine” Marius Victorinus

 Contrary to what Ken Wilson, Leighton Flowers and the Soteriology101 crowd would have you believe, the scholars that Wilson cite in his works don’t all agree with Wilson that views they don’t like from Augustine (such as predestination unto salvation and faith is a gift of God), originated in the early church from the post-411 AD later Augustine out of his alleged return to Manicheanism, Gnosticism or whatever other pagan charges they want to throw at him and by extension Augustinians like us. In fact, scholars (in the same exact works that Wilson referred to) can be cited saying the exact opposite. Wilson, Flowers and their crowd are gaslighting people there.

One such church history scholar on Augustine is Stephen Cooper. Wilson referenced on page 37 of his Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism book to state:

“Augustine was baptized into Christianity in 386 CE by his spiritual father, Ambrose, bishop of Milan. The early Augustine gradually moved away from Neoplatonic and Manichaean ideas to embrace the Christian theology of his time. A decade later Augustine discovered God's grace apart from the merit of human works after reading the commentaries of Victorinus and then Jerome on Galatians.”

What Wilson stated there (per his footnote, taken from Cooper’s work on Marius Victorinus) in regards to Victorinus and Jerome being influential on early Augustine (prior to 412 AD) was true. But he made some key omissions in regards to how influential Victorinus was on Augustine, so that he can claim no fathers prior to the later Augustine (after 411 AD) held fo the views that will be presented from Victorinus as pointed out by Stephen Cooper. 

In writing the introductory chapters to Marius Victorinus’ Commentary on Galatians, Cooper had this to say on Victorinus’ influence on Augustine in regards to election, grace, and freewill in chapter 5:

“The tacit assumption here is that only God can furnish the good will through election. His Romans commentary in all likelihood discussed the transformation of the human will into a good will by the grace of God. Schmid may well have been right that Victorious set out the issue without experiencing it deeply as a personal problem or offering a definitive solution. Augustine, at any rate, would come to reflect deeply upon this in Ad Simplicianum and the Confessions. But even if Victorinus did not match the profundity of the bishop of Hippo on this question, Schmid's notion that Victorious conceived faith as `Vernunftglaube' is difficult to support, particularly in the face of those passages where the commentator carefully qualifies that the knowledge attained in faith is made possible by the Holy Spirit. Inspired by the Holy Spirit, the `Spirit of the Son' which is sent into them, believers can call God `Abba, Father'. This implies a knowledge of God which is given-as Victorinus carefully states-by Christ and the Spirit.”

He elaborated on Victorinus’ view of predestination that Augustine would later affirm (contrary to Wilson’s assertions that all pre-Augustine fathers, including Victorinus, rejected this) in regards to it being the effectual cause of our conversion:

“Victorinus never says that the predestining of souls involves divine consultation of their future righteousness; rather, whatever holiness souls come to possess is clearly stated to be the result of God's predestination.”

And again here: 

“Yet, as other scholars from Gore to Harnack have noted, `a definite approach to Augustine's doctrine can be ascertained in the West in the second half of the fourth century. I quote Schindler's further remarks at length here, because they present the best summary of the parallels between Augustine and Victorinus on the issues under discussion: What is now of relevance to Augustine's position is that it was thus not something completely new in the history of Latin theology. Marius Victorinus had around the middle of the fourth century already spoken of justification from faith and against all works-righteousness; he had already taught an unalloyed predestination and activity of God prior to and in our will.”

Note that Cooper stated due to Victorinus being prior to Augustine and already teaching “an unalloyed predestination and activity of God prior to and in our will,” Augustine’s position was “thus not something completely new in the history of Latin theology.” That refutes the claim that all the scholars that Wilson cited are in agreement with him that Augustine’s views on this matter originated in the church with him from his various pagan past. 

Also contrary to Wilson’s claims on Victorinus holding to faith is a gift of God was in figurative terms and really did not refer to initial faith, but God offering the opportunity for free choice of man to decide for Christ, Cooper wrote:

“So although to believe really is up to us (as Victorinus is not shy about stating elsewhere), it is also clear that our ability to believe is a gift not merely in the sense-as we find in Pelagius' comments on this same verse-of God furnishing the soul's created capacity and the external events which which elicit faith. Faith, although it is genuinely a human response, tends to be depicted by Victorinus as a response to God's spiritual persuasion.”

In contrast, Wilson (on pages 208-209 of his dissertation book) Augustine’s Conversion from Traditional Free Choice to “Non-free Free Will” claimed that fathers like Victorinus held to faith as a gift only as God giving an opportunity to freely choose or reject Christ (while ironically questioning Augustine’s integrity, a repeated theme in the dissertation that itself lacked integrity):

“Jerome (Comm. Eph.1.2.8-10), Victorinus (Ep. P. Eph.1.2.9), and John Chrysostom (Hom. Hen.12; cf. Hom. Thess.4.1-3)- all contemporaries and all believing traditional free choice- had written on Eph 2.8-10 with God ‘gifting faith,’ in a figurative sense, not Divine Unilateral Predetermination of Individual’s Eternal Destinies. With these notable Christians expressing ‘faith as God’s gift’ (meaning opportunity for salvation through free choice and wiling good), Augustine was handed invaluable figurative language. It allowed him not only to honestly assert belief in initial faith as God’s hit in 396 CE, but to later (412) transform the figurative to a literal novel theology of Christianized DUPIED, while claiming he remained within the regula fidei.”

Cooper and Wilson are not in agreement on Victorinus as rejecting predestination unto salvation and faith is a gift of God merely as an opportunity to make free choice for Christ in similar vein as Pelagian beliefs.

Let’s see what Marius Victorinus’ commentary on Philippians, chapter 1, verse 29 wrote:

“It was therefore within his purpose that he gave to us the gift of trusting in him. This was an incomparable gift. It is only by faith in him that we are blessed with so great a reward. We are to believe in such a way as to be ready to suffer for him.”

Regardless of what Wilson, Flowers and what their neo-semi-Pelagian Provisionist movement are trying to push, it is no wonder then that Stephen Cooper (citing other scholars that agreed with him on this) treated Victorinus as “Augustine before Augustine”:

“Gore's suggestion that there was a `closer connection than has been yet noticed between him and St. Augustine' was taken up by Adolph von Harnack. As he expressed the point in his Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, `we are astonished to find him a perfect Christian Neoplatonist, and an Augustine before Augustine'. Harnack made Gore's claim central to his evaluation of the importance of Victorinus' Paul commentaries to the history of Christian doctrine: `No-one before Augustine emphasized justification from faith and recognized the meaning of faith so energetically.”

Here we stand.