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.

Response to Leighton Flowers video on Luther vs Calvin, part 4: Leighton Flowers the inadvertent hyper-Calvinist vs Luther the Non-Calvinist

This is the fourth 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). The first part is a defense of Augustine found here:

https://g2witt.blogspot.com/2020/08/response-to-leighton-flowers-video-on.html?m=1

The second part refuted his caricatures of Lutheranism:

https://g2witt.blogspot.com/2020/08/response-to-leighton-flowers-video-on_29.html?m=1

The third part debunked Flowers’ false claims that Martin Luther held to Calvinist views like limited atonement and God’s saving and effectual grace was only intended for the elect, as well as his slanderous cheap shots at him where he accused him falsely of trying to “hide” such beliefs that he didn’t even affirmed:

https://g2witt.blogspot.com/2020/08/response-to-leighton-flowers-video-on_21.html?m=1

Flowers’ video can be found here:

https://youtu.be/pZrTO88WmDg

This part will deal with Leighton Flowers, though Provisionist in holding to man’s freewill is capable of choosing faith without any prevenient grace, inadvertently took the hypercalvinist position of Matthew 11:25-26.

At the 47:30 minute mark, 

 Flowers stated the reason that Jesus spoke in parabolic language was so that the Pharisees of that day would not recognize Him as their Messiah, or otherwise they would not have crucified Him.

Let that sink in. According to Flowers, God withheld the truth from some to leave them in their unbelief for which they would be judged for if they don’t repent later, when had He not done so, they would have recognized Him as their Messiah. For all Flowers’ attacks on Calvinism and his false (and mocking) accusations at Luther of holding to God’s divine grace was effectual to save through giving faith only for the chosen elect (and of trying to hide such views that Luther didn’t actually affirmed), Flowers took the Calvinist view of this passage of God withholding saving grace (though they defined grace differently with Flowers treating grace as revelation giving people opportunity to choose Christ) so that some (in this case, Pharisees) remained in their unbelief.

If anything, if we take into consideration his Provisionism, his view stated here is way worse? Why? According to him, all humanity is capable in of themselves to believe or not believe, and God doesn’t need to work inwardly in them to give them faith but His grace is located in His word preached that gives them the opportunity to believe or not. Yet, here, he was saying though they have such ability to believe, God prevented them from that opportunity so they would not believe (and for which He would judge them later, unless then repent). Aren’t hyper-Calvinists criticized for holding to God directly causes people directly to disbelieve whereas they would have believe?

Saying it was for God’s purpose that Christ being crucified for our sins does not change that fact. It was still acts of evil of men to crucify Him at the cross. According to Flowers, God withheld revelation from them so that they remained in unbelief and so they would crucified God the Son Incarnate, when they have capacity to believe and would have believed if given revelation that was withheld from them.

The Calvinist position isn’t that they would have believe had they been given revelation via word preached  beyond parables (though without prevenient grace) but they would continued to reject the truth as given them, unless God works to change their hearts. While Lutherans here disagree with Calvinists on whom God wants to give saving grace, they agree with each other that apart from divine prevenient grace (properly defined by Augustine and Aquinas without the synergistic baggage that was added to it later), man is incapable of believing the revelation given him by word being preached. In such views, God didn’t cause them to reject Him by withholding revelation as Flowers defined it as his view whereas they would accept it had it has been shown it to them.

Contrast what Flowers said with what monergist Luther’s view of universal saving grace in 1538 on Matthew 11:25-26:

 "Christ speaks especially against those who would be wise and judge in religious matters, because they have on their side the Law and human reason, which is overwise, exalting itself against the true religion both by teaching and by judging.Hence Christ here praises God as doing right when He conceals His secrets from the wise and prudent, because they want to be over and not under God.Not as though He hid it in fact or desired to hide it (for He commands it to be preached publicly under the entire heaven and in all lands), but that He has chosen that kind of preaching which the wise and prudent abhor by nature, and which is hidden from them through their own fault, since they do not want to have it-as is written Is. 6, 9: 'See ye indeed, but perceive not,' Lo, they see, i.e., they have the doctrine which is preached both plainly and publicly. Still they do not perceive, for they turn away from it and refuse to have it. Thus they hide the truth from themselves by their own blindness.And so, on the other hand,He reveals it to the babes; for the babes receive it when it is revealed to them. To them the truth is revealed since they wish and desire it."

Here we stand.

Response to Leighton Flowers video on Luther vs Calvin, part 3: refuting caricatures of Martin Luther on election, freewill and saving grace

 This is the third 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). The first part is a defense of Augustine found here:

https://g2witt.blogspot.com/2020/08/response-to-leighton-flowers-video-on.html?m=1

The second part refuted his caricatures of Lutheranism:

https://g2witt.blogspot.com/2020/08/response-to-leighton-flowers-video-on_29.html?m=1

Flowers’ video can be found here:

https://youtu.be/pZrTO88WmDg

This will not only refute the caricatures Leighton Flowers made of Luther’s beliefs but slanderous remarks accusing Luther wanting to hide his alleged Calvinistic beliefs.

From around the 57 minute and for around the next 40 minutes  Flowers accused Luther of not only holding to Calvinistic views of God ordaining some to be saved and others not to be saved, saving grace withheld from those who aren’t chosen, and Christ not  dying for the sins of those not chosen so that they perished for eternity in their sins (as how Flowers put it), but of wanting to hide his views rather than honestly have such views preached. 

At around the one hour and 16 minute mark, he said that if such views are that problematic then drop the system rather than hide his beliefs. There’s just one problem: the accusations Flowers made aren’t honest of what Luther held to at all.

For starters, he lumped all who affirmed Augustinian views of freewill as unable to on its own to come to Christ, unless given the Holy Spirit works in the hearts of them to do so, as all Calvinists. That isn’t honest, and he knows it.

Earlier on  at the 54:58 minute mark, Flowers rightfully criticized Ryan Reeves for claiming Arminians deny the need for God’s grace prior to faith. He correctly pointed out that Arminians hold to prevenient grace is needed prior to one can have saving faith. Because Arminians hold to such grace allows for man to choose for or against faith (synergism), that must mean they are closer to his views. 

What he didn’t mention here though was that the reason why Arminians, especially Wesleyans, affirmed prevenient grace was because they affirmed (along with Lutherans and Calvinists) as well the doctrine of total depravity meaning without such grace, man is born incapable-because of the sinful inclinations of his heart- to choose faith unless God works in man to move him towards faith. Keep in mind, his rhetoric was 1) only Calvinists hold to such view of total depravity (false, as proven by the existence of both Lutherans and Arminians) and 2) and such a view came from Manichaean and Gnostic heresies that Augustine introduced into the early church (false as shown by past  rebuttals written on this blog to Flowers’ chief source for his prop propaganda, Ken Wilson). 

Know what else Flowers didn’t mentioned? Prevenient grace itself is an Augustinian concept. While Arminians applied the term to mean it in a synergistic sense, monergistic Lutherans and Calvinists don’t (the term is more in disuse among them because of what Arminians did with it). The term simply meant that divine grace is needed prior to one can come to faith. It can mean salvation is all of God in regards to faith is given effectually as a gift (monergism) or it can mean grace gives man, who is previously incapable because of unborn sin, the ability to choose for or against Christ.

Consider Augustine’s words affirming prevenient grace in his anti-Pelagian writing On Nature and Grace chapter 31:

“In this matter, no doubt, we do ourselves, too, work; but we are fellow-workers with Him who does the work, because His mercy anticipates us. He anticipates us, however, that we may be healed; but then He will also follow us, that being healed we may grow healthy and strong. He anticipates us that we may be called; He will follow us that we may be glorified. He anticipates us that we may lead godly lives; He will follow us that we may always live with Him, because without Him we can do nothing.”

Aquinas’ Summa Theologica First Part of the Second Part, Quention 111: referred to this as prevenient grace:

“I answer that, As grace is divided into operating and cooperating, with regard to its diverse effects, so also is it divided into prevenient and subsequent, howsoever we consider grace. Now there are five effects of grace in us: of these, the first is, to heal the soul; the second, to desire good; the third, to carry into effect the good proposed; the fourth, to persevere in good; the fifth, to reach glory. And hence grace, inasmuch as it causes the first effect in us, is called prevenient with respect to the second, and inasmuch as it causes the second, it is called subsequent with respect to the first effect. And as one effect is posterior to this effect, and prior to that, so may grace be called prevenient and subsequent on account of the same effect viewed relatively to divers others. And this is what Augustine says (De Natura et Gratia xxxi): "It is prevenient, inasmuch as it heals, and subsequent, inasmuch as, being healed, we are strengthened; it is prevenient, inasmuch as we are called, and subsequent, inasmuch as we are glorified."

Flowers can’t play the Manichaean and Gnostic card on total depravity view without also trashing the Arminians whom he want to claim on his side, since the premise behind Arminian understanding of prevenient grace is total depravity. He can’t also play the Luther or Lutherans must be Calvinist card without doing the same to Arminians.

He complained throughout the video at the way Ryan Reeves framed the debates doing the Reformation in such a way to make his Provisionist views look ridiculous despite the fact that the debates during that era wasn’t between Reformers and Provisionists, but between Reformers and Rome (which at least affirmed grace is necessary prior to faith but insisted on our role in our conversion once grace is given).

Yet, the way Flowers was framing things had the intended effect of imputing views to Luther that he had did not hold to so he can throw baseless accusations that Luther didn’t want predestination debated or preached because he was trying to “hide” his views. (He even played the Manichaean, Gnostic and Stoic card at the one hour and six minute mark, which was par for the course in regards to his need to slander Augustine and all his spiritual heirs, including Luther.)

Contrary to what Flowers wanted to claim, Luther was no Calvinist given he held to 1) God wants all to be saved earnestly with His divine grace given in Word and Sacrament, 2) Christ died for all, and saving grace given in Word and Sacrament can be resisted whether to convert or preserve in the faith (though God will ultimately keep His elect).

As shown above, one can hold to total depravity and still not hold to God’s saving grace works inwardly only on the elect and Christ died only for the elect. Flowers inadvertently disproved his claim when he mentioned Wesleyans/Arminians affirmed prevenient grace. Besides the fact Luther (who was no Arminian) holding to total depravity was no proof that he was a Calvinist, he also didn’t hold to predestination the same way Calvinists did regardless of what Flowers wanted to claim.

To be sure, he agreed with Calvinists that God’s divine choice of us is not based on anything He foresaw in us, not even our faith, but is cause of being given faith and being preserved in that faith. Where he differed from Calvinists, however, was that he refused to speculate into such hidden decrees in regards to thinking that meant God actively or passively passes over others, who aren’t elect, so that they won’t get saving grace and be lost eternally. 

Flowers claimed that Luther, based on  affirming such mentioned views of total depravity and unconditional election (or election not conditional on what God foresees we will do), agreed with the Calvinist understanding of reprobation (which involved God withholding effectual saving grace from those who aren’t chosen, but taught we should not talk about. That’s where the slanderous and repeated charges of Luther wanting to hide his alleged views of God wanting to save all comes in.

But is that true? Take 1 Timothy 2:4. The only time that Luther ever saw that text as teaching God only wants to save all the elect, not everyone, came in his Romans commentary, two years before he wrote the 95 theses and was a Reformer.

In regards to his famous Bondage of the Will, written in 1525 as a response to Catholic humanist Erasmus, when he examined texts like 1 Timothy 2:4, John 1:29 Matthew 23:37, and Ezekiel 18:23, he landed on the side of God wanting to save all as His revealed gracious will. In fact he argued for especially universal atonement with the premise of universality of sin that bound the will of all.

Luther wrote in Bondage of the Will, quoting John 1:29 to start:

"If, therefore, Christ be the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world, it follows, that the whole world is under sin, damnation, and the devil. Hence your distinction between the principal parts, and the parts not principal, profits you nothing: for the world, signifies men, savouring of nothing but the things of the world, throughout all their faculties."

That puts the lie to Flowers’ claim that Luther held to Christ didn’t die for those not chosen so that God could carry out His desire to doom them for eternity for His glory and and more so to the claim that Luther wanted to hide such beliefs (that he didn’t even affirmed).

An overview of Luther’s sermons will also disproved Flowers’ claim there as well:

"For, as already stated, this is the sin of all sins, that when God is gracious and wants all our sins forgiven, man by his unbelief rejects God's truth and grace, and casts it away from him, and will not let the death and resurrection of Christ the Lord avail." (Luther's Third Sermon on Mark 16:1-8 (Easter Sunday)

"The teaching and preaching of the Gospel is nothing else than that Christ is the Son of God, sent by the Father as a sacrifice and ransom for the sin of the world, by his own blood, that he might appease the wrath of God and effect reconciliation for us, redeeming us from sin and death and securing for us righteousness and everlasting life. It must follow, then that no one, by his own work and holiness can atone for his sins or appease the wrath of God, and there is no other way to attain the grace of God and eternal life than by the faith which thus apprehends Christ." (Luther’s Sermon on John 15:26-16:4, Sunday After Christ's Ascension):

"It is Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God. He, and no one else either in heaven or on earth takes our sins upon himself. You yourself could not pay for the smallest of sins. He alone must take upon himself not alone your sins, but the sins of the world, and not some sins, but all the sins of the world, be they great or small, many or few" (Luther’s Sermon on John 1:19-28, 4th Sunday in Advent)

Not to mention Luther wrote in his Galatians commentary chapter 3:

“Our merciful Father in heaven saw how the Law oppressed us and how impossible it was for us to get out from under the curse of the Law. He therefore sent His only Son into the world and said to Him: "You are now Peter, the liar; Paul, the persecutor; David, the adulterer; Adam, the disobedient; the thief on the cross. You, My Son, must pay the world's iniquity." The Law growls: "All right. If Your Son is taking the sin of the world, I see no sins anywhere else but in Him. He shall die on the Cross." And the Law kills Christ. But we go free.

“The argument of the Apostle against the righteousness of the Law is impregnable. If Christ bears our sins, we do not bear them. But if Christ is innocent of our sins and does not bear them, we must bear them, and we shall die in our sins. ‘But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.’”

“Let us see how Christ was able to gain the victory over our enemies. The sins of the whole world, past, present, and future, fastened themselves upon Christ and condemned Him. But because Christ is God He had an everlasting and unconquerable righteousness. 

“These two, the sin of the world and the righteousness of God, met in a death struggle. Furiously the sin of the world assailed the righteousness of God. 

“Righteousness is immortal and invincible. On the other hand, sin is a mighty tyrant who subdues all men. This tyrant pounces on Christ. But Christ's righteousness is unconquerable. The result is inevitable. Sin is defeated and righteousness triumphs and reigns forever.”

And in chapter 5 of that commentary, he added that what Christ won for us at the cross can be refused or lost due to unbelief or final apostasy:

“To fall from grace means to lose the atonement, the forgiveness of sins, the righteousness, liberty, and life which Jesus has merited for us by His death and resurrection. To lose the grace of God means to gain the wrath and judgment of God, death, the bondage of the devil, and everlasting condemnation.”

In regards to his view of God’s universal desire to save in regards to the passages, 1 Timothy 2:4, Matthew 23:37, and Ezekiel 18:23, Luther wrote in Bondage:

“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!’”

Note that Luther stated himself that God wants all to be saved and God comes to all with His word of salvation. In Luther’s view, which early on he stated in Bondage, Word and Spirit cannot be divorced from each other, and God works through the outward Word (as in word preached and sacrament) as outward means He reaches us with the Gospel. There was no outward (for all) and inward grace (for the elect) distinction, that existed in Calvinist theology, in Luther’s system.

Furthermore, when Luther spoke of the distinction between the hidden will, that elects or reprobates, and revealed will, he was not arguing for two wills of God, as if the revealed will means God outwardly commands all to be saved, and the hidden will means God wants to save only some and gives saving grace only to the chosen so His that it can never be resisted, contrary to what Flowers claimed of his views at the one hour and thirty-six minute mark

What Luther was saying was in regards to God’s hidden will, it refers to speculations as to why some are saved and some are not, of which he said is none of our business and we are forbidden to inquire into. We are not to figure out what even occurs with God choosing us in regards to eternal decrees (since they are hidden from us and such speculations treat it as outside of Christ), but to treat predestination as in Christ, for our assurance, that our salvation is in God’s hands, not based on what we do or how “good” we are (in fact, Luther’s primary point isn’t predestination but about law and gospel distinction must be kept).

That’s not Luther trying to hide his views as Flowers slanderously and falsely accused him of (which complaining throughout the video that Reeves framed the issues in ways that weren’t fair to Flowers’ views that weren’t even involved back in the Reformation days between Reformers and Rome). In fact, Luther feared these predestination debates would lead to views such as denying God wants all to be saved. Luther didn’t need to hide holding to the view God decided not to save some by withholding atonement and grace from them, since he didn’t hold to such views, not even in Bondage.

For Luther, there remains one saving will: the universal.

A few paragraphs later in Bondage, he added his take on Matthew 23:37, affirming God’s saving will can be resisted:

“Nor do I suppose that any one will cavillingly deny, that that will which here saith, "How often would I!" was displayed to the Jews, even before God became Incarnate; seeing that, they are accused of having slain the prophets, before Christ, and having thus resisted His will. For it is well known among Christians, that all things were done by the prophets in the name of Christ to come, who was promised that He should become Incarnate: so that, whatever has been offered unto men by the ministers of the word from the foundation of the world, may be rightly called, the Will of Christ.”

That isn’t to say Luther was Arminian. While he shared with Arminians the view of God’s universal atonement and desire to save to all that can be resisted, he shared with Calvinist view that salvation is all of God (hence his view of conversion is monergistic, or God alone converts us). He refused to compromise on either set of beliefs (monergism/election and universal grace) despite them seeming to be paradoxical to others. His answer in Bondage to the question as to why not all are saved if God alone converts the bound will and if God wants all to be saved is not for us to know since God never revealed that to us (hidden will).

Luther was consistent through the course of his life in affirming God’s earnest universal desire to save. He wrote in a letter on July 20, 1528:

“Although God Almighty knows all things, and all works and thoughts in all creatures must come to pass according to His will (iuxta decretum voluntatis suae), it is nevertheless His earnest will and purpose, aye, His command, decreed from eternity, to save all men and make them partakers of eternal joy, as is clearly stated Ezek. 18, 23, where He says: God does not desire the death of the wicked but that the wicked turn and live.Now, if He desires to save and to have saved the sinners who live and move under the wide and high heaven, then you must not separate yourself from the grace of God by your foolish thoughts, inspired by the devil. For God's grace extends and stretches from east to west from south to north, overshadowing all who turn, truly repent, and make themselves partakers of His mercy and desire help. For He is 'rich unto all that call upon Him,'Rom. 10, 12. This, however requires true and genuine faith, which expels such faint-heartedness and despair and is our righteousness, as it is written Rom. 3, 22: 'the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ unto all and upon all.' Mark these words, in omnes, super omnes (unto all, upon all), whether you also belong to them, and are one of those who lie and grovel under the banner of the sinners." "Think also as constantly and earnestly of salvation as you [now] do of damnation, and comfort yourself with God's Word, which is true and everlasting, then such ill winds will cease and pass entirely."

Or consider his outright condemnations of the idea that God wants to give effectual saving grace only  to the chosen elect in his sermon in 1533 (same sermon he affirmed God elects through means):

“Some conceive other thoughts, explaining the words thus: 'Many are called', i.e., God offers His grace to many, but few are chosen, i.e.,He imparts such grace to only a few; for only a few are saved. This is an altogether wicked explanation.For how is it possible for one who holds and believes nothing else of God not to be an enemy of God, whose will alone must be blamed for the fact that not all of us are saved? Contrast this opinion with the one that is formed when a man first learns to know the Lord Christ, and it will be found to be nothing but devilish blasphemy.”

Later on in the sermon, he added: “This makes good Christians, whereas those who think that God begrudges salvation to any one either become reckless or secure, wicked people, who live like brutes, thinking: It has already been ordained whether I am to be saved or not; why, then, should I stint myself anything? To think thus is wrong; for you are commanded to hear God's Word and to believe Christ to be your Savior, who has paid for your sin.”

Luther stated similarly in Genesis commentary:

“For what end did it serve to send His Son to suffer and to be crucified for us? Of what use was it to institute the sacraments if they are uncertain or completely useless for our salvation? For otherwise, if someone had been predestined, he would have been saved without the Son and without the sacraments or Holy Scripture. Consequently, God, according to the blasphemy of these people, was horribly foolish when He sent His Son, promulgated the Law and the Gospel, and sent the apostles if the only thing He wanted was that we should be uncertain and in doubt whether we are to be saved or really to be damned.”

When Reeves made reference to that, he tried to claim that Luther wasn’t refuting Calvinism or Calvinist like views (of God’s saving grace not intended to give faith effectually to all), but his practical concerns with it, he was wrong. Luther encountered similar views in 1533 even before Calvin and railed against such views using similar phrasing. In fact, his concerns on the practical side was that dwelling into predestination thoughts could lead to holding to God doesn’t want to save all. Flowers exploited what Reeves said to accuse Luther falsely of holding to God wants many not be atoned for and saved so they could be damned for eternity for God’s glory and of trying to hide his beliefs.

Contrary to Flowers’ slanders, Luther opposed predestination focus and debates was because he didn’t want to turn what was written for the comfort of the believer (when we think of predestination as us in Christ, as revealed to us in Word and Sacrament, not speculate into it, as eternal decrees as outside of Christ) into drawing false conclusions such as God doesn’t earnestly desire to save all or we have a role in our salvation (either view to Luther would be hindrance towards assurance). For Luther, while grace was effectual to give faith, not dependent on us, it worked on all and can be resisted. He wasn’t hiding views he didn’t even hold to! Flowers put those views in Luther’s mouth.

Nor was Luther holding to Calvinism but preached and practiced like Arminian as Flowers asserted. No, Luther held to his Lutheran beliefs and preached and practiced such beliefs, distinguished from Calvinism, Arminian, and Flowers’ Provisionist camps.

Let us close with these words of wisdom from Luther:

“A dispute about predestination should be avoided entirely... I forget everything about Christ and God when I come upon these thoughts and actually get to the point to imagining that God is a rogue. We must stay in the word, in which God is revealed to us and salvation is offered, if we believe him. But in thinking about predestination, we forget God . . However, in Christ are hid all the treasures (Col. 2:3); outside him all are locked up. Therefore, we should simply refuse to argue about election.

“Such a disputation is so very displeasing to God that he has instituted Baptism, the spoken Word, and the Lord’s Supper to counteract the temptation to engage in it. In these, let us persist and constantly say., I am baptized I believe in Jesus. I care nothing about the disputation concerning predestination.”

Here we stand.

Response to Leighton Flowers video on Luther vs Calvin, part 2: refuting a caricature of Lutheranism on election, freewill and saving grace

This is the second 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). The first part is a defense of Augustine found here:

https://g2witt.blogspot.com/2020/08/response-to-leighton-flowers-video-on.html?m=1

Flowers’ video can be found here:

https://youtu.be/pZrTO88WmDg

This second part is a response to Flowers’ caricatures of Lutheranism on the subject.

At about the 29:24 mark, Leighton Flowers claim Lutherans hold to God predestine to be saved and leave the rest to be lost. That kind of give a hint of the kind of caricatures he would continually throw at Luther especially in the last half of the video (to be dealt with in the next blog posts).

What Lutherans hold to while God choosing and predestinating is effectual cause of our salvation by grace through faith, we are not allowed to go beyond what Scriptures say to draw speculations or conclusions. So while Scriptures say Christ chose us, not we choose Him, Scriptures also say God wants all to be saved. God didn’t just choose to leave the rest to be lost but earnestly desire to save them as well.

In the Lutheran Confessions, the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord article XI affirmed election is cause of our salvation here:

“5] The eternal election of God, however, vel praedestinatio (or predestination), that is, God's ordination to salvation, does not extend at once over the godly and the wicked, but only over the children of God, who were elected and ordained to eternal life before the foundation of the world was laid, as Paul says, Eph. 1:4. 5: He hath chosen us in Him, having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ.

“8] The eternal election of God, however, not only foresees and foreknows the salvation of the elect, but is also, from the gracious will and pleasure of God in Christ Jesus, a cause which procures, works, helps, and promotes our salvation and what pertains thereto; and upon this [divine predestination] our salvation is so founded that the gates of hell cannot prevail against it, Matt. 16:18, as is written John 10:28: Neither shall any man pluck My sheep out of My hand. And again, Acts 13:48: And as many as were ordained to eternal life, believed.”

However, the idea God elected people as some kind of muster where He picked this person to be saved and that person to be lost was rejected:

 “9] Nor is this eternal election or ordination of God to eternal life to be considered in God's secret, inscrutable counsel in such a bare manner as though it comprised nothing further, or as though nothing more belonged to it, and nothing more were to be considered in it, than that God foresaw who and how many were to be saved, who and how many were to be damned, or that He only held a [sort of military] muster, thus: ‘This one shall be saved, that one shall be damned; this one shall remain steadfast [in faith to the end], that one shall not remain steadfast.’”

In the Lutheran view, predestination or election passages are written for our assurance, not for us to speculate into hidden decrees, as to think the reason why some are lost is because God withhold salvation from them:

“52] But a distinction must be observed with especial care between that which is expressly revealed concerning it in God's Word, and what is not revealed. For, in addition to what has been revealed in Christ concerning this, of which we have hitherto spoken, God has still kept secret and concealed much concerning this mystery, and reserved it for His wisdom and knowledge alone, which we should not investigate, nor should we indulge our thoughts in this matter, nor draw conclusions, nor inquire curiously, but should adhere [entirely] to the revealed Word [of God]. This admonition is most urgently needed.

“53] For our curiosity has always much more pleasure in concerning itself with these matters [with investigating those things which are hidden and abstruse] than with what God has revealed to us concerning this in His Word, because we cannot harmonize it, which, moreover, we have not been commanded to do [since certain things occur in this mystery so intricate and involved that we are not able by the penetration of our natural ability to harmonize them; but this has not been demanded of us by God].

“54] Thus there is no doubt that God most exactly and certainly foresaw before the time of the world, and still knows, which of those that are called will believe or will not believe; also which of the converted will persevere [in faith] and which will not persevere; which will return after a fall [into grievous sins], and which will fall into obduracy [will perish in their sins]. So, too, the number, how many there are of these on either side, is beyond all doubt perfectly known to God. 55] However, since God has reserved this mystery for His wisdom, and has revealed nothing to us concerning it in His Word, much less commanded us to investigate it with our thoughts, but has earnestly discouraged us therefrom, Rom. 11:33ff , we should not reason in our thoughts, draw conclusions, nor inquire curiously into these matters, but should adhere to His revealed Word, to which He points us.

“70] Therefore, whoever would be saved should not trouble or harass himself with thoughts concerning the secret counsel of God, as to whether he also is elected and ordained to eternal life, with which miserable Satan usually attacks and annoys godly hearts. But they should hear Christ [and look upon Him as the Book of Life in which is written the eternal election], who is the Book of Life and of God's eternal election of all of God's children to eternal life: He testifies to all men without distinction that it is God's will that all men should come to Him who labor and are heavy laden with sin, in order that He may give them rest and save them, Matt. 11:28”

Indeed, denials of God not wanting to earnestly to save all are rejected:

“41] For few receive the Word and follow it; the greatest number despise the Word, and will not come to the wedding, Matt. 22:3ff The cause for this contempt for the Word is not God's foreknowledge [or predestination], but the perverse will of man, which rejects or perverts the means and instrument of the Holy Ghost, which God offers him through the call, and resists the Holy Ghost, who wishes to be efficacious, and works through the Word, as Christ says: How often would I have gathered you together, and ye would not! Matt. 23:37.

“42] Thus many receive the Word with joy, but afterwards fall away again, Luke 8:13. But the cause is not as though God were unwilling to grant grace for perseverance to those in whom He has begun the good work, for that is contrary to St. Paul, Phil. 1:6; but the cause is that they wilfully turn away again from the holy commandment [of God], grieve and embitter the Holy Ghost, implicate themselves again in the filth of the world, and garnish again the habitation of the heart for the devil. With them the last state is worse than the first, 2 Pet. 2:10. 20; Eph. 4:30; Heb. 10:26; Luke 11:25.”

For the Lutheran, election is to looked at in Christ given unto us in Word and Sacrament, not outside of Christ (which is what takes place when speculations are made with what takes place with election in eternity, leading to either denials of universal saving grace or denials of monergism, or salvation is all of God):

“65] Accordingly, this eternal election of God is to be considered in Christ, and not outside of or without Christ. For in Christ, the Apostle Paul testifies, Eph. 1:4f , He hath chosen us before the foundation of the world, as it is written: He hath made us accepted in the Beloved. This election, however, is revealed from heaven through the preaching of His Word, when the Father says, Matt. 17:6: This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye Him. And Christ says, Matt. 11:28: Come unto Me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. And concerning the Holy Ghost Christ says, John 16:14: He shalt glorify Me; for He shall receive of Mine, and shall show it unto you. 66] Thus the entire Holy Trinity, God Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, directs all men to Christ, as to the Book of Life, in whom they should seek the eternal election of the Father. For this has been decided by the Father from eternity, that whom He would save He would save through Christ, as He [Christ] Himself says, John 14:6: No man cometh unto the Father but by Me. And again, John 10:9: I am the Door; by Me, if any man enter in, he shall be saved.

“67] However, Christ, as the only-begotten Son of God, who is in the bosom of the Father, has announced to us the will of the Father, and thus also our eternal election to eternal life, namely, when He says, Mark 1:15: Repent ye, and believe the Gospel; the kingdom of God is at hand. Likewise He says, John 6:40: This is the will of Him that sent Me, that every one which seeth the Son and believeth on Him may have everlasting life. And again [John 3:16]: God so loved the world, etc. [that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life].”

For the Lutheran, false views of election can undermine our assurance. One such view is there is something in us that God finds in us as cause of Him choosing us:

“87] By this doctrine and explanation of the eternal and saving choice [predestination] of the elect children of God His own glory is entirely and fully given to God, that in Christ He saves us out of pure [and free] mercy, without any merits or good works of ours, according to the purpose of His will, as it is written Eph. 1:5f : Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, wherein He hath made us accepted in the Beloved. 88] Therefore it is false and wrong [conflicts with the Word of God] when it is taught that not alone the mercy of God and the most holy merit of Christ, but that also in us there is a cause of God's election, on account of which God has chosen us to eternal life. For not only before we had done anything good, but also before we were born, yea, even before the foundations of the world were laid, He elected us in Christ; and that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth, it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger; as it is written concerning this matter, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated, Rom. 9:11ff.; Gen. 25:23; Mal. 1:2f.”

The other false view as pointed out is the denials of God wanting to save all:

“89] Moreover, this doctrine gives no one a cause either for despondency or for a shameless, dissolute life, namely, when men are taught that they must seek eternal election in Christ and His holy Gospel, as in the Book of Life, which excludes no penitent sinner, but beckons and calls all the poor, heavy-laden, and troubled sinners [who are disturbed by the sense of God's wrath], to repentance and the knowledge of their sins and to faith in Christ, and promises the Holy Ghost for purification and renewal, 90] and thus gives the most enduring consolation to all troubled, afflicted men, that they know that their salvation is not placed in their own hands,-for otherwise they would lose it much more easily than was the case with Adam and Eve in paradise, yea, every hour and moment,-but in the gracious election of God, which He has revealed to us in Christ, out of whose hand no man shall pluck us, John 10:28; 2 Tim. 2:19.

“91] Accordingly, if any one presents the doctrine concerning the gracious election of God in such a manner that troubled Christians cannot derive comfort from it, but are thereby incited to despair, or that the impenitent are confirmed in their wantonness, it is undoubtedly sure and true that such a doctrine is taught, not according to the Word and will of God, but according to [the blind judgment of human] reason and the instigation of the devil.

“92] For, as the apostle testifies, Rom. 15:4: Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope. But when this consolation and hope are weakened or entirely removed by Scripture, it is certain that it is understood and explained contrary to the will and meaning of the Holy Ghost.

“93] By this simple, correct [clear], useful explanation which has a firm and good foundation in God's revealed will, we abide; we flee from, and shun, all lofty, acute questions and disputations [useless for edifying]; and reject and condemn whatever is contrary to these simple, useful explanations.”

Likewise, this paradox of salvation is all of God (divine election is cause of our salvation from start to finish and faith is gift of God) and damnation is all of man whom God wants to be saved can be found in Article II on freewill.

In regards to salvation being all of God, it reads:

“11] Now, just as a man who is physically dead cannot of his own powers prepare or adapt himself to obtain temporal life again, so the man who is spiritually dead in sins cannot of his own strength adapt or apply himself to the acquisition of spiritual and heavenly righteousness and life, unless he is delivered and quickened by the Son of God from the death of sin.

“25] Thirdly, in this manner, too, the Holy Scriptures ascribe conversion, faith in Christ, regeneration, renewal, and all that belongs to their efficacious beginning and completion, not to the human powers of the natural free will, neither entirely nor half, nor in any, even the least or most inconsiderable part, but in solidum, that is, entirely, solely, to the divine working and the Holy Ghost, as also the Apology teaches.”

Universal grace and atonement were affirmed here as well:

“49] It is not God's will that any one should be damned [perish], but that all men should be converted to Him and be saved eternally. Ezek. 33:11: As I live, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. John 3:16: For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

“50] Therefore God, out of His immense goodness and mercy, has His divine eternal Law and His wonderful plan concerning our redemption, namely, the holy, alone-saving Gospel of His eternal Son, our only Savior and Redeemer, Jesus Christ, publicly preached; and by this [preaching] collects an eternal Church for Himself from the human race, and works in the hearts of men true repentance and knowledge of sins, and true faith in the Son of God, Jesus Christ. And by this means, and in no other way, namely, through His holy Word, when men hear it preached or read it, and the holy Sacraments when they are used according to His Word, God desires to call men to eternal salvation, draw them to Himself, and convert, regenerate, and sanctify them. 51] 1 Cor. 1:21: For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. Acts 10:5. 6: Peter shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do. Rom. 10:17: Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. John 17:17. 20: Sanctify them by Thy truth; Thy Word is truth, etc. Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on Me through their Word. Therefore the eternal Father calls down from heaven concerning His dear Son and concerning all who preach repentance and forgiveness of sins in His name: Hear ye Him, Matt. 17:5.

“52] Now, all who wish to be saved ought to hear this preaching [of God's Word]. For the preaching and hearing of God's Word are instruments of the Holy Ghost, by, with, and through which He desires to work efficaciously, and to convert men to God, and to work in them both to will and to do.”

For the Lutheran, true assurance can only come 1) if salvation doesn’t depend on us (think law and gospel distinction here), but all of God to give us faith and keep us in that faith in the gospel promises given us in Christ through outward means of Word and Sacrament (think salvation lies outside ourselves hence justification by faith alone and imputed righteousness) and 2) if we are given certainty God desires to save all (what’s true for all, as in God’s desire to save, becomes true for all).

We read again in article XI:

“13] Therefore, if we wish to think or speak correctly and profitably concerning eternal election, or the predestination and ordination of the children of God to eternal life, we should accustom ourselves not to speculate concerning the bare, secret, concealed, inscrutable foreknowledge of God, but how the counsel, purpose, and ordination of God in Christ Jesus, who is the true Book of Life, is revealed to us through the Word, 14] namely, that the entire doctrine concerning the purpose, counsel, will, and ordination of God pertaining to our redemption, call, justification, and salvation should be taken together; as Paul treats and has explained this article Rom. 8:29f ; Eph. 1:4f , as also Christ in the parable, Matt. 22:1ff , namely, that God in His purpose and counsel ordained [decreed]:

“15] 1. That the human race is truly redeemed and reconciled with God through Christ, who, by His faultless [innocency] obedience, suffering, and death, has merited for us the righteousness which avails before God, and eternal life.

“16] 2. That such merit and benefits of Christ shall be presented, offered, and distributed to us through His Word and Sacraments.

“17] 3. That by His Holy Ghost, through the Word, when it is preached, heard, and pondered, He will be efficacious and active in us, convert hearts to true repentance, and preserve them in the true faith.

“18] 4. That He will justify all those who in true repentance receive Christ by a true faith, and will receive them into grace, the adoption of sons, and the inheritance of eternal life.

“19] 5. That He will also sanctify in love those who are thus justified, as St. Paul says, Eph. 1:4.

“20] 6. That He also will protect them in their great weakness against the devil, the world, and the flesh, and rule and lead them in His ways, raise them again [place His hand beneath them], when they stumble, comfort them under the cross and in temptation, and preserve them [for life eternal].

“21] 7. That He will also strengthen, increase, and support to the end the good work which He has begun in them, if they adhere to God's Word, pray diligently, abide in God's goodness [grace], and faithfully use the gifts received.

“22] 8. That finally He will eternally save and glorify in life eternal those whom He has elected, called, and justified.

“23] And [indeed] in this His counsel, purpose, and ordination God has prepared salvation not only in general, but has in grace considered and chosen to salvation each and every person of the elect who are to be saved through Christ, also ordained that in the way just mentioned He will, by His grace, gifts, and efficacy, bring them thereto [make them participants of eternal salvation], aid, promote, strengthen, and preserve them.

“24] All this, according to the Scriptures, is comprised in the doctrine concerning the eternal election of God to adoption and eternal salvation, and is to be understood by it, and never excluded nor omitted, when we speak of God's purpose, predestination, election, and ordination to salvation. And when our thoughts concerning this article are thus formed according to the Scriptures, we can by God's grace simply [and correctly] adapt ourselves to it [and advantageously treat of it].

“25] This also belongs to the further explanation and salutary use of the doctrine concerning God's foreknowledge [predestination] to salvation: Since only the elect, whose names are written in the book of life, are saved, how, we can know, whence and whereby we can perceive who are the elect that can and should receive this doctrine for comfort.

26] And of this we should not judge according to our reason, nor according to the Law or from any external appearance. Neither should we attempt to investigate the secret, concealed abyss of divine predestination, but should give heed to the revealed will of God. For He has made known unto us the mystery of His will, and made it manifest through Christ that it might be preached, Eph. 1:9ff ; 2 Tim. 1:9f.

“27] This, however, is revealed to us in the manner as Paul says, Rom. 8:29f : Whom God predestinated, elected, and foreordained, He also called. Now, God does not call without means, but through the Word, as He has commanded repentance and remission of sins to be preached in His name, Luke 24:47. St. Paul also testifies to like effect when he writes: We are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us; we pray you in Christ's stead, Be ye reconciled to God. 2 Cor. 5:20. And the guests whom the King will have at the wedding of His Son He calls through His ministers sent forth, Matt. 22:2ff , some at the first and some at the second, third, sixth, ninth, and even at the eleventh hour, Matt. 20:3ff

“28] Therefore, if we wish to consider our eternal election to salvation with profit, we must in every way hold sturdily and firmly to this, that, as the preaching of repentance, so also the promise of the Gospel is universalis (universal), that is, it pertains to all men, Luke 24:47. For this reason Christ has commanded that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations. For God loved the world and gave His Son, John 3:16. Christ bore the sins of the world, John 1:29, gave His flesh for the life of the world, John 6:51; His blood is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, 1 John 1:7; 2:2. Christ says: Come unto Me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest, Matt. 11:28. God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that He might have mercy upon all, Rom. 11:32. The Lord is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance, 2 Pet. 3:9. The same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon Him, Rom. 10:12. The righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all them that believe, Rom. 3:22. This is the will of Him that sent Me, that every one that seeth the Son and believeth on Him may have everlasting life, John 6:40. Likewise it is Christ's command that to all in common to whom repentance is preached this promise of the Gospel also should be offered Luke 24:47; Mark 16:15.”

Here we stand.