Disclaimer: The following was written before my conversion to Orthodox Christianity. Victorinus’ Mariology may very well be consistent with the doctrine of the perpetual virginity (as the Latin allows for this reading according to the translator) and his soteriology, if my memory serves me right, was sacramental and was contingent upon a view of union with Christ (and therefore imparted righteousness, the Orthodox doctrine as opposed to the imputed righteousness model in Protestantism). As for any other reflections it has been some years since I have read the commentary, but I made a video explaining the passages below.
—-
Many Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologists assert that Protestant doctrines such as “Faith Alone” are novelties. However, this often comes at the cost of ignoring very plain statements of many men in the early Church.
One interesting case of a theologian who argued in favor of sola fide is Marius Victorinus. A trained Neo-Platonist philosopher he was so famous and widely published that when Augustine read Aristotle as a child, well guess what…Victornius was the translator!
Victorinus was probably the first super-heavyweight intellectual converted to Christianity. While great thinkers that came before him (Justin Martyr, Tertullian, etcetera), they did not have the widespread acclaim nor secular achievements that Victorinus did. The story about how Victorinus went from respected philosopher to Christian is covered in detail in Augustine’s Confessions.
Now, this does not make Victorinus a better theologian. However, he was notable enough that when he undertook a litany of commentaries on Paul’s Epistles (the very first, especially in Latin), immediately afterward several men began trying to best him or improve upon his work. This includes Ambrosiaster (who is likely Hilary of Poitiers), Jerome, Chrysostom, Augustine, among others roughly in that order.
This should lead us to two important points:
- Being that Victorinus is first, if you want to know what the oldest traditional interpretation was, he’s the guy to go to.
- Being that no one subsequently declared Victorinus, or his methods, heretical or “untraditional,” his conclusions were considered within the pale of orthodoxy.
The fact that Jerome and Augustine carefully responded to Victorinus on points showed that his exegesis was something that was respected and had to be responded to with care. Further, most of the disagreement was not on the issue of faith, but on Victorinus’ interpretation of Paul’s disagreement with Peter…so, they were not seeking to correct him on the issue we are concerning ourselves with here.
So, what did Victorinus write? Presently, I have only got “my hands on” his commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. In the translator’s notes, it appears the Victorinus pretty much said the same stuff in his other commentaries about several important things. I would like to return to Victorinus in the future, but for now we will just cover pertinent points of his Galatians commentary:
There is no great difficulty in obtaining his grace, if we just follow him, believing that he accomplished these things by his Mystery and that he did it gratis, without labour or great works. Because this was accomplished for us by him (In reference to Gal 1:6).
Grace requires no works and righteousness is accomplished by Him, not us.
After these points, Paul gives other arguments that justification comes about based on Christ, not on the Law or on works (Gal 1:12).
Victorinus understood Paul properly. Paul wasn’t just writing against the Jewish Law, but the idea that any good work that a man does puts God in his debt. Such doctrine Paul calls “accursed.”
Because when he said he saw no one else of the apostles except James, the reason was also included why he saw James: the Lord’s brother, the one regarded as his brother according to the flesh (Gal 1:19).
Victorinus appears to be in agreement with Tertullian that Mary’s virginity was not perpetual. (Ed. Footnote from translator indicates that an Orthodox reading affirming the perpetual virginity of Mary is possible.)
For faith itself alone grants justification and sanctification. Thus any flesh whatsoever—Jews or those from the Gentiles—is justified on the basis of faith, not works or observance of the Jewish Law (Gal 2:16).
Again, both works and the Law are two mutually exclusive things and neither avail a man.
This is truly to live spiritually: that although one lives in the flesh, one does not live on account of the flesh or based on the flesh. Rather, one lives to God and to Christ by faith in them. This is what it means to live spiritually: to meditate on Christ, to speak of him, to believe him, to direct one’s desires toward him; to flee the world, to expel from one’s mind all things which are in the world. This is what it means to live by faith: to hope for no other good than what is from Christ and from God (Gal 2:20).
Faith works through love, but it is thoughts of the mind more than the actions of the body that are emphasized. (Ed. Note that faith includes the husbanding on righteousness by the purification of one’s thoughtlife.) Further, “one does not live on account of the flesh” because one must account oneself as spiritual. Therefore, we live according to the Spirit as a matter of living up to what we have already had accomplished in us, not in order to earn something.
For then will it have been enacted on our behalf, enacted for our resurrection and liberation, if we but have faith in Christ and in the Mystery of Christ. For by this treatment of Abraham, the divine reality set out beforehand and gave advance notice that human beings would be justified based on faith. As it was accounted to Abraham as justice, then, because he had faith, therefore, if we have faith in Christ and his whole Mystery, we too will be children of Abraham. This means that our whole life will be accounted to us as justice (Gal 3:7).
If we have faith, our whole life is accounted as just. It’s an imputed, forensic righteousness, so that upon the judgment of works we have a perfect record in Christ! (Ed. The preceding is an obvious Protestant eisegesis.)
He [Paul] aims to prevent the Galatians from…believing that as long as they retained faith in Christ, something further could still be advantageous for them, if they would perform something based on works as well. To the contrary, the apostle denies that any blessing comes about on the basis of works; he states rather—and this is even more serious, and opposed to a blessing— that those who carry on their lives based on works are under a curse (Gal 3:9).
It is not Faith + Works according to Victorinus. Here, he categorically denies it.
For all things come about on the basis of faith: the promise was given to Abraham based on faith, and thus to his seed as well (Gal 3:20).
All things come about on the basis of faith–did Luther write that? Oh wait, no, this is from the fourth century. (Ed. Ditto.)
Now, because you are one with the reception of the Spirit from Christ, you are Christ. You are therefore sons of God in Christ (Gal 3:29).
Victorinus makes an important point–when we have faith, we have the Holy Spirit. Indwelt with the Spirit, God literally accounts us as His Son, as the Spirit puts us in a literal union with Him and shares all His qualities.
But you have been baptized in Christ Jesus, you have received Christ, and you are Christ; you are therefore the seed of Abraham. If an inheritance was promised to the seed, the inheritance was given to you as well, and you are heirs according to the promise (Gal 3:30).
We “are Christ,” so upon the judgment we are judged as righteous in Christ.
Because Mary is or was a virgin… (Gal 4:4)
Again, Victorinus voices doubts that Mary was perpetually a Virign…Perhaps he would be considered a heretic today by modern Catholics while in Augustine’s day he was a great hero of the Christian faith. (Ed. More likely, he is speaking of the Theotokos in heaven on one hand and her earthly sojourn on the other. The statement more clearly affirms her perpetual virginity.)
Because Christ, although he himself was what those under the Law were, taught in a different manner, and for the sake of salvation departed from the Law by not observing the sabbath and other things. From this they would know not to hope for salvation based on the Law or its works. Whence the Galatians too might understand that they have fallen into an error, if indeed the Saviour himself, in whom they have believed, was made under the Law, though nevertheless not subservient to it. (Gal 4:4).
Victorinus, as do several other Church Fathers, believe that Jesus broke the Law when He did not follow Sabbath observances. I disagree obviously. If Paul meant this, he would have just said it and it would have settled the issue. Because he didn’t, it pretty much proves that Christ was fully obedient to the Law.
If one is given the name son, according to the previous discussion, one is also an heir, not, though, by things done or by one’s works, rather by the mercy and grace of God. This is Paul’s implication, that it is rather through God, just as has been demonstrated in many passages: that it is not of the one who runs but of the one who shows mercy, and that all things are through the grace of God (Gal 4:7).
Our righteousness comes from God, not by what we do.
Although they accepted Christ from Paul, and they took up faith in Christ (and this is the true gospel), they clearly supposed that they were not going to get enough from Christ—which already smacks of blasphemy and their lack of faith. This is why after the acceptance of Christ, they desired to get circumcised and devote themselves to the Law and its workings. If this is the situation, their faith in Christ is non-existent; because if there is a lack of faith, or the presence of a little and therefore practically non-existent faith, that would be the basis for adding on some other potentially beneficial thing. Rightly, Paul says Christ will avail you nothing (Gal 5:2).
Victorinus issues a warning: adding anything to faith makes faith “non-existent.” If you think that faith alone is not enough to cover your sins, then “Christ will avail you nothing.” If you find yourself as one of those people, repent and trust in Christ. (Ed. This is obviously a Protestant eisegesis going beyond what Victorious states.)
For the whole power of the Mystery has worked to this effect: that an indulgence of sins would come about for us through the grace and mercy of God, and that eternal life would be supplied, as we have often taught, on the basis of God’s grace, not works or merits. But this happens through the Spirit. On the other hand, when one hopes for justification on the basis of one’s works, the hope is not based on the Spirit. Hope based on the Spirit is what we await, and this is what it means to follow the gospel of Christ (Gal 5:5).
Forgiveness of sins is not by works, but through the work of the Holy Spirit. So, if we give alms, confess, or do anything else as a fruit of the Spirit, we do well. If we do these things because we think that if we don’t we won’t attain forgiveness, then our hope is not based on the Spirit and there is no forgiveness of sins.
For faith liberates, and anyone, as we have said, who hopes for help in any way besides Christ, even if it be along with Christ, does not have faith (Gal 5:9).
The scariest words for Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are the above. Even if you account yourself as in Christ, if you hope in anything else other than faith you do not have faith. And, if you do not have faith you are still dead in your sins.
Please prayerfully consider what Victorinus wrote. Go ahead and find Jerome’s and Augustine’s commentary. You will not find them contradicting the above. The above once was fully accepted Catholic faith and it caused little controversy. Now, it would be considered heretical. Was Victorinus a heretic though no one thought him to be in the early Church or are your faiths greatly deviated from the historic, universal faith of the Church? Pray to the Lord for wisdom and do your research!
Orthodox Christian Theology 
Augustine mentions a Victorinus in his ‘confessions’, if it is the same guy. What he writes about him there probably explains the intellectual capacity of the man, he was already well respected, even had statue carved for him.
Same dude! That’s the one and only Victorinus that wrote the commentary!
Has it ever occurred to you that what the early church fathers meant by faith alone is not the same as what Luther meant? I don’t think there’s is a single Early Christian church that accepts what Luther claims as faith alone. This is not just a Roman or Orthodox view.
Why Do you think that the Orthodox or Coptics changed their doctrines from faith alone as defined by Luther to the RCC position (this is you claim right?) There was a lot of animosity between Rome and them. What did they stand to gain by becoming heretics and risk damnation? They had no skin in the game.
It looks like you have read Victorinus and are a little surprised that he does not sound like what you hear these days from Catholic apologists. Good! I hope it gets you thinking.
“Has it ever occurred to you that what the early church fathers meant by faith alone is not the same as what Luther meant?”
Yes, it is something I investigated. I also wonder why modern Catholics hate the term so much while the ancient church didn’t seem bothered by it.
“I don’t think there’s is a single Early Christian church that accepts what Luther claims as faith alone. This is not just a Roman or Orthodox view.”
It’s more complicated than that in my conversations with Eastern Orthodox and Oritenal Orthodox, but for the sake of conversation let me concede that point as it is generally true.
“Why Do you think that the Orthodox or Coptics changed their doctrines from faith alone as defined by Luther to the RCC position (this is you claim right?)”
That’s a very good question, one that I have investigated. It is very hard to pick out a time and a date where a gradual change in theology became categorically against faith alone.
60AD “you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works” (St. Paul, Eph 2:8-9).
75AD “And so we, having been called through His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or works which we wrought in holiness of heart, but through faith” (St. Clement, 1 Clem 33).
375AD “For Abraham also, when he had stretched forth his affections towards God and set before Him his fixed resolution,what else had he need of? Nothing: but “he believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.” ( Gen. xv. 6.) But Faith [comes] of a sincere will. He offered up his son, and though he did not slay him, he received a recompense as if he had slain him, and though the work was not done the reward was given” (S. Chrysostom, Homily 34 on Hebrews).
The Church appears consistent on the matter for hundreds of years. What cannot be found is someone writing that we need works.
However, your question is how can everyone in a large geographic area hold a different position (Faith+Works), if they didn’t really mean it all along in contradiction to the written historical record (like the above)? As a student of history, it is not difficult to find monumental shifts of belief in wide ranging areas over short periods of time, with people not thinking they have changed anything.
I’m just going to use one example, and I don’t care what you are politically because that’s not the point. We live in the US where we have a Constitution. Almost no one believes that we can just simply ignore the Constitution, and in fact, the Constitution is what is interpreted at the Supreme Court in addition to jurisprudence, which is in short historical constitutional interpretations.
Now, let’s take the 4th Amendment. The 4th Amendment says, amongst other things, that an American cannot be searched ON HIS PERSON without a warrant. We have the writings of men during the 1700s that show that when they wrote this, they meant it literally as the issue at the time was that the British wanted to search people for contraband which lacked stamps and such which showed taxes were paid to the crown.
Now, the United States, like the early Church, grew in geography and numbers in 240 years much larger than the ancient Church did. Somewhere along the line, it has become accepted practice for deputies of the government (i.e. police) to stop and frisk people without warrants. Whatever its merits, it is so commonplace, there is nearly no debate over it. The Supreme Court already ruled on it 50 years ago or so that it is Constitutional to stop and frisk.
So, when a modern “Libertarian” says that he is against the practice on “Constitutional grounds” claiming that there is no legitimate legal authority to do so, his detractors respond that it IS Constitutional and the Supreme Court has accurately interpreted that this is so.
The ironic thing in all of this, if any of us are intellectually honest, is that the common practice is clearly in opposition to what the framers of the Constitution would have wanted. No serious historian would debate otherwise.
My point in bringing this all up is that can I tell you the date and the time where stopping and frisking became par for the course, nationwide? No. Can I tell you when the original ideas of the framers were abandoned, and exactly why they were abandoned? Well, I have my theories, but it is hard to pinpoint gradual shifts in ideas.
It is much easier to point out, “Look, in the 1700s this is what they clearly believed!” then to say “Everyone changed their mind on this on this date, and this is why…”
So, ultimately you are trying to shift the burden of poof back on me because of quite frankly, you cannot make sense of what Victorinus, Chrysostom, or Clement said. Nowhere do you see me denying sacraments or works. I am merely reiterating the clear meaning of the statements these men have made. As to why, Catholicism and other religions change, I don’t mind speculating, but I do not think that this conversation actually warrants the speculation. First, I think you would have to show how you actually APPLY what Victorinus taught in your daily life. Show me how what he wrote makes sense to you, and how you do it, and how it is consistent with Victorinus. If you find yourself by necessity disagreeing with him, either he’s the heretic or you have something seriously wrong.
God bless,
Craig
well maybe read the commentary you got his work from. It said he was a synergist whose understanding of salvation is no different than any other Greek, and look at the work of someone like Cyprian of Carthage who said that giving money to the poor can allow you to escape hell!
Also what does the works in works or observance of the Jewish Law mean exactly? Is he speaking of works in general or works of the Jewish Law???
He is speaking of works in general because in his commentary he specifies that neither then nor the works of the Law justify.
Yes but he said works and observances of the law the wording here is confusing at best
Yes but he said works and observances of the law the wording here is confusing at best. Why are you still defending him as you no longer seem to be Calvinist
I am defending the truth, this is what is important. Victorinus says what he says.
Doesn’t it seem strange to you that if you are right he would be teaching sola fide in a vacuum?
Also I actually had an email conversation with the author of the book you mentioned and he said no Victorinius didn’t believe in Sola Fide at least not in any sense Calvin Luther or even Welsey would have recognized it.
Perhaps Victorinus understands sola fide the way I understood the Reformed doctrine of it (which I could be wrong), but as a faith that proves itself out in works. Salvation is not earned by what we do. Victorinus affirms this, as does Orthodoxy.
Old post but very interesting to read it and the comments. You defend your ground well Craig, as do the commentators without resorting to insults or disparagement. Bravo!
I believe the exchange about “works and observances…” is perhaps the point this turns on to us Catholics and Orthodox Christians (at least using only this exegetical work as a source). “Works and observances of the Law” must be taken as reference to “actions of Law” and “observances of Law” or else the phrasing does not fit the letter’s purpose. Or rather our modern interpretation must maintain the focus of the author’s intent while being open to additional readings. Given Paul’s focus elsewhere on his own and others need to confront themselves to Christ (as opposed to the modern Protestant theology). Clearly there then is a need to submit the will and make effort in that process which then is opposed to a view of sola fide applying to sanctification rather than (as it should) to justification.
It would seem that you have taken this view but I thought to add clarity (as I see it of course) to the comments where perhaps it will aid another. Congratulations on your Orthodoxy. 6 more weeks and I will be received into the RCC! God Bless.