.

I do agree with your assessment. Your help is appreciated so thank you.

.
You're welcome.
.
Maybe you didn't understand my question (because you didn't answer it).
.
Allow me to suggest revising the last 2 paragraphs. Here is what you have, but I will propose a revision below:
.
.

The BOD proponent will point to St Ambrose’s funeral oration for the murdered emperor Valentinian as proof of BOD but a critical look at the oration itself, balanced with the other writings of St Ambrose show quite the contrary. During the oration, St Ambrose assured the grieving crowd that Valentinian received what he asked for. This does allow for a BOD but can’t prove it because another possibility exists and is more likely.

St Ambrose was privy to the circuмstances of Valentinian’s murder, knew the emperor was actually baptized before it happened but because it was a state secret, St Ambrose could not reveal he knew because he would then be forced to reveal the identity of the murderers and a cινιℓ ωαr could ensue. Also remarkable is that the faithful were mourning Valentinian because they thought he was not baptized and therefore lost. They would not believe this way if St Ambrose had previously taught them BOD. Also, in St Augustine’s earlier work that promoted BOD, he never mentions St Ambrose, his very mentor, as support for the BOD position.
My question was:  I'm not sure if the beginning of the second paragraph is supposed to exemplify the first. But that's what it seems you're trying to say. Therefore, IF IT IS what you're trying to say, here is a more deliberate way of saying it to remove suspicion or misinterpretation (I'm using a different font to distinguish this revision) :
The BOD proponent will point to St. Ambrose's funeral oration for the murdered emperor Valentinian as proof of BOD, but a critical look at the oration itself, balanced with the other writings of St. Ambrose, shows quite the contrary. For example,  during the oration, St. Ambrose assured the grieving crowd that Valentinian received what he had asked for. This does allow for a BOD, but cannot prove it, because another possibility exists -- one that is more likely than the case of a BOD.
That other possibility would be according to the following. St. Ambrose had been privy to the circuмstances of Valentinian's murder, and would have known that the emperor had been truly baptized with water before the murder; but because his baptism had been a state secret, St. Ambrose could not reveal he knew this because then he would have been forced to reveal the identity of the murderers and a cινιℓ ωαr could have ensued. Also remarkable is that the faithful were mourning Valentinian because they had thought he was NOT baptized, and therefore lost! They would not have believed this way if St. Ambrose had previously taught them BOD! Also, in St. Augustine's earlier work that promoted BOD, he never mentioned St. Ambrose, his very mentor, as support for the BOD position. This is circuмstantial evidence that St. Ambrose had not been one who had held the BOD position, and would explain why St. Augustine didn't mention him, because if he had, St. Ambrose would have openly refuted such a claim by St. Augustine.
Do you think this version does a better job of conveying what you were trying to say, JoeZ?
.