[MarkBsnr]

We agree with many of its points and disagree with those points which do not agree with the Church.

The Eastern Fathers, absolutely all of them, and Westerners before Augustine, and even after him, saw that there is no reprobation, not even negative, except in consideration of demerits. Augustine did not see that, and the unfortunate massa damnata theory, which said the whole human race by original sin became a massa damnata et damnabilis: God could throw the whole damned race into hell for original sin alone, without waiting for any personal sin.

In this theory, God wanted to display mercy and justice. To display mercy, He chose a small percent to rescue; the rest He deserted and so they would go to hell.

He thought God picked those to rescue blindly, without any consideration of how they lived. He picked them not that He had any love for them, but merely to make a point. Augustine did not see it, but that was a denial of God’s love. For to love is to will good to another for the other’s sake. If I will good to another not for that other’s sake, but for some outside purpose of mine, I am not loving that person, but using him.

So in that theory, God does not really love anyone, He merely uses the few for His own purposes, not for their sake. Hence, as we shall son see, he explicitly denied several times that “God wills all to be saved: (1 Tim 2:4) . He even said, as we shall soon see below, that it means nothing to God that most persons are damned, without a chance.

Of course Augustine did not see this fact, or he would surely have stayed away from his theory. Actually, as we shall see later on, in about six places he implies the opposite of that theory, when his sense of God’s goodness took over his thinking.

Further, he reached this theory from a collection of reasons, chiefly, the fact that he misunderstood the passage in Romans 8:29 through chapter 11. He thought it all referred to predestination to heaven or hell. (Hence, within that framework, he thought that the words of Romans 9:13,”I have loved Jacob and hated Esau” meant that God really hated Esau. And without even looking at Esau’s life wanted to damn him) . Actually, St. Paul does not speak of any such thing, but only of predestination to full membership in the Church. By allegory—without any support in the text or context, he thought that in the image of the potter in Romans 9:19-24 the gob of clay on the potter’s table meant the whole human race, made into a massa damnata et damnabilis by original sin.

St. Prosper of Aquitaine is often called the great defender of Augustine. But he clearly contradicted Augustine on the massa damnata , three times. For example, in his Responsiones ad capitula obiectionum Gallorum 3: “. . . for this reason they were not predestined because they were foreseen as going to be such as a result of voluntary transgression . . . For they were not deserted by God so that they deserted God; but they deserted and were deserted. . . .”

There is the complete analysis of this paper at http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/AUGUSTIN.htm

In summary, St. Augustine got a lot of things right, but he got some things wrong.

There are three logical steps in God’s decisions:

(1) He wills all men to be saved. Augustine did deny this, but Scripture teaches it, so we must and do hold it. Further since to will salvation is to will good to another, and since love consists in willing good to another for the other’s sake, therefore to deny this first step wold be to deny God’s love. Which would be blasphemy. This will on God’s part is extremely strong, measured by how far He went to make our eternal happiness possible: the terrible death of His Son, and His binding Himself in the covenant by the infinite price of redemption to offer forgiveness and grace infinitely, that is, without limit, except that limit set by man’s rejection of it.

(2) He looks—not ahead, for there is no time with Him—to see who resists His grace both gravely and persistently, so persistently that he throws away the only thing that could save him. Then sadly God decrees to let him go, negative reprobation. This is the unanimous view of all Eastern Fathers, and Westerners except St. Augustine.

(3) All who were not discarded in step two are positively predestined. But not because of merits. This is St. Augustine’s large contribution. Merits have not yet been considered at all. Rather, God predestines them to heaven because that is what He wanted to do in step 1, and thy are not blocking it.

[HarleyD]

We agree with many of its points and disagree with those points which do not agree with the Church.

Of course. But how do you know what you are agreeing with and what you're discarding is correct? Simply because it was put up for a vote? I harp on indulgents simply because that went up for a vote as well.

The Eastern Fathers, absolutely all of them, and Westerners before Augustine, and even after him, saw that there is no reprobation, not even negative, except in consideration of demerits.

I would agree with the eastern fathers. I would disagree with the westerners. Augustine states in his Treatise of Predestination that he received his understanding from St. Cyprian who used Paul's text, "What do you have that you have not received." I think there is evidence. Please consider the follow from Clement of Rome:

Chapter XXXII.—We are justified not by our own works, but by faith.

Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognise the greatness of the gifts which were given by him. For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh.From him [arose] kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah. Nor are his other tribes in small glory, inasmuch as God had promised, “Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven.” All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. - Clement of Rome, Book XXXII

This sounds like something Calvin would have written. Here's another:

Chapter X.—The blessings that will flow from faith.

If you also desire [to possess] this faith, you likewise shall receive first of all the knowledge of the Father. For God has loved mankind, on whose account He made the world, to whom He rendered subject all the things that are in it,to whom He gave reason and understanding, to whom alone He imparted the privilege of looking upwards to Himself, whom He formed after His own image, to whom He sent His only-begotten Son, to whom He has promised a kingdom in heaven, and will give it to those who have loved Him. And when you have attained this knowledge, with what joy do you think you will be filled? Or, how will you love Him who has first so loved you? And if you love Him, you will be an imitator of His kindness. And do not wonder that a man may become an imitator of God. He can, if he is willing. - St. Mathetes

I deliberately included St. Mathetes comment, "He can, if he is willing". While the Catholics would say, "Ah HA, Harley. Mathetes is talking about cooperation." I would refer you to the middle portion where Mathetes states, "And when you have attained this knowledge, with what joy do you think you will be filled? Or, how will you love Him who has first so loved you?".

This again is precisely what Calvin, and Augustine states. It goes back to Cyprian's quote of Paul's writings, "What do you have that has not been given to you?"

Augustine did not see that,...

Augustine saw that perfectly clear, so much that he was willing to recall most of his life's work and burn them. He understood very well what the implications were. I can understand why Calvin couldn't quote Augustine enough.

In this theory, God wanted to display mercy and justice.

It isn't a "theory" any more that Clement's is theorizing. Augustine uses a lot of scripture for his argument.

St. Prosper of Aquitaine is often called the great defender of Augustine. But he clearly contradicted Augustine on the massa damnata , three times.

It all depends on what version you're using. There are five different versions of Prosper's writing and they move from a total support of Augustine's writings to one that is sympathetic to Pelagius. The latter works are suspected of being corrupted because Prosper was such a big supporter of Augustine and an outspoken critic of semi-Pelagius. The fact that erroneous documents of Prosper showed up should be confirmation that someone was trying to tamper with the books to get their own theological view across. It should also confirm that Augustine's view was a hot topic in the Church.