[kosta50]

The Catholics - used at that time of ALL christians, not those under the authority of Rome - taught Augustine the Gospel. And what Gospel? The one they all accepted.

I think some of your historical concepts are somewhat confused, base don your writing.

• First, there was no such thing as 'universal' papal authority in those days. Those bishops who were, more or less, under papal authority were only Latin bishops. As it turns out, all catholic Bishops were in communion with the Bishop of Rome (Patriarch of the West), as they were with the other four Patriarchs.
• Second, the Catholic Church was the Church that recognized the Nicene Council and the subsequent two Ecumenical Councils. There were no "other" Christians. There was no other Church. That which was not catholic was heretical. And +Augustine, once he left his Gnostic sect,  surely didn't accept anything from them.
• Third, not all catholic bishops were in agreement as to the NT canon. The particular canon of +Athansius accepted at the Third African Council had no binding authority. The eastern Church did not accept the African canon at that time.

[Mr Rogers]

Either you misunderstood what I wrote, or I wrote poorly. I agree that there was no universal papal authority in 400AD. That was an innovation the Bishop of Rome pushed in contradiction to the scripture. I also agree that at that time, there was no concept of a Christian who wasn’t Catholic. I also agree that there wasn’t total unanimity on the canon of the NT, although I believe there was a pretty strong consensus from the beginning that the gospels and the letters of Paul were inspired by God. But even the (Roman) Catholic Church allowed debate on canon until Trent.

My point was that someone who accepts current Catholic teaching - which evolves, as has been pointed out - sees meaning in Augustine (and scripture!) that wasn’t meant by the writer.

And avoiding that error is always a challenge for a modern reader. I’m sure I fail at it often myself.