“I’m afraid not. The word used which is translated as remembrance is a word that had a sacrificial basis when used in the OT”
That’s impossible, since the Old Testament was originally Hebrew, not Greek. Furthermore, the Greek word in the LXX does not translate to “memorial sacrifice.” Nor is there a special connection between the word used in the NT as the one in the OT in connection with sacrifice. In fact, various versions of “remembrance” are all used in connection with sacrifices, with no one word taking up the use “memorial sacrifice” all at once, save perhaps here: Leviticus 2:2 uses mnemosynon for the sacrifice placed right on the altar, not anamnesis.
Lev_2:2 And he shall bring it to Aaron’s sons the priests: and he shall take thereout his handful of the flour thereof, and of the oil thereof, with all the frankincense thereof; and the priest shall burn the memorial of it upon the altar, to be an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD:
The same word is used in 2:9 and 2:16, just as an example from this one chapter.
“Augustine did not teach God has chosen some and rejected others for no reason other than He can.”
He didn’t disparage God the way you do with it, but He did not believe in universal grace, nor in the things you wrote. He believed in sovereign grace, as taught in the scripture. Here’s an example:
“We know that God’s grace is not given to all men. To those to whom it is given it is given neither according to the merits of works, nor according to the merits of the will, but by free grace. To those to whom it is not given we know that it is because of God’s righteous judgment that it is not given.” Augustine - On Rebuke and Grace
Nor did he believe that grace is given to those whom God foresees will be good. That is Semipelagianism which Augustine directly condemned:
“But these brethren of ours, about whom and on whose behalf we are now discoursing, say, perhaps, that the Pelagians are refuted by this apostolical testimony in which it is said that we are chosen in Christ and predestinated before the foundation of the world, in order that we should be holy and immaculate in His sight in love. For they think that “having received God’s commands we are of ourselves by the choice of our free will made holy and immaculate in His sight in love; and since God foresaw that this would be the case,” they say, “He therefore chose and predestinated us in Christ before the foundation of the world.” Although the apostle says that it was not because He foreknew that we should be such, but in order that we might be such by the same election of His grace, by which He showed us favour in His beloved Son. When, therefore, He predestinated us, He foreknew His own work by which He makes us holy and immaculate. Whence the Pelagian error is rightly refuted by this testimony. “But we say,” say they, “that God did not foreknow anything as ours except that faith by which we begin to believe, and that He chose and predestinated us before the foundation of the world, in order that we might be holy and immaculate by His grace and by His work.” But let them also hear in this testimony the words where he says, “We have obtained a lot, being predestinated according to His purpose who worketh all things.” [Eph. 1.11.] He, therefore, work-eth the beginning of our belief who worketh all things; because faith itself does not precede that calling of which it is said: “For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance;” [Rom. 11.29.] and of which it is said: “Not of works, but of Him that calleth” [Rom. 9.12.] (although He might have said, “of Him that believeth”); and the election which the Lord signified when He said: “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.” [John 15.16.] For He chose us, not because we believed, but that we might believe, lest we should be said first to have chosen Him, and so His word be false (which be it far from us to think possible), “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.” Neither are we called because we believed, but that we may believe; and by that calling which is without repentance it is effected and carried through that we should believe.” (Augustine, A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints, Chapt. 38)
“There is no dogmatic Catholic declaration on predestination and the elect and those who will not be saved.”
Not true, Trent very clearly teaches synergism. The Catholic church has taken a stand, and it is on the side of man’s alleged ability to achieve salvation.
“Augustine also believed that one could lose their salvation by outright rejection of it and of God. “
Augustine, unlike myself, believed that a man cannot be one hundred percent certain that he is a member of the elect. Therefore, a man can reject Christ, and from this rejection it is clear that he did not receive the gift of “perseverance.” However, he regarded perseverance itself to be a gift of God, and therefore no member of the elect can ever be lost. He simply cannot know he is a member of the elect until after death. Augustine, like Calvin, also believed one can receive grace to a certain extent (the rain falls on the just and the unjust), and yet not receive the gift of perseverance which belongs to the elect. Nor does Augustine define perseverance by continual works meriting heaven, as the Catholic would assume, but by faith, which gives imputed righteousness. Whatever the case, salvation from start to finish still remains with God, and therefore this is not synergism, nor does Calvin or any of the reformers significantly depart on this one point.
I would encourage you, whatever your end conclusion, to embrace these teachings in some way, or even a somewhat synergistic view, if the end result is that you have faith in Christ alone for His imputed righteousness, and do not regard yourself in anyway as earning salvation by your own merits. In this you will be blessed, moreso than any vain seeking out after merits to gain points for heaven.
Even the Arminian Christian, when praying, with the heart confesses Christ as the sole agent of his salvation, even if their mind is yet confused on these matters.
“What seems to be a fact unable to be grasped is that no one here, especially me has claimed that the Church just appeared in Rome and said, “We are the authority” in all things Christian. It was developed over the course of years as the Church grew and looked to the Bishop of Rome for guidance in the face of heresy.”
A development of Papal power does not square with the claim that the Roman Bishop, as a “successor” of Peter, has always been the head of the Body of Christ. If there was no Papal figure in charge from day one, then there is no RCC.
“Another fact is that not everything thought, word, deed or writing of a Catholic theologian, author, bishop or even pope is considered infallible.”
We can expect “Popes” and Bishops to accurately represent the teachings of their church. No one becomes the Vicar of Christ on Earth, the Universal Pastor of the entire church, and not actually know it.
“Another fact is that Augustine practiced obedience to the Bishop of Rome as a Catholic bishop, an office and practice that was well established by the time he lived.”
Augustine would not have recognized the Western church as an authority over the Church in Africa, nor would he have regarded any particular Bishop out there in the world as universal.
*****He didn’t disparage God the way you do with it, but He did not believe in universal grace, nor in the things you wrote. He believed in sovereign grace, as taught in the scripture.*****
I do not disparage God, merely saying that we do not know who the elect are nor how they are chosen. IOW we do not know who or why God gives His grace to whom He gives it.
Grace is sovereign and that is what the Church teaches. Augustine rightly conveys the belief that grace is what moves us to believe, works in us to do the good that God planned for us and helps us persevere in faith.
But, he also did not believe that we are called against our will and held there without some knowing that we are cooperating with God’s desire for our salvation.
Scripture clearly says that God desires that all men be saved, but is also clear that all men will not be saved.
The Church makes no claim as to who and why.....that is God’s providence.
*****Nor did he believe that grace is given to those whom God foresees will be good.*******
Of course not, Jesus says none are good or capable of desiring God. God desires us and calls us and moves our hearts to respond to Him by grace through the Spirit.
The question for the Church and for Augustine is/was who and why. Both believe in the free will of man and know that plays a part or else Augustine would not believe that man can reject God and therefore lose his salvation.
Synergism as in man’s will must be subject to God’s in the work of his salvation. Scriptures tells us all the time the things we must choose and do to remain in Christ.
And, again, Augustine was never given to be infallible and the Church can and may have rejected some of his theology without declaring him a heretic. That wouldn’t be the first time.
****Nor does Augustine define perseverance by continual works meriting heaven, as the Catholic would assume, but by faith, which gives imputed righteousness.*****
Neither does the Church, which says that works are an outward sign of a true and alive inward faith and of a person allowing the Holy Spirit to work in their life. It is not the works that merits heaven, but the faith that gains heaven through the merits of Jesus.
****I would encourage you, whatever your end conclusion, to embrace these teachings in some way, or even a somewhat synergistic view, if the end result is that you have faith in Christ alone for His imputed righteousness, and do not regard yourself in anyway as earning salvation by your own merits. In this you will be blessed, moreso than any vain seeking out after merits to gain points for heaven.*****
I appreciate the kind words of encouragement and do indeed know that I am not worthy of God’s grace and am blessed to be counted among His children.
******A development of Papal power does not square with the claim that the Roman Bishop, as a “successor” of Peter, has always been the head of the Body of Christ.******
The “claim” as you call is, is that Peter was the head of the church as chosen and ordained by Jesus. The lists given very early in the church history denotes those who succeeded him as Bishop of Rome as his successors, not just to the see of Rome, but also as the visible head of the church on earth.
*****We can expect “Popes” and Bishops to accurately represent the teachings of their church. No one becomes the Vicar of Christ on Earth, the Universal Pastor of the entire church, and not actually know it.*****
It is not always a question of knowing the teachings, but knowing how those teachings apply in the face of a constantly changing society challenging the teachings.
That is why we must depend and trust the Holy Spirit to protect the pope and therefore us, from making errors when speaking on matters that are binding.
******Augustine would not have recognized the Western church as an authority over the Church in Africa, nor would he have regarded any particular Bishop out there in the world as universal.*******
You are wrong here, Augustine recognized the See of Rome as the Chair of St. Peter and the voice of the universal church. But, too, bishops are the head of their sees but are expected to remain in union with the pope and the universal church.