*****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.
“But, he also did not believe that we are called against our will and held there”
Augustine clearly believed what the scripture teaches (I’ve quoted him well enough to prove that), which is that we are not called “against our will.” We are given a new heart from God, and it is this new nature by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit that comes to Christ willingly. But he cannot choose to will differently, just as the damned cannot choose not to sin, and how we still struggle with our flesh despite “serving the law of God with our minds.” The will before salvation is the slave of sin, but the will after being freed is happily enslaved to Christ.
But it is God who calls, draws, justifies and glorifies, and there is no “cooperating to remain good enough for God.” Because it is God who “works in us both to will and to do,” and who “wrought all our works in us.” If grace is truly sufficient, then grace cannot fail to secure its recipient. Therefore salvation is by the grace of God, and not of ourselves, not of works “lest any should boast,” because it is God who works all in all with us from the beginning.
Furthermore, the synergistic system essentially declares that not only can grace fail to save the elect, but that half the time this grace isn’t even given to people at all. So then there are those doomed because they receive no grace, but were vessels of wrath, and then there are those who receive grace, who God predestinated to be vessels of mercy, but fail to make perfect the grace that was given to them. The scripture teaches no such thing:
Joh 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
Joh 10:26-30 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. (27) My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: (28) And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. (29) My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. (30) I and my Father are one.
This is peace to the believer, but terror to the children of the devil, who do not come, but are happy to live and to die in their sin, to their everlasting shame.
“The lists given very early in the church history denotes those who succeeded him as Bishop of Rome as his successors”
And when, exactly, were these lists written? Do they all agree? Was both Peter and Paul connected with Rome? Is there evidence that Peter was ever in Rome to begin with? How did the Early Father’s interpret the Apostles receiving the keys of Heaven? And when the Primacy of Peter came into vogue, say about the 4th century, did they define the Primacy of Peter, his authority, as coming upon the seat of the Bishop of Rome?
Certainly, that is NOT the position of Gregory as I have quoted, nor of many others. It is the RCC that looks at every quote which mentions Peter, and assumes it refers to the Bishop of Rome, even though Rome itself is called “Babylon” by the scriptures and by many of the early Fathers.
The whole system of control and obedience that came into view in the middle ages simply has no precedent in the Bible, nor was it one that the ancients took very seriously in the first few centuries. If they had a problem with one Bishop, they simply sought vindication from another... but even THAT system itself has no basis in the scripture, which instead defines unity not by obedience or membership in a visible structure, but spiritual unity through faith in the body of Christ DESPITE the hatred it will cause with the world.
I would encourage you to take a closer look to the quotes I provided from Gregory, and also the teachings of the early Fathers... but, more importantly, to take a closer look at the scriptures to test the RCC’s theology.