I realized that you would take exception, so I tried to be gentle enough to lay much of the blame on the Catholic Encyclopedia. (I really was trying to be nice. Some of the stuff in your paper was pretty good, and all of it was eloquent!)
Having read the discussions of predestination in the Catholic Encyclopedia, I notice that they invariably make trite, often completely artificial distinctions between Augustinian predestination and Calvinistic predestination. They have to do this. Why? Because Luther and Calvin really did embarrass Rome over and over and over by citing Augustine. (Luther and Calvin understood Augustine very well. Sixteenth Century Rome did not.)
At the bottom line, there are no terribly important distinctions between Augustinian and Calvinistic predestination. They are both absolute, double-predestination positions.
Romanists almost invariably wind up trying to insinuate that Augustine didn't really assert predestination so much as he asserted God's foreknowledge. But Luther (an Augustinian monk) correctly pointed out the God's foreknowledge is fixative and not merely precognitive. And that was Augustine's position. God's foreknowledge is a planning faculty, a thing of awful deliberation.
To illustrate the implications of this, I would point out that Romanists and Arminians try to schmooze over the issues of God's will when they exalt man's will in the overall picture. They say God elects certain sinners only because He foresaw that they would freely believe the gospel. But Augustine specifically denied this. He maintained that foresight of faith cannot be the grounds of election, since the Bible clearly teaches that faith stems from being elect--not the other way around.
And the point you made about Augustine saying that Adam freely chose to sin in Eden is moot. The Calvinist also maintains that Adam freely chose to sin.
In fact, the thoughtful Calvinist actually believes that man does exercise true free will in all of his choices. The Romanists never understood this, because they were determined to define free will as the power of contrary choice (which is actually ludicrous, when you think about the will is). In the interests of steering well clear of that particular error (heck, even God does not have the power of contrary choice!), the Reformers were ultimately forced to re-define the terminology. They chose to speak of free agency rather than the badly misunderstood idea of free will.
But the Reformers' idea of free agency was nothing more than Augustine's idea of free will.
The whole controversy is very involved and occasionally very deep. And in my opinion there have been no RC theologians since Bishop Jansen who have really understood Augustine. (And as an Augustinian/Calvinistic/Biblical predestinarian myself, I actually think the whole thing is a bit funny. So, I urge you to appreciate where I am coming from. I am not trying to be cruel in my criticism.)
Oh, I very much understand. But then, when working with Augustine in the article, I was not using the Catholic Encyclopedia, since it is something of a biased source. What I got out of my reading of On the Predestination of the Saints and The Problem of Free Choice was that single predestination is in there, but double predestination is not. St. Augustine of Hippo sounds Calvinist in some places, but I think to call him such is presenting a bit less of the picture. As to what Augustine thought of predistination as foreknowledge, you have to distinguish between what he wrote earlier in his career and what he wrote later in his career. Earlier in his career, he did, in fact maintain that predestination came through foreknowledge. Later, under the influence of the Pauline letters, he came to the conclusion that predestination was, in fact, an active work of God (which I stated in the article). My only contention is that he was not a proponent of double predestination, and was much less willing to look at the ultimate cause of the Fall than Calvin would be.
God is sovereign and salvation is totally of the Lord.
In Christ,