You haven't produced any evidence that proves anything concerning purgatory was a teaching in the church in the 100's (first century)
I didn't realize that I would have to be so literal in my defense, but that's ok I can be. It is just I thought that since your church hadn't come into existence until the last 500 years or so you would accept those much earlier in the Church, I especially chose Augustine because he was relied on so heavily by Calvin, even though calvin misunderstood most of what he read.
By the time crysostom, and augustine began teaching this phony doctrine, the Roman Catholic church had become well established.
Actually it was Paul who first started teaching this doctrine within the Church in his First Epistle to the Corinthians. But Clement of Alexandria also taught it.
Accordingly the believer, through great discipline, divesting himself of the passions, passes to the mansion which is better than the former one, viz., to the greatest torment, taking with him the characteristic of repentance from the sins he has committed after baptism. He is tortured then still more--not yet or not quite attaining what he sees others to have acquired. Besides, he is also ashamed of his transgressions. The greatest torments, indeed, are assigned to the believer. For God's righteousness is good, and His goodness is
righteous. And though the punishments cease in the course of the completion of the expiation and purification of each one, yet those have very great and permanent grief who are found worthy of the other fold, on account of not being along with those that have been glorified through righteousness.
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, The Stromata, Book 6, Chapter 14 [A.D. 188-199]
I don't consider either of these men church fathers, when I say Church Fathers, I am speaking of the per Nicene fathers, (perhaps ending with the likes of Bishop Anathasius) so, anyone after him I wouldn't get to excited about.
Well who you do and don't consider to be a Church Father is of no concern to me. I said the Church taught purgatory since the 100's (actually the doctrine comes from the book of Maccabees in the Old Testament and the book of 1st Corinthians in the New Testament so the Church taught it since it inception). It matters not if you agree with the individual, because if the Church was not teaching it at the time, they could not have even been putting forth the idea, or argue against it for that matter. So if we see evidence of either it proves my point.
Let us see what Clement of Rome says, since he is even of the 1st Century
However those who through the grace of God, have been made perfect in love, now possess a place among the godly. And they will be made manifest at the revelation of the kingdom of Christ. For it is written; Enter into your secret chambers for a little time, until my wrath and fury pass away. And I will remember a propitious day, and will raise you up out of your graves. (Clement of Rome c.96 - 1.18)
Here he refers to Is 26:20 which is also later quoted by Tertullian in the same way, showing a consistent interpretation by the Church of an intermediate state that exists between our death and entrance into heaven.
Although I recognize Augustine did contribute some good teachings, it is questionable in mind whether this man was truly a child of God.
Clearly He is the sole responsible individual who began the teaching of purgatory, as for Chrysostom or any of the popes, I simply ignore anything they have to say.
It is nonsense to claim Augustine as the originator of the idea that there was an intermediate state after death between mortal life and heaven. The Book of Maccabees showed that there were those even prior to the Church who taught this doctrine.
You are free to disbelieve anything the Popes say to your own peril, but you cannot simply ignore it or you are purposely ignoring history and that is what we are discussing here, not the merits of the doctrine but when it was first taught to correct your erroneous claim.
Your reference to Aurelius's commentary in "City of God" XXI:13, I would suggest you look at the title of the paragraph you quoted;
13. Against the opinion of those who think that the punishments of the wicked after death are purgatorial
Then read the entire parapgraphs in the lite of Plato and Virgils comments which he critics herein. You will never prove anything using a few sentences on his commentary, besides chapter 12, and 14 need to examined together with 13.
I have reviewed the material and disagree with your interpretation of his teachings, but it matters not, since because he referenced the teaching it shows the teaching was in the Church during or even prior to his life time (even if he was arguing against it, which he was not). As for proving anything or not based on a few paragraphs I would agree that one cannot prove the validity of the doctrine of purgatory by selecting a few quotes from the huge libraries we have of the Church Fathers, but you forget the point of the discussion. It is not whether the doctrine is true it is whether the Church taught the doctrine of purgatory in the 100's. And since I have proven the early Church Fathers were aware of the doctrine that proves it was taught in the Church.
What I find interesting is that you believe Augustiunes teachings on purgatory, which are false, and reject His teaching on the eternal security of the believers which has more scriptural authority than the former.
No, I do not disagree with Augustine's teachings I disagree with your understanding of Augsutine, as you hold that he taught Once Saved Always Saved and I know he didn't. That is one error of Calvin’s analysis of Augustine you should definitely abandon. If he had taught this idea the Catholic Church who denies it would not have made Augustine a Doctor of the Church.
Of all of his doctrinal errors, Aurelius Augustine was most importantly wrong about the foremost doctrine in all of Scripture
how to be saved.
And, since Augustine's salvation plan is no real plan of salvation at all, both it and Augustine himself would thereby be condemned under Gal. 1:8,9, by Paul:
I love these vague thrusts, at others works, you always do, without providing any true details. It lets you belittle others without the fear of being corrected or shown to be in error. It's a very safe way to approach controversy but not a very honest way.
It is clear Calvin simply picked up Augustines teachings and ran with them during the reformation, both have errored in the teaching.
So now the marvelous Petro is a greater mind and better theologian than Augustine, Chrysostom, and even Calvin, his pride knows no bounds.
Author