The Gospel of "Nice" - an Augustinian Critique

I know I said I'm done debating, but at the same time, I figured I could post on something that the Reformed and Catholic churches respectively agree on. In history I've learned that having a common enemy is the quickest way to unite two disparate entities or people groups. This will be an anti-Pelagian post so I figure it's pretty safe (though I've been wrong before).

I was in Newman Club (Catholic university student group) yesterday and we had an interesting discussion. The 10 commandments were discussed and the 1st commandment: You shall have no other gods before me, was debated on. A lapsed Presbyterian who is considering our Roman church said that he thought it was intolerant of God to command such a thing. Other 'Catholics' joined in saying that God wouldn't judge people who didn't know about Christ and that, "you can't expect people to change their religions, that's really hard". At this point all eyes shifted to me (the only convert in the room) and I said "I'd like to cite myself as a counter-example".

I then proceeded to ask them a series of questions which led to terrible revelations.
I showed them the biblical propositions that God is a Jealous God "My name is Jealous" and what covenant fidelity meant and how God commanded worship of Himself because he is the only thing worthy of worship and the only God, and otherwise he would be a liar. They didn't like this because it still sounded intolerant.

So I proceeded to say "Catholicism doesn't teach everyone is 'innocent until proven guilty', the scripture says that in sin did your mother conceive you. You are born condemned and only by the grace of Jesus Christ is anyone absolved of that sin." *outrage* 'what about Ghandi!?' someone shouted, 'he did so many great things'.

I responded 'Ghandi rejected Jesus Christ as the Word of God and as such cannot be saved for his allegedly 'great works', Pelagianism is a heresy condemned by the Church which teaches human salvation is dependant on works. You cannot get to Heaven by being "nice"".

Rather than simply call me an intolerant bastard - other leaders in the group said that I had a 'interesting view of Catholicism that might be different from other people's faith experience'. Salvation through grace alone because of Christ is allegedly something I came up with while sitting at home one night I guess.

Other people reassured the confused pseudo-presbyterian that indeed those other people would somehow be saved, because we couldn't have 'nice' people going to Hell. As well as a few outright rejections of the exclusivity of Christianity, etc.

Needless to say I was a little angry about the "Gospel of Nice" that seems to be so prevalent throughout Church History, from Pelagius, to the late medieval Catholics, to the radical Anabaptists, to Kant, to Hegel, and Anglican moralism etc.

I spoke with the associate Chaplain (Catholic) who was raised Catholic, had a conversion to Christ in the Reformed church, and who then reverted to Catholicism, and we agreed it was really bad. So our plan now is to try to teach people the Biblical doctrine of salvation through God's unmerited grace accessible only through Jesus Christ.

I even hinted on possibly getting the Reformed Chaplain involved but he didn't seem to want to go that far. I just hate Pelagianism. And I also think there needs to be a distinction between the Law and the Gospel that isn't usually there in Catholicism. I don't know what that means, but I just hate Pelagianism.

I bought a book called "the Grace of Christ" written by a Jesuit Priest who goes through the doctrine from Augustine to Aquinas to Luther to Jansen to Present and I'm excited to learn how to be synergistic but at the same time not be Pelagian.

Good Heathens - Pelagianism

I've been thinking alot lately (as usual) but about Chris Hedges the semi-christian-ish? author of 'I Don't Believe In Atheists' and another book calling the American Christian Right Fascists. But he has lived in awful conditions covering stories in El Salvador, Serbia, Croatia, the middle east and many places of conflict. He's been beaten, shot at, and imprisoned (wrongfully) just as a Journalist. An interview where he discusses his book and views is available at:http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/video.php?id=2036 it's very interesting. Where any of this ties to pelagianism is that he argues that someone being relgious (or Christian) has no effect on their behaviour as good or bad. I find that whatever the bible may say, from an empirical perspective this is certainly true. I know lots of people who have different religious views than I do and they are great people. And some of the worst people I know are Christians.

Right now I'm sure Jared and Augustine are getting pretty pissed off. Remember though that it was the Good Samaritan - a socially and religiously different character (they had a different torah - samaritan pentatuech, and disagreed with the Jews on where God told them to sacrifice and worship). I guess you could make the Augustinian argument that anytime someone does good who is not a Christian it is still by God's grace, but I don't see the world as that corrupted. St. Jerome said "God has bestowed us with free will. We are not necessarily drawn either to virtue or vice". It seems to me that this leaves the possibility that non-Christians can be good. Clement of Alexandria said "We…have believed and are saved by voluntary choice" as well as "Each one of us who sins with his own free will, chooses punishment. So the blame lies with him who chooses. God is without blame.".

This seems like a viable option of a free will ... just ignore modern psychology and you're good. Also it seems that once again Church 'tradition' is in utter contradiction with itself. I'd like to see how the Catholics use theological gymnastics to get out of this, when it is clear doctrinally both in their church and in Reformed and Lutheran circles that every good deed comes from God's grace, and that man in no way is responsible for saving himself.

So once again the philosophical ramifications make no sense. On the one hand Augustine claiming God is good, he has a complete plan, and all who are saved, are saved because of his good plan. And then Pelagius who says everyone can choose good if they want.

And then we have reality which says that horrible things happen to good people, natural disasters kill infants, the world is not a fair place by any Aristotelian definition. But at the same time we seem to have free will, and yet the whole genealogy of Christ shows us that history is somehow linear and has a meaning... hmm I think I'll just go with Kierkegaard, Pascal, and Isaiah in saying that God is beyond our comprehension.