The devil's apprentice

rogereolson says:

This is the Calvinist conundrum I talk about all the time and that no Calvinist (to the best of my knowledge) has resolved satisfactorily. Let me put it this way: If God has sovereignty predestined and rendered certain everything that happens without exception FOR HIS GLORY, then doesn’t doctrinal error glorify God? If so, why fiercely opposed it? The key is “fiercely.” I can understand their answer “Well, God has called us to be his instruments in defeating doctrinal error and our defeating it also glorifies God.” (It doesn’t really make sense to me, but I can at least understand it.) But why fiercely? Why do they seem angry as they go about attempting to defeat doctrinal error (e.g., open theism)? And can it glorify God to use misrepresentation and demagoguery to defeat doctrinal error? I know that happens because I’m been a victim of it and I’ve seen it “up close.” (E.g., “Arminians must say that Christ did not save anyone but only gave people an opportunity to save themselves.”)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/03/part-2-response-to-the-gospel-as-center/comment-page-1/#comment-26550

i) As usual, Olson has blinkers on when it comes to his own position. He constantly inveighs against Calvinism, but never stops to consider obvious–and I do mean obvious–counterexamples to his own objections. For the Arminian God has the wherewithal to greatly reduce doctrinal error without infringing on the libertarian freedom of his creatures. Just take the Arminian/Calvinist controversy. Olson’s God could have inspired St. Paul to compose the The Five Articles of Remonstrance, which would become a part of canonical Scripture. Olson’s God could have inspired Bible writers to rewrite Calvinist prooftexts to make them explicitly Arminian.

More generally, the Angel of the Lord could hold a weekly audience and take questions from the audience. His answers to questions, including follow-up questions, regarding, say, the sacraments, would resolve many theological disputes.

Or God could make everyone a prophet. Make every Christian privy to special revelations. 

None of this would “violate” the libertarian freedom of Christians. Yet it would vastly reduce theological disagreement and doctrinal error. So why doesn’t Olson’s God do more to prevent doctrinal error when it’s within his power to do so consistent with libertarian strictures?

Why does God allow it? The freewill defense won’t work in these cases–even if we grant its key assumptions.

ii) When Olson talks about the Calvinist God doing everything “for his glory,” I don’t know how Olson understands that phrase, so in that respect his question is unanswerable.

iii) He imputes anger to Reformed opponents of doctrinal error. But that may just be Olson projecting. If anything, he seems to be pretty ticked off by Calvinists.

iv) How is it “misrepresentation and demagoguery” to state Arminians must say that Christ did not save anyone but only gave people an opportunity to save themselves?

v) Calvinists can logically oppose predestined doctrinal error because both the error and the opposition to error are means to an end. Error supplies the occasion to oppose error, which can be a worthwhile exercise. Error is not inherently valuable, and opposition to error may not be inherently valuable, but the combination may contribute to a valuable result.

vi) Even at a human level, we often create problems to solve problems. Take chess. Or football. Or hockey. Or poker. Or drama. Or video games. Or recreational math. Or murder mysteries. Or riddles and puzzles. We create conflict to resolve conflict. We create situations which invite competition. Winners and losers. We challenge ourselves.

Suppose Olson came along and said, “Well, if you didn’t have rival football teams, no one would have to lose.”

True, but that misses the point of why people play football (or watch football) in the first place.

So what good can come of combating doctrinal error? I can think of several:

vii) Iron sharpens iron. It forces us to study the Bible more closely and carefully. Notice things in Scripture we were oblivious to before.

viii) It’s one of God’s ways of exposing human folly, and thereby pointing us to our absolute dependence on God’s wisdom.

ix) It’s ironic that Olson thinks Calvinism is Satanic, because I think Olson’s position is Satanic. It reminds me of Satan’s subversive question in Job. Satan thought Job only worshipped God for what he got in return. For the goodies. That if God permitted Satan to afflict Job, then Job would turn his back on God.

9 Then Satan answered the Lord and said, “Does Job fear God for no reason? 10 Have you not put a hedge around him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. 11 But stretch out your hand and touch all that he has, and he will curse you to your face” (Job 1:9-11).

Well, isn’t that Olson’s philosophy? He follows God only so long as he thinks God is a source of blessing rather than bane. He follows God in good times, but when bad things happen–if he thought for one moment that it actually came from God’s hand, he’d cease to worship God. A fair-weather Christian. He accepts the weal but not the woe. Only his dualism keeps him from outright apostasy.