Olson on rewards

I’m going to comment on this post:

http://evangelicalarminians.org/?q=olson.A-New-Book-on-Justification-and-Some-Questions-about-Calvinism-and-Heavenly-Rewards

Before delving into the specifics, I’ll make two general observations:

i) This isn’t really an attack on Calvinism in particular. Rather, it amounts to broadside on the classic Protestant doctrine of justification.

ii) This isn’t just Olson’s opinion. It’s posted at SEA. And it originated as an EQ book review, edited by I. H. Marshall. So this presumably represents mainstream modern Arminianism.

But, to get to my main point, this seems highly problematic to me. What is the purpose of the promise of rewards (and implied threat of no rewards!) if they are given out based solely on what God himself, through his Spirit, has accomplished among the faithful? That is, if you believe that every good work you accomplish is solely God’s accomplishment in you and not at all your own achievement, even by means of free acceptance of the Spirit’s work in you, then what is the point of reward?

An obvious purpose is to motivate perseverance. That your fidelity will not be in vain. That better things await you.

Is God rewarding himself?

That’s a category mistake. Incentives are inapplicable to God.

But, then, why are there differences of rewards—some greater and some lesser?

Well, for one thing, because there are differences in good works. Every Christian doesn’t perform the same good works.

Would God accomplish by himself, monergistically, anything less than perfection?

Sanctification isn’t monergistic.

What I cannot even imagine, however, is a reasonable and good God meting out rewards in varying degrees of approval based on what people achieved or did not achieve (in terms of obedience and service) when whatever they achieved or did not achieve was wholly, entirely and solely accomplished by God in and through them.

i) How is that “unimaginable”? For one thing, if every Christian gets better than he deserves, then there’s no direct correlation between what he does and the promised reward. In that event, there’s nothing inconsistent about God treating some Christians twice as good than they deserve while treating other Christians thrice as good as than they deserve. It’s all gravy.

Take the parable of the laborers in the vineyard (Mt 20:1-16):

11 And on receiving it they grumbled at the master of the house, 12 saying, ‘These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.’ 13 But he replied to one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? 14 Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. 15  Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?’ 16 So the last will be first, and the first last.”

There’s nothing unjust about degrees of reward, even if there were no direct correlation between good works and rewards. It’s only “unimaginable” because Olson has never understood the gratuity of grace.

ii) Why should we expect every Christian to receive identical rewards? We are unique individuals. Each Christian has a unique personality. A unique life-history. We are shaped by experience.

What is meaningful to you may not be meaningful to me. What’s rewarding to you may not be rewarding to me. Different Christians value different things. To give every Christian the same reward wouldn’t be very fulfilling. 

But we must also agree that the rewards will be real and meaningful rewards for freely deciding to allow the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit to work in believers’ lives.

Why is “freely allowing” (or disallowing) grace what makes a reward “real and meaningful”? Suppose I reward my 5-year-old boy by giving him a puppy dog. What makes the reward “real” is the fact that the puppy dog is real. A real dog. What makes the reward meaningful is that he loves the puppy dog.

Suppose I rewarded him for “helping” me repair the car. Of course, my 5-year-old can’t really help me repair the car. But it makes him feel helpful. It’s good for him to share activities with his dad. It begins to teach him mechanical skills. How to be good with his hands. But the reward is out of proportion to anything he actually did. 

In the past, and perhaps to some extent still today, SOME Reformed preachers have taught that justification and regeneration are monergistic while sanctification is not.

Here’s an example:

The evangelical doctrine of sanctification common to the Lutheran and Reformed Churches includes the following points:

    (1) The soul after regeneration continues dependent upon the constant gracious operations of the Holy Spirit, but is, through grace, able to co-operate with them.

    (2) The sanctifying operations of the Spirit are supernatural, and yet effected in connection with and through the instrumentality of means: the means of sanctification being either internal, such as faith and the co-operation of the regenerated will with grace, or external, such as the word of God, sacraments, prayer, Christian fellowship, and the providential discipline of our heavenly Father.

    (3) In this process the Spirit gradually completes the work of moral purification commenced in regeneration. The work has two sides: (a) the cleansing of the soul from sin and emancipation from its power, and (b) the development of the implanted principle of spiritual life and infused habits of grace, until the subject comes to the stature of perfect manhood in Christ. Its effect is spiritually and morally to transform the whole man, intellect, affections, and will, soul, and body.

    (4) The work proceeds with various degrees of thoroughness during life, but is never consummated in absolute moral perfection until the subject passes into glory.

http://www.the-highway.com/sanctification_Warfield.html

Back to Olson:

That doesn’t seem to fit with a consistently Calvinist understanding of God’s sovereignty, however, and as Calvinism has become increasingly consistent under the influence of people like Sproul and Piper (and yet, in my opinion, still very inconsistent) any element of synergism, even in sanctification, is slipping away (if not totally condemned).

i) “Synergism” is a term of art. The fact that sanctification isn’t monergistic doesn’t make it synergistic in the technical sense of the term. Olson ought to know that.

ii) There’s no inconsistency here. If you’re dead in sin, you can’t respond. God must take the first step.

If God regenerates you, then you’re no longer dead in sin. You’re spiritually alive. Responsive.

But your “cooperation” is still the effect of God’s grace. You don’t make an independent contribution to that transaction.

Likewise, justification is something God does for us, not something we do.

And yet it makes no sense within a strictly, consistently monergistic soteriology (in which even sanctification is interpreted as solely God’s work to the exclusion of any free human contribution in which “free” is understood as power of contrary choice).

So what is Olson saying? That our good works put God in our debt? That heavenly rewards are a matter of strict justice? That our good works merit heavenly rewards?

Olson is really attacking justification by faith. If good works are meritorious, then we’re not justified by the merits of Christ alone.