It's funny. On his blog a while back, Olson got angry about some YouTube video that insinuated that Arminianism leads to heresy. It seems that we only need to add, "...or the tolerance of heresy."Seriously, what is it about Arminianism that leads to Egalitarianism, Open Theism, (now) Annihilationism, Universalism, denial of Penal Substitution, etc?
John Stott explained why he sees annihilation, and I was okay with his way of explaining it. He is a tremendous man of God.I do disagree though. Hell should be a very, very difficult thing for any Christian to take in and undertsand.
Let's not forget that the Eastern Orthodox shoot down penal substitution but don't embrace open theism, annihilationism, universalism or egalitarianism. Just because I'm not an Arminian doesn't mean I am compelled to see a one-to-one correspondence between American Arminians and embracing a bunch of stuff that isn't scripturally defensible. Most Calvinists would say that merely avoiding egalitarianism, universalism, open theism, or a denial of penal substitutionary atonement isn't ultimately good enough. For that matter if a Calvinist only affirms penal substitutionary atonement his/her comprehension of the atonement will be spectacularly truncated since there is room enough on the Cross for christus victor, christus exemplar, propitiation, expiation, etc. Mark Driscoll preached a solid sermon series in 2005 about the necessity of affirming a variety of understandings of the Cross in order to more fully appreciate Christ's accomplishment on it. I would say we all benefit from the warning that if just one metaphor explaining the work of the Cross will suffice for us our view of the Cross is dangerously small. Not saying I've seen anyone who posts blog entries at triablogue being at the slightest risk of that, it's just a useful reminder. Ditto donsands on Stott. Not all annihilationists are Arminians. We don't have to agree to respect that he's not an Arminian about it. :)