Roger Olson is professor of theology at George W. Truitt Theological Seminary, Baylor University in Waco, Texas. Olson is an Armenian theologian, and recently on his blog he called for Armenians to find something of their own John Piper to spearhead a robust Armenian theology, someone to capture the attention of young Christians today.

In speaking of you, Pastor John, Olson writes this, quote, "Unfortunately, Armenians have not produced such a spokesperson in recent decades," end quote. He goes on to say, quote, "Much of the blame for the rise of New Calvinism is ours, Armenians. We have failed to provide our young people with our theology," end quote.

But is it as simple as finding their own version of John Piper, finding a leading spokesman to spread their theology, or is there something more fundamental in Armenian theology that undermines passionate and persuasive preaching? What would you say to questions like these, Pastor John? Well, there have been some very passionate and persuasive and powerful preachers of Armenian theology.

John Wesley, Charles Finney, Francis Asbury, and lots of influential preachers in our day who are not Calvinists. Some of them are so doctrinally indifferent, and this is what Roger Olson is concerned about, they're so doctrinally indifferent that they would not want to be known as Armenians either. They don't want to be known by any doctrinal label, and they don't focus on doctrine.

They're always trying to be practical. They're always trying to avoid controversy, and frankly, I think that makes them really effective entertainers and very ineffective shapers of the theology of the world, which is what lasts in the long run and shapes a culture and guides a people. Jesus is so glorious that even if you have only a partial view of his greatness, which is what all of us do, or even a distorted view, he is enough to thrill you and empower your preaching if you're sensitive to his greatness.

I say that because I don't want to be so naive as to say the only people that can have passion for Jesus is Calvinists. That's just not true. Anyone who sees a part of Jesus and the other part they may have a distorted view of—that's what I think Armenian does.

It has a distorted view, just like they think I have a distorted view of part of Jesus—there's enough that they're seeing that they're blown away by. So that I would be the last person, I hope, to say that a person who doesn't share my full-blown Calvinistic theology can't have a rich, deep, powerful, amazed, worshipful relationship with Jesus because he is so great and so glorious, if you just capture a fragment of his truth, it's enough to blow your brains out.

So I wouldn't want to go the direction of in any way minimizing what God is able to do through a person with a fragmented or imperfect view of Christ's glory. To me, it's never the point to say, "If God blesses some non-Calvinists with power and fruitfulness, and if there are Calvinists who are weak and immature and unkind, then what's the point of theology?" I think a lot of people ask that question.

If there are effective Armenians and ineffective Calvinists, who cares about theology? Well both Roger Olson and I think that's ridiculous. I mean, that's just a bad way to think because I stand with Roger in saying theology does make a difference. One of the things I like about Roger is that he is relentless in believing that theological affirmation should be met with theological affirmations, not with pragmatic reductionism.

And so I stand watching Roger on the Armenian side pleading for Armenians to wake up and take theology seriously like he does, and I think that's a worthy calling. But in answer to your question, is there something more than the absence of some charismatic spokesman or whatever to make Arminianism more effective in our day?

I think the answer is yes, there is something more fundamental standing in the way of a great resurgence of Arminianism than the absence of a key voice. And here's what I think it is. Arminianism at its essential distinguishing core gives man the final, ultimate, decisive role in who gets saved.

Let me say that again. Arminianism at its essential distinguishing core gives man the final, ultimate, decisive role in who gets saved. This is not the kind of thing that produces wonder and worship. This essential distinguishing core is not the kind of truth that blows people away with wonder and amazement and worship.

So let me be more specific. Calvinists and Arminians both believe that Jesus is the only objective foundation for our imputed righteousness and thus our justification. And we both agree that the only instrument that God uses in connecting this work of Christ with the undeserving sinner is faith, which is an act of the human soul.

It is. It's a human act. It's an act of the human soul. Faith is. But when the question is asked, what is the final, ultimate, decisive reason why one person has that faith or believes and another doesn't, the Calvinist says, "The sovereign grace of God." And the Arminian says, "The free will of man," meaning finally decisive power of self-determination.

Now I think that is precisely what stands in the way of a great worship gathering, a great worship, God-exalting conference that celebrates the distinctives of Arminianism. At the core, it is about the powers of human self-determination. There are worthy efforts among Arminians to make this sound glorious, but in the end, it cannot bear the weight of worship and wonder, I don't think.

Born-again Arminians truly worship God. But here's the interesting thing. I think born-again Arminians truly worship God not by focusing on their essential distinguishing core but on focusing on the great things they share with Calvinists. So you read Charles, I mean, you sing Charles Wesley, "And can it be, thine eye diffused a quickening ray, I rose, went forth, and followed thee." Calvinists love that song because it so gives God the power to reach into our imprisoned lives and rescue us.

In Arminianism, the core of their theology, I'm talking about that essential distinguishing core, is based on a philosophical presupposition that man cannot be accountable if God has final control of his will. It's not based on the Word of God. That presupposition is not taught in the Bible. I'll say it again.

The philosophical presupposition that man cannot be accountable if God has final control of his will, that presupposition is not taught in the Bible. That's brought to the Bible by Arminians from outside. And therefore, I don't expect a great God-centered, biblically rich, exegetically rigorous, robust worshiping resurgence of Arminianism. Its distinguishing core is man-centered and biblically unfounded, and therefore, worshipfully uninspiring.

And let me end by saying, when I say that, I don't mean, please don't hear me mean that Roger Olson or any other Arminian is not a genuine worshiper of God. I just mean that when that genuine spirit of worship grips any of us, we're not focusing on the fact that we have final say in our salvation.

We're focusing on the glory of the grace of God. They are, and we are. Which is why I think at its core, there's this stumbling block and this governor that's going to keep Arminianism from having the kind of resurgence that Calvinism has had. Very interesting. Thank you, Pastor John.

And thank you for listening to this podcast. We'll be back tomorrow with you, the listeners, most common follow-up question from the John MacArthur and Strangefire podcast. We'll ask that tomorrow. Until then, please email your questions to us at AskPastorJohn@DesiringGod.org and visit us online at DesiringGod.org to find thousands of books, articles, sermons, and other resources from John Piper, all free of charge, including Pastor John's brand new book, Five Points Towards a Deeper Experience of God's Grace.

I'm your host, Tony Reinke. Thanks for listening. Thanks for listening.