Are Calvinism and CCM Connected?

Scott Aniol

The following essay was originally posted on SharperIron, but I thought it worth posting again here for archiving purposes, because I’m still hearing claims that originally lead me to write the essay, and because of recent controversy over Calvinism and the FBFI.

I often hear claims in various contexts that particular theological positions on salvation (soteriology) or understandings of biblical interpretation (hermeneutics) necessarily lead to either so-called “conservative” or “progressive” music and worship philosophies. What I would like to do in this essay is to demonstrate that such positions do not, in fact, automatically lead one to hold a particular worship/music philosophy.

Definitions

First, I think it is important to define each of these positions, because it is often a misunderstanding of what these teachings imply that leads to the mistaken conclusions that such positions include a worship/music philosophy.

Soteriological Positions

Generally speaking, soteriological positions fall into one of two categories that describe God’s and man’s role in salvation.

Arminianism

Jacob Arminius (1560-1609) and his followers rejected the prevalent Reformation conviction that God had ultimate sovereignty over who would submit to him in faith and repentance. In 1610 they formulated five “articles of remonstrance” to articulate their positions. In sum, they argued that election is conditioned upon an individual’s faith in Christ, that Christ died “for all men and every man,” that man cannot save himself without the grace of God but that he can resist God’s grace, and that the preservation of believers is dependent upon his remaining in Christ.^[1] The Arminian argues that the ability to place one’s faith in Christ is given by God to every individual through prevenient grace. In other words, Arminians affirm that people are conceived totally corrupt, but they argue that God gives special grace to every individual, enabling every individual to respond freely to the call of the gospel.^[2]

Historically, John and Charles Wesley and their followers, the Methodists, were among the most prominent promoters of Arminian theology, and even today you will find that Wesleyans and Methodists are theological Arminians. Today you will also find some Baptists, Lutherans, and others who hold to soteriological positions reflecting the teachings of Arminius.

Although pure Arminianism logically teaches that just as man can freely choose Christ, he can also freely choose to reject Christ later in life, thus losing his salvation, many who emphasize the other points of Arminianism today nonetheless defend eternal security. Still, such people who emphasize the unaided freedom of man in salvation, even though they defend eternal security, can be rightly described as Arminian in their view of salvation.

More extreme forms of this thought include Pelagianism and Open-Theism, both of which are logical conclusions of Arminian thought, but are nonetheless outside the boundaries of biblical orthodoxy. Pelagianism teaches that people are conceived, not totally corrupt, but only partially corrupt, and that every individual has innate ability to choose God apart from any work of grace. In other words, according to Pelagianism, individuals are sinners because they sin, while orthodox Christians (both Arminians and Calvinists) believe that individuals sin because they are born sinners. Open Theism takes logical steps from Arminian thought and argues that the only way to preserve true freedom for mankind is to insist that God does not know the future with certainty. This belief, too, runs outside the boundaries of biblical orthodoxy. Orthodox Christians (both Arminians and Calvinists) have always affirmed the exhaustive foreknowledge of God.

Calvinism

In response to the five-point claims of Arminians, followers of the Reformer John Calvin (1509-1564) formulated five points of their own. At the Council of Dort (1618) they articulated what are known today as the “Five Points of Calvinism.” Instead of emphasizing the unaided free will of man in salvation, Calvinists claim that the will of man is in complete bondage to sin, and only an effectual work of God’s grace will free a man from that depravity and enable him to respond freely in faith and repentance. Once such a work of grace is performed upon the human heart, that individual will inevitably and immediately turn to Christ, and God choses to do this miraculous work in the heart of individuals whom he elects based on the good pleasure of His will alone. This naturally leads, then, to the conclusion that those whom God chooses, once they have come to faith in Christ, will persevere to the end.^[3] Historically Presbyterians, Particular Baptists, and others hold to Calvinistic positions regarding salvation.

Pure Calvinists hold to all five of the so-called “Five Points of Calvinism,” but some Calvinists choose to reject the fourth point, “Particular Redemption” (sometimes called “Limited Atonement”). These Calvinists are more correctly called Amyraldians, but such a “Four-Point Calvinist” still falls within the greater category of Calvinistic understanding of salvation.

An extreme form of Calvinism, commonly known as Hyper-Calvinism, teaches that since God is entirely sovereign over the salvation of men, Christians have no responsibility to pray or evangelize. Further, some Hyper-Calvinsts insist that one can never really be sure he is one of the elect until he dies. These views characterize a very small minority of Calvinists.^[4] Traditionally, Calvinists have always been fervent evangelists and prayers. Some of the greatest evangelists of the past have been Calvinists, including Charles Spurgeon, William Carey, George Whitefield, and Jonathan Edwards.

Neither Arminianism or Calvinism are mere “systems of man,” but are simply articulations of opposite ways of interpreting biblical information regarding salvation. Both positions fall well within the boundaries of Christian orthodoxy. Both positions affirm the depravity of man and the need for God’s intervention in man’s problem. Both positions affirm the vicarious, substitutionary death of Christ on man’s behalf and the need for faith and repentance in order to secure forgiveness from sin.

There are many shades and varieties of both positions, but generally speaking all believers fall into one category or another. Where one falls with regard to these two categories basically comes down to one’s understanding of election. If someone believes that God chose a select group of individuals before the foundation of the world, not based upon any choice of the individuals (foreseen or otherwise), he is Calvinistic in his understanding of salvation. He may reject particular redemption or qualify irresistible grace, but if he believes in unconditional election, he is some form of a Calvinist. On the other hand, if someone believes every individual has equal ability to choose Christ and that election is based upon the free choice of man (foreseen or in time), he is Arminian in his understanding of salvation. He may defend eternal security or strongly emphasize man’s depravity, but if he believes in conditional election, he is some form of an Arminian. Some individuals claim that they are neither Calvinists nor Arminians, but rather “Biblicists,” relying on the Bible for their theology instead of men’s systems. Kevin Bauder puts this claim to rest:

Nevertheless, the term Biblicist seems to have only limited usefulness in this debate. Which of us does not try to start with Scripture and to draw conclusions by studying the text? Which of us wishes to set aside any of the Bible in favor of a human system? No, we are all Biblicists here.^[5]

Hermeneutical Positions

Hermeneutical positions articulate various conceptual overviews and interpretive frameworks for understanding the flow of the Bible and history. Again, although there are many shades and variances of hermeneutical positions, evangelical Christians generally fall into one of two polar categories.

Covenant Theology

Covenant Theology views the history of God’s plan for mankind within a framework of three overarching covenants — the covenants of redemption, works, and grace. Covenant theologians emphasize continuity in the plan of God for man. Although they do see points of discontinuity between the way God has dealt with mankind during different economies, at some level they see the Church and Israel as one people of God, the Church inheriting the promises made to Israel in the covenants of the Old Testament. These blessings are not literal and physical but spiritual, the promises and prophesies of the Old Testament having deeper meaning as interpreted by New Testament revelation.^[6]

Covenant Theology’s equation between Israel and the Church usually leads to certain views of baptism and eschatology. Covenant Theologians usually equate New Testament baptism with Old Testament circumcision. Many Covenant Theologians are paedo-baptists, but not all. Many Reformed Baptists and even Presbyterians are believer-baptists, and some are even immersionists. No evangelical paedo-baptist ascribes any saving benefit to the child’s baptism, but rather views it as a rite for entrance into the “covenant community,” similar to how circumcision functioned for Israel. And while most Covenant Theologians are Post-Millenialists or Amillenialists, some are Premillenialists. In other words, Covenant Theology does not necessitate a particular position on baptism or eschatology.

Dispensationalism

Dispensationalism views the history of God’s plan for mankind within a framework of successive administrations or “dispensations,” each of which highlights the progressive nature of God’s revelation to man. Dispensationalists emphasize discontinuity in the plan of God. They certainly recognize an overarching continuity in the sovereign plan of God, but they see Israel and the Church as distinct peoples with distinct beginnings and futures. They practice an essentially normal hermeneutic, interpreting biblical promises and prophesies as literal. Most Dispensationalists, believing the promises and prophesies to Israel to be literal, are Premillenialists.^[7]

A point that needs to be made here centers on the relationship between these positions on soteriology and hermeneutics. Since John Calvin was one of the earliest, most prominent formulators of both an unconditional view of election and an understanding of the history of God’s work under a framework of covenants,^[8] many Christians are both Calvinists in their soteriology and Covenant Theologians in their hermeneutic. This combination of beliefs, however, is not necessarily the case. As Feinberg notes,

Neither Calvinism nor Arminianism is at the essence of Dispensationalism. . . . This matter is not at the essence of Dispensationalism, because Calvinism and Arminianism are very important in regard to the concepts of God, man, sin, and salvation. Dispensationalism becomes very important in regard to ecclesiology and eschatology, but is really not about those other areas.^[9]

Calvinism, most specifically, refers to a soteriological position.^[10] Those who hold to Calvinism and Covenant Theology are more properly described as “Reformed.” The term “Reformed” can be and has been used to signify several different groups. Generally, all the churches that grew from the sixteenth-century revolt against the Roman church, can be called reformed. More narrowed, the term “Reformed” specifically designates that branch of the Reformation of the western church originally characterized by a distinctively non-Lutheran, Augustinian sacramental theology with a high ecclesiology but little regard for ecclesiatical tradition that is not traceable to the Scriptures or the earliest church. However, the most narrow, perhaps more common used of “Reformed” refers to the theological combination of Calvinism and Covenant Theology. Note “Reformed Faith, Reformed Theology” in Alan Cairns, Dictionary of Theological Terms (Greenville, SC: Amassador-Emerald, 1998), 303.)) It is certainly possible to be both a Calvinist and a Dispensationalist or theoretically an Arminian and Covenant Theologian, although the latter combination is much more rare. A few examples will suffice: Michael Barrett, president of Geneva Reformed Seminary, is both a Calvinist and a Covenant Theologian. Barrett could be described as Reformed. Kevin Bauder, president of Central Baptist Seminary in Minneapolis is both a Calvinist (more specifically, an Amyraldian) and a Dispensationalist (as is Dave Doran, president of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary). Ron Comfort, president of Ambassador Baptist College is both an Arminian and a Dispensationalist. The Wesleys and Arminius himself were Covenant Theologians, although modern Arminian Covenant Theologians are much more difficult to find. The point is that none of these positions necessitate another, although some are more commonly connected today.

Positions on Music in Worship

We have surveyed the various soteriological and hermeneutical positions, but we must also define the two primarily polarizing positions on music in worship before we can observe any necessarily connections. I will use the terms “conservative” and “progressive” to describe these positions.^[11]

Conservative^[12]

A Christian Conservative believes in absolute standards of truth, goodness, and beauty. Relativism in these three areas is rejected since they are transcendental principles flowing from the very nature of God. The fact that something is true, good, or beautiful depends on its relationship to the Ultimate True, Good, and Beautiful. Therefore, the difference between right and wrong, good and evil, and beautiful and ugly may be determined by observable standards and are not merely subjective. Furthermore, these transcendental principles are revealed in the written Word of God and natural revelation (creation and conscience). While natural revelation is certainly a lesser authority than the Bible, it is a real authority nonetheless. The Christian Conservative believes, therefore, that he has the biblical responsibility to parse the meaning of cultural idioms, and based on transcendental principles, he will judge some to be unable to carry biblical truth because their messages are incompatible with biblical truth.

Second, Christian Conservatism, recognizing that Christians have sought such transcendental principles for centuries, is committed to preserving the best traditions of the past, and it is suspicious of new cultural idioms. It does not necessarily reject anything new, but since it takes time to evaluate the meaning of new idioms to discern if they please the Lord, a Christian Conservative will resist adopting the newest cultural idioms in worship.

Progressive^[13]

A Christian Progressive believes that since the Bible does not specifically address particular culture idioms such as music, believers are free to adopt whatever idioms they think best for the worship of God. He believes in the value of engaging the culture and celebrates diversity, freshness, and relevance in musical choices for worship.

A Christian Progressive sees benefit in cultural progress, culture existing merely as a neutral vehicle for the transmission of propositional truth. He values contemporary forms of music for one of two reasons, rooted either in evangelistic concerns or contextualization of worship. One with evangelistic concerns values contemporary forms of music wedded with biblical lyrics for their ability to attract and affect unbelievers with the truth of the gospel. One concerned with contextualizing worship desires to allow God’s people to respond to Him in the languages and mediums with which they are most familiar and comfortable. Either way, a Christian Progressive would not hesitate in using pop culture idioms for the transmission of sacred truth, and would in fact value such practices for the ability of pop culture to relate to common man. Church music (aimed at either the unbeliever or believer) must be accessible, and the most accessible forms of music are those in current use in pop culture

Do Connections Exist?

Most of the times I’ve heard connections made between soteriological or hermeneutical positions and music philosophy, such arguments have been based on misunderstandings of what the particular positions actually teach, so hopefully some of that has been cleared up by simply defining the positions correctly. However, let’s consider just briefly whether such positions necessarily lead to music/worship philosophies.

Arminianism and Worship/Music

Does Arminianism lead necessarily to a particular position on worship and music? One may be tempted to argue guilt by association and note that most church marketing leaders, who argue for the complete contextualization of the church’s music into contemporary forms, are Arminian in their views of salvation. However, we can easily list Arminians who have written and promoted rich, conservative church music, both in text and tune. Perhaps the most obvious example would be the Wesley brothers themselves.

Further, believe that God’s choice of man is dependent upon man’s unaided choice of God does not necessitate a particular view of the Church, the purpose of worship, or a specific stance toward culture. While an Arminian argues that all men have been given prevenient grace whereby they may freely choose God, he also affirms the depravity of man, and therefore would be rightly suspicious of any cultural idioms produced by sinful people.

Calvinism and Worship/Music

Does Calvinism lead necessarily to a particular position on worship and music? Again, one may be tempted to argue guilt by association. Many prominent Calvinists today are also strong promoters of a progressive view of music in worship.^[14] However, again, we can easily list many Calvinists today who aggressively defend a more conservative understanding of music and worship, including Kevin Bauder, Mike Barrett, and Dave Doran. Someone might insist that this is simply inconsistency with their position. However, like Arminianism, no necessarily theological connection exists between the conviction that God chooses people based on the counsel of His own will alone and a progressive music philosophy.

In fact, Calvinism’s emphasis upon the sovereignty of God and the depravity of man would more naturally lend itself to a desire for musical forms magnifying the unique excellence of God, an emphasis on the transcendent, and a distrust of pop culture. Since Calvinists do not believe that people naturally seek after God without an effectual work of grace, they would not be seeker-driven.

Covenant Theology and Worship/Music

Does Covenant Theology lead necessarily to a particular position on worship and music? Again, similar comments about guilt by association and lack of theological connection may be made here. There simply is no one-to-one correspondence between one’s hermeneutic and his view of music and worship.

A possible exception might be a covenant theologian who is also a Postmillenialist or someone who understands the Millenial Kingdom to be already inaugurated. With the former, the proponent may see a need to redeem culture and “usher in the Kingdom,” which may lead him to adopt contemporary forms of music in order to redeem them. But such practice is not necessary with a Postmillenialist. With the latter, the proponent may expect miraculous wonders to be happening today, and would thus interpret religious experience as something very physical and experiential, leading him to use musical forms that more readily stimulate such experiences. But again, this connection is not necessarily true for all Postmillenialists, and certainly not all covenant theologians are Postmillenial.^[15]

Dispensationalism and Worship/Music

Does Dispensationalism lead necessarily to a particular position on music and worship? Again, there are Dispensationalists on both sides of the music/worship debate, and no hermeneutical reasons exist why there should not be.

Conclusion

So does one’s theology affect his philosophy? Absolutely. But from both analysis and anecdotal evidence, it seems clear that one’s positions regarding soteriology or his hermeneutic don’t necessarily lead him toward one position or another.

1. Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, Revised. (Baker Books, 1984), 1: 517-519. [↩]
2. See William W. Combs, “Does the Bible Teach Prevenient Grace?” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, 10 (2005), 3-18. [↩]
3. Schaff, Creeds, 1: 520-523. [↩]
4. The term “Hyper-Calvinist” is sometimes used by Arminians as a pejorative term for regular Calvinists, but this is an inaccurate use of the term. [↩]
5. Kevin Bauder, “Calvinism, Arminianism, and Biblicism,” In the Nick of Time (April 25, 2008). By “we all,” Bauder means Calvinists and Arminians. [↩]
6. See Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 515-522. [↩]
7. See John S. Feinburg, “Systems of Discontinuity” in Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments, ed. John S. Feinberg (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1988), 63-88. [↩]
8. See Willem VanGemeran, “Systems of Continuity” in Continuity and Discontinuity, 37-62. [↩]
9. Feinberg, “Systems of Discontinuity,” 70. [↩]
10. Some use the term “Calvinist” to describe both a soteriological position and a hermeneutical position, but in more common use today, the term more specifically refers to the soteriological view described above. [↩]
11. Note that it may be possible for someone to be conservative in his theological views while at the same time progressive in his views of culture. In this essay, I am specifically describing these positions in relation to worship and music. [↩]
12. Sometimes this position is called “Traditional.” [↩]
13. Sometimes this position is called “Contemporary.” [↩]
14. Bob Kauflin of Sovereign Grace Ministries, for example. [↩]
15. Michael Barrett, for instance, is Premillenial. [↩]

Related posts

• The Sovereign Grace/Getty Music Question (25)
• Defining Soteriological and Hermeneutical Positions (1)
• A couple clarifications regarding theology, worship, and music (5)
• Misdiagnosis (19)
• I’ll huff, and I’ll puff, and I’ll blow my imaginary argument down! (5)