What is particularism?

Answer

As with many words, the term particularism carries different meanings in various contexts. Particularism has been used to describe subcategories within a range of subjects such as politics, literature, history, ethics, and religion. Each of these fields assigns a distinct significance to particularism, significantly impacting whether the concept is supported by biblical teachings. There are three main areas where the term particularism holds relevance in relation to the Bible and Christian faith. These areas are theology, ethics, and philosophy.

In theological discussions, the definition of particularism still requires context. The primary interpretation of the term closely links it to the concept of exclusivism. In this context, particularism asserts that there is a specific way for individuals to attain salvation—namely, through faith in Christ—and that no other methods lead to salvation. This interpretation of particularism contrasts with the belief in multiple paths to salvation. It is important to distinguish that the question of how salvation is achieved is distinct from universalism. A person may hold the belief that all individuals will ultimately be saved—which is not supported biblically—while also maintaining that only Christ’s sacrifice on the cross provides salvation. Such a position would exemplify a combination of particularism and universalism.

Another, less common theological use of the term particularism is as a synonym for the concepts of predestination and/or limited atonement. This understanding of particularism is employed by Particular Baptists. In certain contexts, theological particularism implies the notion of double predestination: the concept that God has predetermined a specific fate for all individuals, whether saved or not.

Ethically, particularism denotes the idea that moral judgments are meaningful only on a case-by-case basis. According to moral particularism, there are no universal or objective moral values, only decisions made in each specific instance.Unfolds. This approach is, of course, contrary to Scripture, which presents a very real difference between good and evil, transcending human opinion or judgment (Isaiah 55:9;Genesis 2:17;Deuteronomy 30:15). Moral particularism is also philosophically weak, in that any “judgment,” even on a case-by-case basis, assumes some standard by which to judge.

The one sense in which moral particularism finds biblical support is in the idea of “right judgment.” Biblically, we are commanded not to be shallow, legalistic, hypocritical, or foolish in our use of judgment «Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. », (John 7:24). In that sense, we are meant to gauge moral issues on a “case-by-case” basis. It’s critical to note that Scripture does not suggest there are no objective moral values. On the contrary, the point made in the Bible is that we need to apply objective morality accurately «And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. », (Romans 12:2), not in a legalistic or simplistic way. However, this is a nuance that moral particularism does not generally share.

In philosophy, particularism usually refers to the practice of asking, “What do I know?” before asking, “How do I know?” Philosophical particularism asserts the truth of a statement before—or even without—establishing reasons or justifications for it. “I don’t know how I know; I just know” is an expression of “blind faith,” an extreme version of philosophical particularism. As such, what is termed “epistemological particularism” is denounced for being insufficiently skeptical. To a large extent, the BiblHe agrees with this criticism—Scripture sees absolutely no virtue in being gullible or ignorant (Acts 17:11; Colossians 2:8; 1 Peter 3:15).

On the other hand, from a practical standpoint, a grain of epistemological particularism is unavoidable. Everyone believes something, even if it’s not well-justified. Before one can meaningfully discuss the nature of belief itself, one has to assume certain ideas; attempting to eliminate as many of these as possible led Descartes to distill the beginning of all philosophy as “I think, therefore I am.” But even this maxim begins by claiming that the statements “I am” and “I think” are known to be true—establishing a “what I know” before establishing “how I know.”

What’s important, both philosophically and biblically, is that we are willing to filter our assumptions and beliefs through some kind of justification, rather than simply insisting they are true, devoid of any evidence (1 John 4:1; 2 Peter 1:16). From that perspective, one can say that epistemological particularism is (mostly) contrary to the Bible’s stance on faith and belief. We are not meant to assume truth—we are meant to seek it (Matthew 7:7-8).