What is particularism?

Answer  
  

As with many words, the term *particularism* carries different meanings in different contexts. Particularism has been applied to sub\-categories within diverse subjects such as politics, literature, history, ethics, and religion. Each of these topics brings a separate meaning to *particularism*, heavily influencing whether or not the idea is biblically justified. There are three areas in which the term *particularism* is most relevant to the Bible and Christian faith. These are theology, ethics, and philosophy.  
  

As used in theology, defining *particularism* still requires context. The primary usage of the word relates it closely to the idea of [exclusivism](inclusivism-exclusivism.html). In this meaning, particularism holds that there is a “particular” [way](way-truth-life.html) for people to be saved—namely, through faith in Christ—and that there are no other means of salvation. This meaning of *particularism* contradicts the idea of there being [many paths](so-many-religions.html) to salvation. We should note that the issue of how one is saved is actually separate from [universalism](universalism.html). A person might believe that all people will eventually be saved—which is biblically incorrect—while also believing that only Christ’s death on the cross saves. Such a stance would be an example of particularism combined with universalism.  
  

Another, somewhat less common theological use of the term *particularism* is as a synonym for the idea of [predestination](predestination.html) and/or [limited atonement](limited-atonement.html). The [Particular Baptists](Particular-Baptists.html) use the term in that sense. In certain situations, theological particularism is meant to imply the concept of [double predestination](double-predestination.html): the idea that God has defined a “particular” destiny for all people, saved or otherwise.  
  

Ethically, the term *particularism* refers to the suggestion that moral judgments are only meaningful on a case\-by\-case basis. According to moral particularism, there are no objective or [universal moral values](moral-relativism.html), only decisions made as each particular 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](do-not-judge.html).” Biblically, we are commanded not to be shallow, legalistic, hypocritical, or foolish in our use of 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 (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](blind-faith.html),” an extreme version of philosophical particularism. As such, what is termed “[epistemological](epistemology.html) particularism” is denounced for being insufficiently skeptical. To a large extent, the Bible 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](Rene-Descartes.html) 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\).  
  

