A "scandal" of particularity.

I love talking theology with friends. But I'm not one who enjoys theology debates. I used to live for them. But not so much anymore.

 

Because most of the time they're reduced to pitting some verses of the Bible against others. And very rarely is someone's mind changed in a debate over a doctrine.

 

Friendly conversation is great. I'll have conversations over the Bible's teachings with everyone. Debates, though? Nah, not so much.

 

Because we almost always end up blinded by what we think we're defending. We close our minds to hearing the truth and end up prioritize "winning the argument" over pursuing the truth with a brother or sister.

 

Often it's simply a matter of perspective.

 

For instance, take the "predestination" vs. "free will" debate. I'm going to put it out there straight away. There's a lot more about "predestination" than "free will" in the Bible. It's just a fact. But the "free will" folks can't get past the notion that a God willy-nilly picking people he's going to like (while by consequence picking others to damn) is just.

 

So who is right?

 

Martin Luther was once asked this question. I don't always agree with Luther. Sometimes he goes off the rails. You'll find, though, that I quote him often. My Ph.D. dissertation was about his theology... so... I quote him often due to familiarity and an overall appreciation of his thought.

 

Anyway. When some people asked him about "predestination" one evening around the dinner table he made it very clear he didn't want to discuss it. For, "whenever we begin examining the topic of predestination we quickly lose sight of Christ."  

 

His point? Not every passage in the Bible is meant to be the foundation for a "teaching" that we can (then) deduce other doctrines from... and elaborate upon... and write giant volumes about...  

 

Many (if not most passages) that we often use as foundations for doctrines, that we reason out ad infinitum, are actually proclamations of Good News, words of comfort and consolation (or in some instances, words of judgment if they're spoken to a hard-hearted audience). We need to be careful about recognizing that some passages don't intend to give us the basis for a complex system of doctrines... let's take them for what they are... how they're originally given.

 

When the Bible talks about "predestination" or "election" it's meant as a comfort to those who are doubting their eternal security. Do you worry about losing your salvation? Do you fear that these current trials and struggles might drive you away from God's grace? Get rid of that anxiety! Don't you know that God chose you from before the foundation of the world? 

 

That's how "predestination" always functions in the Bible. And from God's perspective who has infinite foreknowledge about all the choices we'll make... it makes sense...

 

It's meant to be comforting. And that's the extent of how far we need to reason it out. Go much further, start making logical leaps from point A, to point B, and soon you'll start asking troubling questions... questions the Bible never invited you to ask. You'll lose sight of Christ.

 

You don't have to understand all of the mystery, all the inner-workings of how or why some people are saved and not others. It's okay.

 

From God's perspective, salvation depends entirely on His work. It's a work of the Spirit in our hearts.

 

But from our perspective we often experience our conversion in the form of a rational decision or choice. We went through something and made the decision to accept Jesus, to come forward at an altar-call, or to get baptized... that sounds like free will.

 

But both can be true. Our experience (our perspective) of a work that God has done from start-to-finish can be realized thorough an act of the will. But from God's perspective, he's been working on you for years... drawing you to Himself... speaking a "let there be life" Word into your stony heart that brought you back to life in His image.

 

But... but... but... what's REALLY happening is....

 

Stop it. Stop trying to make "deductions" from what's meant to be good news! Stop trying to figure out things that are beyond our pay-grade as creatures (rather than creators).

 

I will say (though) that human experiences of salvation aren't uniform. While someone might experience salvation as a "decision" at some point in adolescence or adulthood... there are others (like me) who grew up knowing they were saved their entire lives. They never made a conscious "decision" but simply grew up into the truth...

 

...tangent below in the post-script of this e-mail about children who grow up always knowing they are saved... like me... and why that might be the case* 

 

The same thing can be said with respect to the "universal" and "particular" character of God. We often find hot debates between "universalists" and "particularists" in Christianity.

 

Again, it usually involves people pitting different verses against each other, and each trying to discredit the interpretations of the other.

 

But the truth is that the Bible clearly teaches that God loves all of the world. I discussed in yesterday's e-mail how God searches frantically, going to-and-fro through all of the world, looking for anyone who is pursuing him with a pure heart (2 Chron. 16:9).

 

We also hear Jesus say that no one comes to the Father except through Him (John 14:6). That there's no other name under heaven given whereby men might be saved (Acts 4:12).

 

I don't know about you. But if I push the "particularity" to the extreme it really sours us to the heart of God. How can we believe it when we also hear that God truly desires all men to be saved? (1 Tim. 2:4). Are we really to believe that a God who revealed already in Scripture that he's frantically searching all of creation for those who seek him in turn won't reach out to those who haven't happened to be reached my missionaries? Are we to believe they are "just screwed" if they haven't heard about Jesus?

 

There's another distinction in theology that's often overlooked. That's the distinction between what's called (in technical lingo) objective and subjective justification.

 

In other words, we can say that Jesus died on the cross at Calvary for all of creation. By doing so, he united Himself to all the world, and accomplished salvation for everyone. That's objective justification in theology-speak. It just means that God accomplished everything he intended for all of creation in Christ. The victory was won.

 

The gift was already purchased for everybody.   

 

It doesn't matter where you're from, what culture you're born into, or whether you've heard about what Jesus did or not. He did it. It's true for everyone.

 

On the other hand, there's what's called "subjective" justification. That just means how we "receive" what was already purchased.

 

Think of it like this.

 

When I buy my kids presents for Christmas and put their names on them and stick them under the tree... the gifts are already theirs. The gifts are purchased. They belong to the kids. But at some point (hopefully not until Dec. 25) they open the gift. And if they want to benefit from it (get the enjoyment the gift promises) they need to use it... they can't just stick it on a shelf somewhere.

 

 

There is both a universal and a particular character to the Gospel. Both parts are necessary. You can only get it wrong if you split it up (that's the case with a lot of things).

 

 

The gift belongs to everyone already. The gift also has to be received. That's what evangelism is about. It's not about convincing people to accept a new truth. It's about showing someone the present that's already under the tree with their name on it.  

 

And the Gospel is particular because God doesn't choose to save the world with some grand idea. He choses to save us by entering into our brokenness... into our world... and our world is always particular and specific.   

 

But the particularity of the fact that God took on human flesh 2000 years ago in Bethlehem and eventually died and rose again in Jerusalem doesn't negate the universal implication of it all.

 

And due to the character of God who is seeking people out (even before we reach them) I believe that the Scriptures teach that he's already been working to deliver that particular truth to everyone... and he does so in a variety of ways that can look very different in one place or the next.

 

The incarnation means that God enters into our world, at particular times and cultures...

 

It means that God also shows His truth (in any variety of ways) to people in their own cultures, in their own languages, in systems/worldviews that they understand. They come to something of the truth in terms that are very foreign or different from our own.

 

That's why Paul didn't chastise people for idolatry on Mars Hill. He saw they'd dedicated a place of worship to an "unknown" God and chose to tell them more about who this God really is (Acts 17:23). He didn't immediately demand they repent of false religion, or insist they give up all their customs.

 

In fact Paul is pretty insistent that the gentiles he brought the Gospel to didn't have to adopt Jewish customs. See his discussion about revering Sabbath days (Romans 14:5-6), or circumcision (Gal. 5:2-6), or the like. He also discussed how for some people eating food that was sacrificed to idols was problematic, but for others they could eat of it freely so long as it didn't trouble their conscience (1 Cor. 8).

 

He showed them how the universal character of Christ's saving act illuminates things that they might already know, truths they've already perceived from the "things that were made," from nature, from creation itself.

 

Have you ever gotten a gift that you didn't understand? Like, you open it up and don't have a clue what it is?

 

That happened to me one year at Christmas (I was only 16). My mom bought me a little tool meant to cut away your seat-belt and break a window if you're ever stuck in your car and sinking in water...

 

I was like.. what the heck is this? It looks interesting, but...

 

Sometimes that's the message we have as Christians. We don't deny the particular way that God "primed" them for the truth. We don't demand wholesale repentance of everything they used to believe (because that might be exactly how God was working on them all the while) but we speak the truth of what Christ did into the story that God's already started to tell in their lives.  

 

We tell them a little more about the gift that they already opened and didn't quite understand.

 

And we remain humble. We don't "evangelize" from a position of superiority or arrogance. We speak like one beggar to another, telling him where he might find bread.  

 

And sometimes it's as simple as showing them that the bread they were seeking was already bought and paid for... and has been waiting for them in the cupboard all along.

 

So... there is a "scandal of particularity" but it shouldn't be all that scandalous... because the point isn't that God favors some people over others, or that he's left billions of people to their own devices and damnation.

 

I never tell anyone they are damned, or going to hell, or any of that. God doesn't give us the tools to make those judgments. He judges people on the last day. What I can do is share the gifts that God has given me, the things He's revealed, that give me certainty about my salvation. The things that are free to anyone who desires to receive them.

 

The "universal" and "particular" aren't two opposing theologies unless you deny one for the sake of the other. It's when it becomes an ism that it usually gets problematic. Unviersalism is the notion that everyone gets saved, without the particular revelation of Christ. Particularism is the idea that only those chosen/elected are saved, and everyone else is little more than a mouth-breather consuming worldly resources until they're finally damned.

 

Both "isms" are problematic.

 

Scripturally, though, we have to hold both aspects of God's Truth (the universal and particular) together in tension.

 

God has been seeking everyone (the universal part) in a particular way (and we can often see how he's reached each of us in particular ways as we've sought for something more... something higher... and the truth of it always seemed to be just out of reach)... and that what he accomplished particularly in the person of Christ... is for everyone. And he didn't fail when he died to save the world. He really did it. That's why what we share is really "good news," because all we have to do is tell people what's already been done. That what they seek is theirs already.

 

Blessings always,

Judah

 

 

p.s.

*Perhaps, children like me always knew they belonged to God as a result of the work God does in an infant's baptism. This is an issue a lot of people have a lot of difficulty accepting, mostly because of our post-enlightenment semi-gnostic thought process that prioritizes getting "special knowledge" as a qualification for salvation. So I'd invite you to set aside your biases and consider taking Scripture at face-value here. Colossians 2 says that baptism is the New Testament fulfillment of what circumcision was in the Old Testament. Circumcision marked someone as belonging to the covenant community. Baptism extends that to women, obviously... and everything we know about the Kingdom of God expands the eligibility of members in contrast to the Old Covenant. e.g. Gentiles were grafted into the covenant. Since infants were circumcised and marked as members of the covenant community in the Old Testament... how much more should Baptism as the greater fulfillment of what circumcision used to be, be granted to children who are now members of God's kingdom? This doesn't mean that baptism is magic. It isn't. But it does mean that the word of God that is attached to the water in God's promise accompanies Baptism and works on the child's heart from the youngest age... working faith in their young hearts... which begins as a simple trust, the kind of trust any child has with his/her parents, for instance. A big part of the problem here is the notion taught by a lot of evangelicals today that Baptism is merely an outward sign of an inward reality. But I'd challenge you (if that's your belief) to find a single passage in the Bible that teaches that's what baptism does. Instead, though, we see that Baptism is a means of making disciples (Matt. 28:18-20), works the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21; Titus 3:5-6). It delivers the gift of faith and the Holy Spirit. When god creates faith, when he gives his spirit, even children can believe before they think rationally. Even as John the Baptizer leapt in Elizabeth's womb when the pregnant Mary came to her with the Son of God in her own womb. Baptism is not our work. It's God's work in us. Set aside your assumptions/biases and read those passages asking quite plainly, what do they say that Baptism does? Does that mean you can't be saved if you aren't Baptized? I'm not going there at all. Quite the opposite. But it is one means, a gift, that God gives us so we can be certain of his grace and receive the benefits of what Christ did for all the world--for all of us--on the cross.  It's why (I believe) some of us who can't remember a time when we didn't believe still have faith even though we never responded to an altar-call. It's because the gift of faith was given to us before we totally understood what it was. It's like breathing. I can't imagine not having it.