Particular and General: A Key Tension in Reformed Soteriology

Reformed soteriology is humble and grand enough to tolerate significant tensions. One evidence of this is its ability to view the overarching, eternal purpose of God in both general and particular ways. In doing so, it maintains a clear line of division between the generalities we can know and the particulars known to God alone. It views the particulars abstractly, as categories without content. For example, we know abstractly that God has sovereignly elected some (i.e., the "elect" as a category); but we do not know concretely who they are (i.e., the content of the "elect" category). At the very same time, Reformed soteriology views the generalities concretely, as partially categorized content (for example, we know the general truth that God loves and desires to save every living person, without exception). The Biblical Calvinist does not apply election in an unwarranted way; he does not use this truth to invalidate God's general love for the non-elect and His general desire to save all sinners. Election is specific to a subset of humanity, but God's love and saving desire are all-humanity-wide. God is love.

Let's imagine for a moment that we are speaking with two unbelievers. God knows that one of them is elect and is going to be brought to repentance, and He also knows that one of them will die in the stubbornness of his heart. For our part, we don't know which one of them is elect, or if both of them are elect, or if neither of them is elect. We don't know if either of them will repent and be saved. Even if they both appear to repent and believe, we won't know for certain that their conversions were genuine until we meet them in heaven. On earth, we can't know with absolute certainty that they are truly saved and will persevere to the end. Those are particulars that belong to God's own purpose and wisdom. 

What we can know for certain and by faith is this: God has a purpose for both of them. Both are created in God's image and are loved by Him. Both are enemies of God. Both, in their current state, would gladly choose an eternity in hell over intimate fellowship with their Creator. Both are sinners who need saving grace. God would be pleased greatly by the salvation of both, and He will also be pleased to display His justice if they remain His enemies and perish. If they repent, they will be saved. From the standpoint of generalities--from our human standpoint--both unbelievers are identical. In our eyes, both are potentially elect. But from God's standpoint--in His own omniscient knowledge of the particulars--they are very different. One is elect and will be brought to faith, and the other is destined for damnation. Even if we knew for certain that one of them was elect, we wouldn't have any way of knowing with any certitude which one it is. So unconditional election is a solid and certain truth, but it is equally a mystery.

So then He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills. (Romans 9:18) 

High Tension Wires:
Very Powerful!

We can approach these two unregenerate souls with the sure knowledge that God elects, but not that God elected either of them in particular. We can approach them in the certain understanding that God will bring justice directly upon some human beings, but not in the sure knowledge that either of these sinners will have to personally bear the wrath he justly deserves. We can know that both of them are currently under the wrath of God, already condemned for their unbelief--yet neither of them has perished yet, so we can be hopeful about both of them. We know that both will perish if they do not repent. We know that Jesus bore the wrath of God, and we know that if either of these unsaved persons repents he will no longer be under God's wrath. He will pass from death to life and will be created anew in Christ. We look at these two people and see potentials, not particulars. We see conditions, not determinations. We see a process partly finished, but up to the point of our visible horizon neither one is differentiated from the other. In God's mind they may be different, but in our minds they cannot be. It is enough for us to know that God knows.

What happens when you remove
the tension from one side?

The great error of the hyper Calvinist is to attempt in his own mind a coalescence of the generalities and the particulars, so that they become one in his mind. He tries to know things he cannot know, and is forced to rely on his own senses to determine who is and is not elect. He seeks to preach God's love to the elect only, to communicate God's saving desire to the elect only, to preach the Gospel to the elect only. He tries to be as efficacious in his efforts as God is in His ordination of all things. Thus, the hyper Calvinist simultaneously exalts his own perceptions while oversimplifying the complexities of God's dispositions. He limits everything to the unknowable particulars, which he concretizes, having no room in his thinking for the generalities or the undefined abstractions. The inherent arrogance of this approach should be obvious. The lopsidedness is striking.

This understanding will help us to take a Biblically balanced view of many topics, among them the extent of atonement. We can posit particular redemption from the standpoint of divine particularity. God knows whom He saves by the atonement. Once we have said this much, what need is there to limit the sufficiency or the potentially salvific nature of Christ's work? The fact that God will not apply the redeeming power of the blood of Christ to all people is no reason to believe it does not essentially contain that power. From the standpoint of generality, we can make no assumptions. So, in considering the elect abstractly, we can say "Christ died especially, efficiently, particularly for them." In looking concretely at the masses of lost humanity, we must say, "Christ died for the whole world." We can tell a lost sinner, "Christ died for you," and this will be true in many senses whether the person we are speaking with is specifically elect or not.

The best Calvinist thinkers and scholars of the past have embraced key tensions and important distinctions between the general and the particular. Those who have been most Biblically grounded have warned us to remain purposely ignorant of those things which God has not seen fit to reveal, and to hold solid and steadfast in embracing all that He has made known in His awe-inspiring wisdom.

Is Paradoxical Theology Irrational?

A recent visitor to this blog mistook our advocacy of paradoxes for an endorsement of irrationality. He is not alone; I have found this is often the initial response to any mention of theological paradox. The commonness of this response is perhaps a reflection of the inroads made by humanistic rationalism during the 20th century, and the influence it still holds over the minds of "deep thinkers." Nowadays, the prevailing philosophy held (perhaps unconsciously) by the average person in America has swung way over toward irrationalism. Our aim is to embrace neither of these extremes, and instead to hold up the Biblical balance of rationality without rationalism, and acceptance of paradox without irrationalism. 

Logic is a reliable tool, or framework, for interpreting knowledge, yet it is not in itself a "source" of knowledge. Like all tools, it has its usefulness and limits. Where would one be if one had only logic, but no other knowledge of any kind? Think about this for a moment! To even state the laws of logic, one has to start with something a priori. Just as nothing can be properly deduced apart from logic, nothing can be known in the first place apart from presupposition.

This reminds me of the old joke about the brilliant atheist whom God challenged to create life out of nothing. The atheist said, "Sure, no problem," and then reached down to pick up a handful of dirt. A thundering voice immediately said, "Hey, no cheating! Go make your own dirt!" If you think about it, this is actually two or three jokes in one.

When we realize that logic is a tool for working with the raw materials of knowledge that God has graciously provided, we find ourselves free from the need to reconcile everything with everything before we will believe anything. We still attempt to reconcile as much as possible. We don't even consider giving up on the practice of logical thinking. But at the same time, we don't elevate our proposed solutions to an authoritative level, and we don't refuse to believe the facts of divine revelation just because we fail to reconcile them. We don't make our ability to understand a matter the measure of its truthfulness. We start with Truth and then seek understanding.

My response to the commenter was as follows:

I certainly don't want to give the impression that irrationality is entailed in the type of theological paradox I embrace. Rather, my belief in paradox is built on the solid foundation of Scripture as the Word of God, and flows logically from my presuppositions, as illustrated in the following premises and conclusions: 

P1 The Bible is the highest and surest source of knowledge: inerrant, infallible, and authoritative.
P2 The Bible clearly (that is, perspicuously) teaches certain distinct doctrines which, when compared side by side, appear to human minds to be logically incoherent.
P3 The Bible does not explain in detail how all of these doctrines interrelate.
P4 The Bible does not imply that any of these doctrines actually contradict one another (and strongly implies the opposite).
P5 The Bible teaches that man has mental limitations due to creaturehood, depravity and incomplete information.
P6 The Bible teaches that God possesses perfect and exhaustive knowledge of all things, and no possibility of self-deception.
P7 Even with perfect logic, the reliability of one's logical conclusions is proportional to the amount of correct information one possesses (i.e., partial information easily leads to false conclusions). 

C1 (Based on P1, P2, P3, P4) All doctrines taught by the Bible are entirely true, compatible and non-contradictory, without regard to any human being's ability to explain their interrelations.
C2 (Based on P5, P6, P7) The Bible reflects the perfect logical conclusions of a perfectly logical God, even if no human being can explain the logic used to reach those conclusions. 

As you might guess, I am no formal logician or philosopher. Still, I think my crude attempt holds water.

In short, I would not say my theological system is based in any sense upon irrationalism. For further discussion of this topic, I recommend James Anderson's excellent quote found in the sidebar of this blog:

"By advocating paradox I don't want to give the impression that I'm giving a carte blanche to not think philosophically, to not think deeply, about these doctrines. Quite the opposite. . . . My position is that with each of these doctrines we reflect on them as hard as we can, we penetrate them as best we can based on the Scriptural data that we do have, but we also recognize that there are going to be limits, and that those limits are actually a positive thing and not a reflection of some inherent problem in the doctrines or in the process of theological reflection. . . . I think we can make progress, we can make considerable progress, in understanding these doctrines and resolving some of the . . . initial difficulties that we have with them, but at the same time recognizing that we're always only going to get so far and when we bump up against the limits of our capacity to formulate them in certain ways or to resolve certain difficulties in them, we shouldn't be too concerned about that. We certainly shouldn't say, 'Okay, we need to admit that Christians are ultimately irrationalists.' No. We don't need to say that at all. . . . It's a Biblically constrained rationality. It's a middle way between rationalism, of which I think [Gordon H.] Clark was a representative, and irrationalism, of which, to take an example I think the Neo-Orthodox - Karl Barth - would be an example, where you're saying that there are actual contradictions in there. So I think it's navigating a Biblical middle way between these two extremes: having too high a view of the human intellect, and perhaps too low a view of the intellect, of our ability to know the things of God."

That quote gives us essentially the same idea, but from a "real" philosopher!

Van Til on Human Knowledge, the Laws of Logic, and the Gospel

The “natural man” assumes that there is a “principle of rationality,” including the laws of logic, i.e. the law of identity, the law of excluded middle and the law of contradiction which is, like the “facts,” just there. The facts he speaks of he assumes to be non-created facts. There is no “curse” that rests upon nature because of man’s sin. The “natural man” assumes that he himself, being “just there,” can relate the space-time facts which are “just there” by means of a “principle of rationality” that is “just there” to one another or that if he cannot do this, no one can. It does not occur to him to think of God as the one whose thoughts are higher than his thoughts. How do I, as a Christian, know all this information about the “natural man.” Christ tells me this in Scripture. Moreover, the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit gives me life from the dead so that I understand this not merely in intellectual fashion but existentially, I have been born again unto knowledge. Once I am born again I know that I am a creature made in the image of God. I now know that together with all men I became a sinner, a covenant-breaker, subject to the wrath of God. I now know that Christ died to redeem me from the curse that rested upon me for my disobedience of the law of God and that in him I am now justified. I know that I am, together with the body of the redeemed, on the way to my Savior’s presence. In the words of the Heidelberg Catechism I am now persuaded that “I belong, not to myself, but to my faithful Savior and that without the will of my heavenly Father not a hair shall fall from my head.” Everything in the I-it dimension as well as everything in the I-thou dimension is unified by means of the all-directing control of Jesus Christ, the Savior of his people. The city of God will be victorious over the city of men. The powers of hell cannot prevent the victory of the work of the triune God for the salvation of the world.

-Cornelius Van Til, Excerpted from a Letter to Francis Schaeffer (Source)

UPDATE: Every time I read this quote, I like it even more! So much good here.

Armed with the Balance of Truth

THEOparadox Advisor Tony Hayling has been doing a wonderful series on the book of Hebrews at his site, Agonizomai. Below, I've extracted a quote in which Tony points out the great paradox of chapter 4, where we are given a dual exhortation to "rest" and to "strive." 

"After having established that no one can enter God’s rest apart from being found obedient through faith, the writer immediately exhorts the Hebrews to strive to enter that rest! What can striving and resting have to do with each other? And this is the wonder of the gospel. To the fallen mind it is full of apparent contradiction. To the regenerate person it is full of truth and light. We may not be able, as saints, to reconcile in our minds all of God’s antinomies (a J.I. Packer term) - but we are willing to believe that they can be reconciled and that, on that Day, they shall be. So the person of faith does not know everything. On the contrary, he knows that he knows nothing - and it is this humility of mind that enables him to receive what he previously would not, and to strive to be found under the authority and guidance of God." 

(Source: http://agonizomai.blogspot.com/#8402474908244267206)

Note: Recipients of our t-shirts usually don't get arms, but in this case I've added prosthetics so Tony can operate his sound equipment. He records almost all of his blog posts and makes them available using a handy media  player embedded on the site.

MYSTERY 101

I ran across a great article by Nathan Tiemeyer, a pastor who writes at a team blog called Every Square Inch. The article, which addresses the topic of divine mystery, is reprinted below. "Every Square Inch" is based on this Abraham Kuyper quote:

There is not one square inch of the entire creation about which Jesus Christ does not cry out, "This is  mine! This belongs to me!"

That's a comprehensive view of the Lordship and sovereignty of Christ, and of His relevance in regard to EVERYTHING else. Kuyper would not have been overstating the case if he had mentioned sub-atomic particles and quarks as well. When it comes to ownership of knowledge, we often forget that Jesus Christ has absolute authority over every bit of Fact and Truth that exists, and He is not required to share ANY of it. We forfeited the privilege of possessing real knowledge when we traded THE TRUTH OF GOD for a lie back in the garden. We traded it for the mere "knowledge of good and evil," and the only way back to the knowledge of God is through His sovereign work of grace. Although original sin and total depravity don't seem fair to us, we need to look no further than our own lives in order to prove them. You and I have lost our moral rights completely, and must now rely entirely on the grace and mercy of the Supreme God. Ironically, that's a wonderful position to be in, for the particular kind of knowledge God is most pleased to bestow on sinners is the knowledge of Himself - not just the facts, but also a relational reality. Such mercy is entirely undeserved, and is a precious gift - as is the next breath you and I will take, should God allow. 

Although He makes us His friends and reveals Himself to us through the brilliant, soft gleam of creation and the more explicit  floodlight of His Word, there remain vast recesses of God's nature and essence about which even the most theologically astute person is totally unaware. The best theologian can't even think of the questions or articulate the categories or conceive of the possibilities in God's infinite depths. At the same time, even a child can know with certainty that those unrevealed areas do not in any way contradict the broad attributes He has revealed about Himself: That He is love, that He is just, that He is holy, that He is eternal, that He is pure, that He is good, that He is kind, that He is wrathful against sin, that He is truthful, that He is triune, that He is almighty, that He is unchanging in His essence, that He is judge, that He is merciful, that He is sovereign, that He is the Source of all that is good and noble and right and true. In the physical world, the interplay of light and shadow enhance beauty. Dark and light sharpen contrast, deepen clarity, and establish focus.

The article below is an excellent resource for anyone interested in the role of mystery in our understanding of God and His ways. Although many in our day have abused the truths of divine incomprehensibility and the human limits of epistemology, Tiemeyer presents a well balanced and theologically grounded case for mystery, based in part on a very well thought out overview of the book of Job. Enjoy these words of wisdom. 

In Defense of Mystery

By Nathan Tiemeyer

Left to my own devices, I don’t care a great deal for genuine mystery. In saying that, I don’t at all mean that I dislike, say, mystery as a method of story-telling. I’m a devoted fan of the TV show Lost, for example. That show’s ability to keep me and every other viewer constantly wondering is part of its enormous appeal. No, what I mean is that I’m not naturally given to embracing things in my real life circumstances that I can’t completely get my mind around. I’m often frustrated by—and sometimes even fearful of—things I don’t fully understand. My guess is that I’m far from alone in feeling this way.

This natural inclination, however, is somewhat at odds a biblical notion of the Christian faith. What I mean is that the Bible’s presentation of God and his interaction with creation (including and especially human beings) includes no small measure of the utterly mysterious. An obvious example: at some level, almost every Christian (let alone those outside the faith) wrestles with the question of how evil can exist along with a God who is both all-powerful and completely good. Or consider a related question recently discussed on this blog: how can God be both completely sovereign over our lives and yet we retain the ability to make meaningful choices, choices for which we are justly held fully responsible? Or how can God be both one God and three distinct persons, equal in power and glory? How can Jesus Christ be both fully God and fully man? How can the Bible be mediated through sinful and limited human authors—to the point that their distinct perspectives shine through their individual contributions—and remain ultimately the unified work of God himself, unadulterated and authoritative?

It’s certainly true that Christians are often willing to give up one or more of the beliefs listed above in order to relieve the tension of the apparent mysteries involved. But none of these difficult-to-reconcile statements are easily dismissed if we approach the Bible seriously. In fact, I would feel quite confident in arguing that each one of them enjoys the support of passage after passage within the Scriptures. (Unless we take their human authors to be bumbling idiots, relentlessly blind to the potentially knotty implications of what they assert, this is surely significant.) And in any case, I don’t think any Christian can give them all up and stay within the pale, so to speak.

So it seems that we need to come to terms with the mysterious. Interestingly, the same Bible that presents us with so many difficulties also provides the means to come to some manner of terms with them. For just one example, consider the conclusion to the book of Job. To summarize the plot: Job, a genuinely upright man becomes the focal point of a wager or contest between God and Satan. In the course of this contest, God gives Satan permission (!) to inflict Job with nearly incomprehensible suffering, including the loss of his family, his wealth, and his physical well-being. After a period of silent misery, Job begins a long lament, which includes defending himself against his friends’ belief that his own sin is the cause of his suffering. Finally, his understandable dismay at his predicament leads Job to openly charge God with injustice while defending his own integrity. His last extended discourse begins with these words: “As God lives, who has taken away my right…” (27:2, italics mine. I owe this observation to D. A. Carson's How Long O Lord, 166).

It is extremely important to note how God responds to this. Chapter 38 begins, “Then the Lord answered Job out the whirlwind and said….” Interestingly, what follows is not a direct explanation and defense of God’s conduct (or lack thereof) in regard to Job’s circumstances. Rather, God proceeds to ask Job a series of questions, including:

Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements—surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone…? (38:4-7)

Have the gates of death been revealed to you, or have you seen the gates of deep darkness? Have you comprehended the expanse of the earth? Declare, if you know all this. Where is the way to the dwelling of light, and where is the place of darkness, that you may take it to its territory and that you may discern the paths to its home? You know, for you were born then, and the number of your days is great. (38:17-121)

Can you send forth lightnings, that they may go and say to you, “Here we are?” Who has put wisdom in the inward parts or given understanding to the mind? (38:35-36)

God then concludes his initial response with this pointed question: “Shall a faultfinder contend with the Almighty? He who argues with God, let him answer it” (40:2). Job’s reply—noteworthy for its marked changed in tone—is to confess, “Behold I am of small account; what shall I answer you? I lay my hand on my mouth. I have spoken once, and I will not answer; twice, but I will proceed no further.” (40:4-5).

But God is not done. He launches into another series of questions with the following words: “Dress for action like a man; I will question you, and you will make it known to me. Will you put me in the wrong? Will you condemn me that you may be in the right?” (41:7-8). God then proceeds to asks Job if he can tame the great Behemoth and Leviathan. Job’s final reply is again worthy of mention:

I know that you can do all things and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted. “Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?” Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know. “Hear, and I will speak; I will question you, and you make it known to me.” I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eyes see you; therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes (42:2-6).

Note that in all of this God never directly answers Job's charge and the implied question behind it (how can this be?). But he does answer. His point is not to assert, “I’ll do whatever I want regardless of whether it is just or unjust.” Rather—and this is crucial—it is along the following lines: if Job cannot understand and/or accomplish these ways and deeds of God, then it stands to reason that God might be capable of other things which Job cannot completely fathom, namely, bringing about Job’s suffering without sacrificing his just character. In other words, Job should not expect to understand all God’s dealings because he is Job—a finite, mortal man—and not God. Judging from Job’s brief replies to the Lord’s questioning, this is a fact that he indeed comes to grasp very well.

Please don’t misunderstand my point in relating all of this. I don’t suggest that any time we run up against something difficult to grasp, we should immediately retreat to throwing up our hands and proclaiming God and his ways to be an incomprehensible mystery. He has, after all, revealed to us a great deal of truth, truth available for us to carefully mine. We should do that as far as we're able. In fact, the church has a long history of sustained reflection on each of the doctrines mentioned above, which has done much to further, if not completely satisfy, our understanding of them.

But eventually, we'll run up against that which we won't fully understand. And what I do want us to consider is this: if God is really the God the Bible clearly describes him to be, if he really does have all that knowledge, wisdom, and power, wouldn’t it make sense for his being and ways to provide us with a substantial element of mystery? Even further, might it be somewhat alarming if they didn’t? Is a God completely or even largely comprehensible to human beings--we who have such a sterling record of understanding and wisdom--really God at all?

It’s something to think about at least. Maybe mystery isn’t such a bad thing after all.

Click here to view the original article at Every Square Inch.