There’s something unsatisfactory about my first post regarding set theory. I’m not sure what it is, but part of it is a lack of precision.
First, let’s pretend that there’s no difference between what is true and what is perceived. Further, let’s define the terms more precisely. There is a set, S, whose members make up the church. Which church? Well, that can cause problems just trying to sort that out. The church universal means different things, the church local presupposes certain things, and so on. Therefore, let say that we are looking at those who are saved. You may even call this group ‘the elect’.
Ok, we are trying to determine the members of set S where members are defined as those that are saved.
Going back to the territorial model, those that are saved are within a certain area surrounding God. It may be a circle, a square, or an irregular polygon. In other words, any point within a certain distance of God is saved. A point may be ‘to the right’ of God, another ‘to the left’, etc, but both must be within a certain distance to God depending on where they are located in relation to God. Maintaining the definition that the saved are within a certain specified area around God, let’s just say that the boundary of this area is a circle. This simplifies the definition further: those within a certain radius of God are saved.
This model presents some problems, as previously stated in the first article. The outer boundary, in extreme cases, is confused with the boundary of the local church membership. At the most extreme, oen may believe that the boundary is smaller than that, meaning that not everyone in their local church is saved, much less those outside of it. However, some may be less ‘narrow-minded’ and consider the boundary to be the edges of their particular denomination. Others may be more broad than that, still others may simply see the boundary as Christian, and yet others may declare there is no boundary at all.
The one thing in common is a focus on exactly where the boundary may be and the exact distance of the radius from God that allows a person to be saved. It’s natural, children push at boundaries set by parents in part because they want to know where the boundary actually exists. Once they know where the boundary is, it provides a sense of security. Yet, looking at those who are saved or not saved in this can cause a person to be concerned about their position and the position of others. The apostles argued about this on more than one occasion. James and John Zebedee asked to be on the left and right of Jesus. Jesus made it clear that jockeying for position to be closest to him is not the right line of thinking. Besides, God determines those things, not us.
This brings us to the relational model. In this model, the members of set S are determined by their direction toward a central point, God. Because of each members’ connection to God, the set that defines those who are saved looks like a series a lines emmanating from the center, instead of a defined area of space. (From a poetical standpoint, one might even say that it is the sparkle of God.) The advantage of this model is that thinking of ‘those that are saved’ is less of a specific area, but a common focus on God. Thinking this way, the set has a more dynamic membership that changes frequently. It also makes it difficult, if not impossible, for a person to know who is a member of set S without a relationship to other members.
Naturally, this may lead members to believe that set S has far fewer members than it really contains. Unlike the territory model, a relationship must exist between members to determine movement toward a common goal. Unfortunately, it is much easier to determine if someone is moving in a parallel direction. When looking for those moving in the same direction, most are not travelling toward the center at all. The other drawback to this model is that God draws people to Him before they are saved. In other words, it is possible to be drawn to God, even if you are not saved. Paul discusses this in Athens (Acts 17:27) and Peter says this at Pentecost (Acts 2:39).
One separate issue I want to think about is what happens when a member changes direction. Because the model defines members of set S as those moving toward a common goal, the instant a member changes direction, they cease being a member of set S. In other words, the moment a person stops heading toward God, they are no longer saved. I’m sure that this was not intended, but it is a logical deduction from the definition. One could say that a person’s ‘overall direction’ meaning that more of their direction is toward the center than not. This explanation is only partially satisfying, it seems to gloss over any change in direction at all.
So what then? Is it possible to define set S to include those that are saved AND moving towards God? I believe so. Let’s go back to the idea of the area that defines those that are saved. It is easy to say that the barrier is doctrine. Those with right doctrine are in the area, those without it are outside. However, it doesn’t accurately account for movement within the area. Doctrine is not usually so flexible as to allow much movement. One could have doctrines that are fuzzy, but again, that is only partially satisfying.
I propose this: the defined area is the area of God’s grace. One could even say that grace is the radius of God. The Bible does say that His grace, though vast, is not infinite. It also says that those that are not saved are not under grace. The main reason for using grace as the area is that it allows for movement. Romans 14 mentions several disputable matters and Paul basically encourages members to not undermine another’s faith, but it’s okay to believe two different things (in regards to disputable matters). Also, there are times in every Christian’s life when we do NOT fix our eyes on God. Rather than say that we are no longer saved at that point, it is more accurate to say that we are under grace at that point. However, if we mantain the same direction, we will eventually move outside God’s grace because there is no sacrifice for sin left when we deliberately and continually sin against God.
The only problem with this model is that it does not allow for Reformed theology at all. By its assumptions, it excludes even mild forms of Calvinism. As such, I’ll go back to work to think through that, but it may be a while before I explore that.