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.
Comments
9 Responses to “Set Theory II”
So regarding the moving away from God, how do you deal with “But where sin increased, grace increased all the more”. Not that we shold keep on actively sinning (as he goes on to say in Ch. 6) but can we move away from God (sin) so much that God’s grace is no longer sufficient? If that’s true then how far does grace “stretch”?
I know the Hebrews passage that you’re talking about, but at what point does a believer “trample(d) the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?”
What about Heb 10:14
“because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy” Who is that talking about? If our sins, all of them, are forgiven by the one scarifice then how can some sin become unforgiven?
As I said, leaving no room for Reformed theology, this is not a good model, either.
In Romans 6
he does say that sinning so that grace increases is not the proper viewpoint. He also explains that you are either a slave to sin or a slave to Christ. Going back to sin makes you a slave to sin and thus leads to death. I see this passage as parallel with the other passage you mention in Heb 10
.
In terms of Heb 10:14
& Heb 10:26
(which I quoted without reference in the article) I see it this way.
Heb 10:1
says that the same sacrifices year after year for sin cannot “make perfect those that draw near to worship”. Short form, since the yearly sacrifices have been replaced by the one sacrifice of Jesus, his sacrifice has 1)made them perfect and 2)no longer needs to be repeated. Therefore, this sacrifice of Jesus does make perfect (unlike the yearly sacrifices) and it does so forever. In essence, the sacrificial system is now gone and replaced with a better sacrifice, one that works for all time.
So who are those being made holy? Those that deaw near to worship. Paul identifies himself as one of these as well as the Hebrew Christian receiving this letter. Thus the encouragement to hold on to their faith with certainty for various reasons.
His next breath is that there is no sacrifice for those that continue to sin. This can’t be separated from the first part. The ‘they’ is still the same and unchanged. The same ‘they’ that are perfected is the same they that can go beyond the measure of the sacrifice. How can they go beyond this measure? They can deliberately keep on sinning after receiving the knowledge of the truth. Is this to say that we are out of grace every time we sin? No, only those that keep on sinning with intent. How do we know a person’s intent? How indeed…
Again, I’m not crazy about this model because I do not think that God’s grace extends only to the Arminians - it leaves no room for Calvinism, which is a mistake.
Cool. A question about your understanding of slavery in the NT. Can slaves willingly leave their master?
Onesimus left Philemon and I am sure that Philemon did not want him to. Many other slaves did as well, including Cicero’s slave Didymous that managed his library.
Thanks to the behest of Paul, Onesimus came back to Philemon. Paul makes it clear that only Philemon had the authority to allow Onesimus to continue with Paul. It is implied that he repented of his former ‘useless’ ways, Philemon had the right to punish, brand, or even kill as he saw fit, but Paul intercedes and asks Philemon to accept Onesimus as his brother.
Roman custom also allowed a slave to purchase his freedom. In that sense, he could leave when he paid the proper fee. Technically, then the former master would have to record the former slave as a citizen in the next census.
But once we are a slave to Christ we could never pay the debt we owe as He payed ours to sin.
And when Onesimus left Philemon he was still legally Philemon’s slave until Philemon set him free (presumably). Would Christ set us free to be a slave to sin again knowing that we would never be able to return?
True, we cannot repay Christ for his sacrifice, but the question was could a slave leave willingly and the answer is “Yes, he or she could”.
Technically, Jesus would be a Jewish slaveowner - their rules were quite different. A man could be a slave for only seven years. The decision wasn’t up to the owner, it was up to God. If the slave pledged to be a slave for life, he would get his ear pierced on the doorjamb of the house and wear an earring. Even then, he was freed and his property restored during a year of Jubilee. Again, this was according to the Law, not the will of the slaveowner.
The question you ask assumes that it is Jesus who controls whether or not we are a slave to sin or to him. It presupposes the lack of free will. Forgive me, old friend, but I can’t answer it because it contains an assumption that we do not agree on.
Why does Paul say that there is a point when there is no sacrifice for sins left, if we cannot choose to sin, even after we become Christians? James makes it quite clear that we sin because we give in to our own desires.
See the whole Jewish slave concept is what I wanted to know more about since that’s what Paul and Jesus would be referencing. Of course the reason that God set up a time limit on slavery (IMHO) is probably so the Jews wouldn’t end up doing what white slave owners i nthe 18th century did. And since sin wouldn’t release us from bondage willingly and I don’t belive that God would release us from being His slave willingly (John 10:29
) we run into a problem with the Jewish slave laws.
Jesus said that everyone who sins is a slave to sin. If I am a slave to sin then that is not my will to be a slave for all have sinned. Jesus is our Year of Jubilee, it is He who frees us from this bondage only to become slaves to Christ (righteousness, are the two the same?)
Where does the Bible tell us that our will is free? Are we not dead in our transgressions? All of these metaphors that the Bible uses seem to indicate that we are in a state not of our own choosing and will remain there until we are taken out of it somehow, also using metaphors that indicate no choice. (John 6:44
)
Why does Paul say what he does? To show what consequences would be and to make us ever more greatful for grace is my belief. Why does James say that we sin because we are giving into our own desires? Even after the slaves were freed in America did they act free? They were so used to being slaves that it took time for some of them to stop “being slaves” and some never did.
Oh and here “True, we cannot repay Christ for his sacrifice, but the question was could a slave leave willingly and the answer is “Yes, he or she could”.”
They could leave but they were still slaves were they not?