Here is a quick illustration that I hope you find helpful to distinguish between the various traditions with regard to divine sovereignty, free-will, and salvation. It is certainly not perfect, but I think it works sufficiently.
Pelagianism
All the people are on the boat with the God. At this point, in their natural condition, they don’t need to be saved as they are not in danger right now. However, most (if not all) people will eventually jump in the water (sin) and find themselves in need of God’s grace. The reason why they jump in the water is only because they are following numerous examples of those who jumped before them. The foolish immatation of people to jump in the water goes the way back to the first two who jumped into the water, setting the first bad example. God then offers them a life preserver only if and when they call on him for help. If they do this, they can work together with God to be saved (synergism).
Semi-Pelagianism
All people start in the water drowning. They are born in the water drowning. This is the natural habitation of all humanity since the first man and woman jumped into the water. Their legs are cramping and they cannot swim to safety on their own. However, they may desire salvation on their own. Though they cannot attain it, they can call, with a wave of their arm, to God, who is eagerly waiting on the edge of the boat. At the first sign of their initiative, God will then throw out the life preserver (grace). If they respond and swim as God pulls, they will be saved (synergism).
Eastern Orthodoxy
All people are in the water drowning. They are born drowning. This is the natural habitation of all humanity since the first man and woman jumped into the water. Their legs are cramping and they cannot swim to safety on their own. God, standing on the edge of the boat, makes the first initiative by throwing a life preserver to them (prevenient grace). Upon seeing this act, they make a decision to grab a hold (faith) or to swim away. If they grab a hold, God will slowly pull the rope connected to the life preserver. But they must do their part by swimming along with God’s pull (grace plus works; synergism). If at any time they let go or quit swimming, they will not be saved.
Arminianism
All people are floating in the water dead in their natural condition (total depravity). They are born dead because that has been the condition of humanity since the first man and woman jumped into the water and died (original sin). Death begets death. There must be intervention if they are to be saved. God uses his power to bring every one of them back to life (prevenient grace), but they are still in the water and in danger of drowning. With the regenerated ability to respond to God, now God throws the life preserver to them and calls on them all to grab hold of it. They then make the free-will decision on their own to grab a hold of the life preserver (faith) or to swim away. If they grab a hold, they must continue to hold as God pulls them in (synergism). They don’t need to do anything but hold on. Any effort to swim and aid God is superfluous (sola fide). They can let go of the preserver at any time and, as a consequence, lose their salvation.
Calvinism
All people are floating in the water dead in their natural condition (total depravity). They are born dead because that has been the condition of humanity since the first man and woman jumped into the water and died (original sin). Death begets death. There must be radical intervention if they are to be saved. While God calls out to all of them (general call), due to his mysterious choice, he brings back to life (regeneration) only certain people (election) while passing by the rest (reprobation). He does not use a life preserver, but grabs a hold of the elect individually and immediately pulls them onto the boat (monergism). They naturally grab a hold of God as a consequence of their regeneration (irresistible grace; sola fide). They forever stay on the boat due to their perpetual ability to recognize God’s beauty (perseverance of the saints).
68 replies to "The Parable of the Boat: Illustrating Differences Between Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Arminianism, and Calvinism"
John,
The analogy is breaking down at this point because you are insisting on stretching it beyond its purpose. It may not be practical that someone boasts that he is saved because of what he did, but as I said, when someone asks him why the others drowned and he did not, the inevitable answer will in fact be, “Because I did not reject the offer to be rescued.” It will not be, “Because the rescuers rescued me.” Um, yeah, we know they did. We’re asking why you and not the others were saved. The only answer is either that the rescuers chose to rescued me and not the others, or because the rescuers tried to save everyone, but I was one of the elite who chose to be saved, and the others rejected that offer.” Like it or not, the deciding factor is ME.
Actually, the Lutheran (and, I believe, the BIBLICAL) view is to NOT even answer the question “Why some and not others?” because Scripture itself doesn’t answer that question. Scripture teaches that if we are saved it is 100% God’s work. So, if someone asks me “Why are you saved?” I will say “It is 100% God’s Work!” If someone asks me “Why do some people end up in hell?” I will say “It is 100% their fault!” But if someone asks me “Why are you saved but not others?” I will say “I don’t know. You’ll have to ask God. But I can’t promise He’ll answer your question.”
And NOT A FEW of those being dragged onto the boat have insulted others being dragged to the boat…some have even managed to pull alongside the others mid-rescue and set them on fire…
That’s not the difference: I’ve got a better one:
Eastern Orthodox believe that “pi” is an irrational number, whose infinite number of digits the human mind will never fully grasp, and which can be only approximated with 3.14.
Roman Catholics believe the number “pi” to be a rational number, that the human mind can and does fully grasp, and which is identical with 3.14.
Magisterial Protestants believe the number “pi” is a rational number, completely comprehensible by the human mind, and which equals exactly 3, according to Scripture (1 Kings 7:23; 2 Chronicles 4:2).
Evangelical Protestants believe that the number “pi” does not exist because it’s: NOT. In. The Bible! (and was discovered by Greek pagans).
Now something that touches upon the primary subject of this post…
The Calvinist view has problems with either theodicy or inner inconsistency: God has both the will and the power to rescue everyone, and given the fact that He’s the only one doing anything, why doesn’t He save them all?
While God calls out to all of them (general call), due to his mysterious choice, he brings back to life (regeneration) only certain people (election) while passing by the rest (reprobation).
HIS choice, or OURS? — I think ours. Does HE pass us by, or do WE decline His outstretched hand? — I’d say the latter. (And why would He have bothered calling the ones HE didn’t even want or desire in the first place?)… 😐
The Calvinist view has problems with either theodicy or inner inconsistency: God has both the will and the power to rescue everyone, and given the fact that He’s the only one doing anything, why doesn’t He save them all?
The Bible says (for example, in Romans 9) that He does so for His own good purposes — for example, to preserve vessels of wrath so that He can demonstrate the riches of His goodness to the vessels of mercy.
HIS choice, or OURS? — I think ours.
Man always wants to deny God. In this case, we deny God choice.
Does HE pass us by, or do WE decline His outstretched hand? — I’d say the latter.
He does not pass us by, and we do deny His outstretched hand. Then He sends His Spirit and regenerates the ones chosen according to His purpose; and they hear His voice, and follow Him, and nobody will pluck them out of God’s hand, and He will raise them up on the last day. They change from the world, to the ones called-out of the world, the ek-klesia; born not of man’s will, but of the Spirit.
(And why would He have bothered calling the ones HE didn’t even want or desire in the first place?)
(You’re not using the technical term ‘call’ I used above.) He does desire them. If He did not call to everyone, there would be no grounds for accusation. Romans 1 grounds all men’s condemnation in the fact that they KNOW their creator, and yet do not glorify Him as such.
-Wm
I agree with just about everything Wm said. Good show.
However, in relation to this, I might word it a bit differently as an sublapsarian 🙂
“Does HE pass us by, or do WE decline His outstretched hand? — I’d say the latter.”
It is both. We decline his outstretched arms, his “call”, because we are part of a fallen human race that is dead spiritually. It is who we are. We are at enmity with our creator.
He could save all; I think that this is true. He does pass over some. We don’t know why, but as Wm said, he does and it is for his own perfect purpose. Our job is not to put him on a tribunal, but to trust he knows what he is doing. It is called faith and it is not always easy.
He does desire them. If He did not call to everyone, there would be no grounds for accusation.
He does desire them (you just said so). And you also just said that He desires to condemn them.
Which is it? Does He desire their salvation or their condemnation?
CMP,
As to unconditional election and Rome, some refining of the terms needs to happen here. Given that Orange for example denies any natural volitional activity apart from grace it is not possible for Rome to permit predestination based on forseen merits in terms of human actions that are not the products of divine grace. In that sense, Rome precludes what the Reformed often object to.
What is at issue with some Molinists, not all, like De Sales for example is not whether the will can move itself apart from grace or not and hence merit something, as the Neo-semi-Pelagians of the Ockhamists thought. The issue was what grounded the predestination materially speaking. So when De Sales or other Molinists speak of predestination based on forseen merits, they mean within the context of graced actions, where grace has a pre-empting and primary position/role. So there is no predestination to salvation based on forseen merits where merits are meritorious acts of nature alone in Rome.
Hodge,
I would say that those you designate as Arminians that would seemingly fall into line with Catholicism could only do so if key Catholic teachings were false. That is, they do not in fact fall in line. I don’t have a dog in this fight since I am not Arminian and I am not Catholic either or Calvinist for that matter.
When Aquinas writes,
“Now there is no distinction between what flows from free will, and what is of predestination; as there is no distinction between what flows from a secondary cause and from a first cause. For the providence of God produces effects through the operation of secondary causes, as was above shown (Question 22, Art. 3). Wherefore, that which flows from free-will is also of predestination.”
Thomas Aquinas, ST, Ia. Q. 23, a.5.
I have a hard time thinking that any Arminian could sign on to that.
Furthermore, the Lutherans hold that grace enables and it is possible to fall away once one has received grace. In this respect, the Lutherans are closer to Augustine than the Reformed. And I have a hard time seeing how such a view would make Augustine more “Arminian.” Such a view is certainly within the scope of sola gratia as Augustine and Augustinianism have historically understood it.
I would simply deny your assertion that Catholic theology isn’t predestinarian in the way that Reformed theology is. There are subtle and important differences, but in the main, they map on to pretty much the same view, qua predestination and monergism.
I also deny that there is any official doctrine concerning LFW in Rome. None of the expositions given by Catholic doctors teach it or a system with which it is compatible. Th beatific vision all by itself rules out LFW.
As for Bryan, I think he is philosophically a libertarian or at least a source incompatibilist, but I don’t think it is at all consistent with his Catholicism, let alone Thomism. And I think Bryan is hard pressed to maintain both.
If grace alone does the work,…
Hodge, (cont.)
If grace alone does the work, why is a will necessary in the first place? Why not skip all the evil and just create everyone without any will and make them morally impeccable from the get go?
You ask what could be the reason for a rejection, but reasons aren’t causes. Augustine himself glosses it not in terms of sufficient causation, but deficient causation such that those who have sufficient but not efficient grace fall away due to a deficient cause. Whether that is satisfying or not, I’ll leave to you. I do not maintain such a view. The problem from my point of view is treating persons as a kind of object completely explicable in terms of event causation in the first place. Personhood simply outruns the metaphysics of causal explanation. If it didn’t then we’d need to postulate a cause for divine action as well. So from my point of view, an attempt to explain why one rejects in terms of causation is using the wrong kind of tool to address the problem.
Hodge, #33.
I don’t believe your reply maps on to my remarks. Here is why. Popular apologists and priests are not designated as official teachers of the Catholic church. Second, something can be a teaching in Catholicism without the force of dogma such that it would occupy a normative position above the theologumena of the local priest or pop apologist.
[…] might be a pelagian. cf. http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/02/regeneration-prcede-faith/ http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/10/the-parable-of-the-boat-illustrating-differences-betwe… 6. What is prevenient grace and where does the scripture teach this doctrine? Arminians need to […]
[…] The Parable of the Boat: Illustrating Differences Between Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, Eastern Ort…. Short and understandable. […]
It seems to me that there should be a distinction between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox understanding of this issue. The Roman Catholic Church believes that Mary was Immaculately Conceived without the stain of Original Sin (guilt).
But the Eastern Orthodox, while esteeming and venerating Mary, do not hold to the Immaculate Conception, mainly because they don’t see it as necessary–according to the Eastern Orthodox Church, every one is born with original sin (because we have lost the “likeness” of God–as distinct from his “image”) but this original sin does cause humans to incur guilt. Guilt comes later from our own sins.
For some reason it seems like people group together Roman Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodox when speaking of certain viewpoints within “Christianity” but the two are quite different.
Pelagianism is closer to reality than the others.
As a pastor in the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, I would like to offer the Lutheran view – which I will admit up front is a paradox that, I believe, best reflects the mystery of Scripture’s teaching regarding why some are saved and not others.
Simply put, we would share most in common with the Calvinist view but with the following changes: “All people are floating in the water dead in their natural condition (total depravity). They are born dead because that has been the condition of humanity since the first man and woman jumped into the water and died (original sin). Death begets death. However, these people are not PHYSICALLY dead but they are RELATIONALLY dead, that is, they hate God and do not trust Him. Nevertheless, God desires all to be saved from their relationally dead state, and He does this by diving into the water with the goal of bringing them out of the water and onto the ship as well as changing their hearts so that they actually WANT to be on the ship with Him rather than in the water without Him. God is able to save some people in this way but others harden their hearts and push Him away. Why is God able to save some people whereas others reject His salvation. God doesn’t tell us. All God says is that if some are saved, it’s 100% His work; if some remain relationally dead, it is 100% their fault.
Obviously, this boat analogy (as with any analogy) doesn’t cover all the details. For example, this analogy fails to deal with Scripture’s teaching that sinners deserve God’s wrath and that God’s Son suffers God’s wrath in our place when He dies on the cross. In addition, it is the work of the Holy Spirit to convict of sin and create faith so that sinners repent and trust in the salvation purchased by Christ.
To help you further understand how Lutherans differ from Calvinists, I will use the TULIP acronym.
1. Lutherans agree with total depravity.
2. Lutherans also agree with UNCONDITIONAL election. However, we do NOT believe in an election to
damnation. Simply put, the elect are those whom God foreknew that He would be able to save. But the
rest are those whom God foreknew would reject His attempt to save them.
3. Lutherans reject the limited atonement because we believe Scripture clearly teaches that God wants ALL
to be saved and that God’s Son died for ALL sinners.
4. Lutherans do NOT believe in “irresistible grace” but we believe Scripture clearly teaches that sinners can
resist the Holy Spirit. But this does NOT mean that we believe a sinner, before regeneration, can desire God
in any way. Why God is able to regenerate some and not others is a mystery we Lutherans do not attempt to
solve because in doing so we end up with EITHER the false teaching of double predestination/limited
atonement OR with the false teaching of “decision theology” we suggests that a particular person is saved
because he/she desires God more than another (which ignores Scripture’s teaching that we are all equally
spiritually dead in Adam).
5. Lutherans DO believe in the perseverance of the saints in the sense that God saves sinners with the intent
that they will be saved for all eternity. However, we still believe that “this side of heaven” it is possible for
a regenerated person to reject God and fall away from Christ. So, the good news of “the perseverance of the
saints” is for those who are despairing believers who need to be assured that God will never forsake them.
However, the good news of the “perseverance of the saints” obviously does not apply to those who have
forsaken God and refuse to return to Him.
Anyway, this is the Lutheran take on the question of salvation.