The Parable of the Boat: Illustrating Differences Between Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Arminianism, and Calvinism

Thank you for that explanation! This is a really effective way of explaining all of these views of salvation. I finally know what Pelagian and Semi-pelagian means! 🙂

Also, Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism are very undeveloped, not being dogmatically and systematically refined. That is the reason why the simple “If they respond, they will be saved” is the conclusion. It is left undeveloped as to what “resond” means here. No major tradition would affirm that they believe in either Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism, even though some of them come very close. The key difference is in who takes the first inititive. John Cassian, considered a Saint in both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, is often accused of being a Semi-Pelagian. The Council of Orange (529) condemned both Pelagianism and Semi-Pelatianism.

Here is a link to the Council of Orange (529): http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_orange.html

Worth the read.

CMP, you said “One one of these, it seems to me, cannot boast (Eph. 2:9). The rest can say that the reason why they are saved and others are not is ultimately due to their own efforts.”

I would beg to differ. There is no one who would claim that God stood there and watched while they swam to the boat by themself. Ultimately God is the one who pulls us on, no matter what else you believe.

The difference is in whether God requires us to take some action as well as a prerequisite to our salvation. (Although, it gets sticky to use words like prerequisite since God is atemporal.) I don’t believe this question is really answerable, since it leads to what I like to call empirically indistinguishable results. That is, if a person is really saved, then they are saved by God, have faith in God, and do good works. Since we can’t know the exact moment(s) in which the person is saved, we can’t determine any causal relationship among the factors.

I suspect that the parable doesn’t reflect the Eastern Orthodox view. I don’t hold to EO, but I hope Perry Robinson will chime in. Note in particular that lumping EO and Roman Catholicism together hides the fact that the EOs do NOT hold to Original Sin, while RCs do.

-Wm

Well, the differences between EO and RC mostly have to do with imputation, which the parable does not really address. It is not that EO does not believe in original sin, broadly speaking, but they don’t believe in the direct effects of Adam’s sin. However, they do believe in the indirect effect of sin, effecting our nature…hence, unlike the Pelagians, they are drowning. And, unlike the semi-Pelagians, they don’t make the first effort or take the initiative.

However, about the latter, it is much harder to assess, from my understanding, as it could be legitimate in some cases to put the EO view with Semi-Pelagianism (although this designation is always derogatory and no one would own it).

The effects of Baptism, as far as I know, in RC simply remove imputed sin, but this does not necessarily restore ability. There is the natural ability to “swim” in both RC and EO. EO would emphasize the imago dei being retained and having effects on the will. Reformed would say that while the imago dei is retained, this does not make us spiritually alive (or just half-dead or just cramping in the legs).

I don’t know of Perry Robinson, but it might be nice to have Eastern Orthodox theologian Bradely Nassif engage! He has contributed to this blog before under the EO category. I respect him a lot. Very irenic.

Here is what Ware has to say about Original sin in the EO church:

“The consequences of Adam’s disobedience extended to all his descendants.”

Our will is weakened and enfeebled by what the Greeks call ‘desire’ and the Latins ‘concupiscence’. We are all subject to these, the spiritual effects of original sin.”

“Orthodoxy, holing as it does a less exalted idea of the human state before the fall [though this is not really true the way Ware understands it], is also less severe than the west in its view of the consequences of the fall. Adam fell, not from a great height of knowledge and perfection, but from a state of undeveloped simplicity; hence he is not to be judge too harshly for his error. Certainly, as a result of the fall the human mind became so darkened, and human will-power was so impaired, that humans could no longer hot to attain to the likeness of God. Orthodox, however, do not hold that the fall deprived humanity entirely of God’s grace, though they would say that after the fall grace acts on humanity from the outside, not from within, Orthodox do not say, as Calvin said, that humans after the fall were utterly depraved and incapable of good desires [hence their identification sometimes with semi-Pelagianism]. They cannot agree with Augustine, when he writest that humans are under ‘a harsh necessity’ of committing sin, and that ‘human nature was overcome by the fault into which it fell, and so came to lack of freedom.’ The image of God is distorted by sin, but never destroyed [a view that is actually held by all traditions].

“Most Orthodox theologians reject the idea of ‘original guilt’, but forward by Augustine and still accepted (albeit in a mitigated form) by the Roman Catholic Church [this is where they depart most decisively from RC]. Humans automatically inherit Adam’s corruption and mortality [hence they are drowning in the parable], but not his guilt: they are only guilty in so far as by their own free choice they imitate Adam.”

Although Ware does not really seem to understand Reformed theology, he does represent quite an authority in presenting the Orthodox church. His first volume of “The Orthodox Church” is something all who are interested in EO theology should own. (The second edition is not so enthusiastically received (although I was quoting from the second edition! p. 223-224).

I think this is pretty accurate, Michael. I might change a couple of things out of just being picky, but I think the general gist is conveyed.

CMP, I do agree that using the term “semi-Pelagian” is somewhat difficult, because nobody will agree to it. One solution I’ve seen is to use the term “semi-Augustinian”, which of course is more complimentary. It’s also interesting that EO claim to be non-Augustinian (while at the same time being also non-Pelagian) in the sense of their anthropology and soteriology.

-Wm

Nicely done. It is not too often I have seen a description of Arminianism and Calvinism with both being done respectfully.

“Arminianism

All people are floating in the water dead in their natural condition (total depravity).”

Arminians believe in total depravity? Not according to Dordt and most of theAarminians I know.

Also, you could probably collapse Semi-legianism with RC, EO and Arminians down into one category in regards to salvation (with the only difference being the works of RCC).

Michael, Arminians do believe in TD. It is something that they continually seek to overcome.

The collapes would fail to show that they are truly different and would create an unfair association, in my opinion.

CMP,

Given that neither the Orthodox nor Rome believe in imputed guilt or imputed righteousness, I can’t see that the differences between them have to do with imputation. For Rome or the Orthodox, any declaration of justice is grounded in the agent, whereas this is not so on the Reformation side, making the justice forensic or “alien.”

The differences between Rome and the Orthodox divvy up alone the lines of whether our first parents had original righteousness (Rome yes, Orthodox, No) or not at creation and whether God is the formal cause of creatures or not. (Rome No, Orthodox Yes.) Other fault lines are whether, as a consequence of the first thesis, righteousness can be given to creatures apart from their personal activity in say the Immaculate Conception, monergistic regeneration/operative/condign grace or not, (Orthodox No, Rome yes) and whether there can be a quasi-personal collective guilt inherited or not. (Orthodox No, Rome yes.)

The reason for the Orthodox why LFW cannot be lost is because it is of grace in terms of the imago dei. The imago dei is an eternal energy or logos that is divine and so can never be altered. The power by which that potential or logos operates can be lost, which would preclude any meritorious act on our part apart from divine aid.

As for the Reformed, since they have historically taken original righteousness to be an intrinsic constituent or part of the imago dei, the imago dei as such is lost. What remains are other essential parts of it that are now, like the thing itself, fundamentally altered. (See Turretin, vol. pp. 462-473 & 611-613.)

Michael,

Semi-Pelagianism is the thesis that man in his fallen state, still can of his own natural ability move himself to perform a meritorious act apart from divine grace.

This thesis is rejected explicitly by Catholicism in Trent and Orange as well as by the Orthodox. The thesis that man co-operates with grace isn’t semi-Pelagianism since Augustine explicitly affirmed it.

Perry,

Besides contending that there is more diversity in the west concerning the original state, I don’t have much to say in “response” here. The original state is not part of this “parable.”

Thanks for the info though!

Sorry Perry,

You were responding to the other Michael 🙂

Michael, you are correct regarding Arminians. I meant total depravity in the way Calvinists define it, i.e. total depravity without libertarian free will. Is not total depravity originally defined as this, that man is so depraved he cannot and will not choose God of his own will? If Arminius and Calvinists were in such agreement on total depravity, why the need to make it one of the 5 points at Dordt?

Although I would add most modern day “Arminians” would not claim to hold to even Arminius’ idea of total depravity.

CMP,

I’m surprised that you don’t mention Lutheran’s since they would probably conceive of things differently then any of these groups.

Michael,

I know you weren’t attempting to catch every variation in an analogy, but classical Arminian theology versus Wesleyian Arminian theology might differ over whether God just throws a preserver out to be grabbed by the individual. Arminius might say that God throws the preserver around the individual, but that individual has the ability to throw it off. Wesleyians, however, would be described as the way you have under the category of “Arminian.” Of course, most Arminians today do not identify with Arminius, but either Wesleyian or RC theology (if not full blown Pelagianism, as is the vast majority of American culture).

In light of the recent rescue of the Chilean miners, I was wondering if you could draw some analogies using that situation?

Hodge,

I am not clear on why you say that Arminians identify with RC theology when RC theology is quite predestinarian. Aquinas, Scotus, Anselm, et al are all monergistic and predestinarian. They all deny a libertarian conception of freedom. Perhaps you could clarify.

The Catholic Church has not dogmatized any of the issue regarding predestination and free will.

There is only one true church. If we are going to be in heaven, we have to be in this one, the church of Jesus Christ.

CMP,

The Catholic Church has dogmatized certain things like the impossibility of moving onself to faith apart from grace, that God is the first and primary mover in salvation, that there is no predestination based on foreseen merits or actions. Any number of them logically preclude a libertarian gloss on the conditions for freedom as well as semi-pelagianism and pelagianism.

Further, plenty of her official doctors teach robust predestinarian views.

“The Catholic Church has dogmatized certain things like the impossibility of moving onself to faith apart from grace, that God is the first and primary mover in salvation, that there is no predestination based on foreseen merits or actions.”

The first two are simply the council of Orange (529). I have never heard nor seen where the third is dogmatized in any way. In fact, most of what I have seen is just the opposite. Where do you get the idea that they don’t accept some form of conditional election? I would be interested in this as I have discussed this many times with Catholic apologists and they would disagree strongly.

Yes, there are some highly esteemed theologians that would hold to unconditional election of some sort, but to suggest they are doctors of their church or that they are somehow bound to them is odd. They are only bound to that of the magisterial authority, and no where that I know of have they determined unconditional election as dogma.

CMP,

If you read through Orange and a number of synods and papal statements I think the third is easily verifiable. I’ll dig some stuff up later for you. (I am bathing the kids.)

As for the opposite, this depends on what you’ve read and how you’ve interpreted it. Often Reformed folk read material from the Jesuits who historically have advocated some form of Molinism. But Molinism doesn’t imply either Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism. And while its Evangelical advocates frame it to try and make it compatible with a libertarian conception of freedom, its Jesuit advocates didn’t. More to the point, middle knowledge excludes libertarianism since it is the essence of the agent that determines the actions. Such a deterministic relation logically precludes libertarianism. Molinism is just Augustinian predestinarianism circumstantially glossed.

As for what Catholic apologists claim, most that I’ve see equivocate on key terms, unknowingly usually, such as “free will” and such and they do so because they do not grasp the teaching of persons like Aquinas, Scotus or Anselm.

Further, something can be a doctrine of the Catholic church without being at the level of dogma, so even if Rome didn’t eelvate such views to the status of dogma, it wouldn’t logically follow that it wasn’t Catholic doctrine.

CMP,

Thanks very much for this. I have been trying to figure out the differences between these lately and you’ve just really summed things up nicely. I always thought of myself as a Calvinist but it turns out I think I’m more of a classical Arminian. The way I was taught was that Arminianism = Semi-Pelagianism (although I didn’t know the terms at the time). It is nice to know that Calvanism and Arminianism actually have quite a lot in common.

How ridiculous a thought to think we can come to faith apart from the grace of God. The bible tells us we cannot come to Jesus except the Father draw us. I don’t understand some of these religions. They must have separate bibles for each one, IDK.

Bible Study,

How ridiculous a thought to think we can come to faith apart from the grace of God….. I don’t understand some of these religions.

There are virtually no demominations which accept the Bible as the authoritative Word of God (by which I mean to exclude Liberal Denominations) and hold to either Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism (though some of the adherents may simply by lack of education). These are rather presented to illustrate historical heresies that existed in the Early Church some 1400 years ago. The rest of the positions would all agree with your statement that without the Father drawing us no one would be saved. They (Calvinists, EO, RC, and Arminians) just answer questions about the nature of this “drawing” differently.

Interestingly, I had an interlocuter on my blog awhile ago, a Roman Catholic PhD student studying who else, Aquinas. He turned the lights on for me; he clearly advocated an unconditional election, while others (like a guy named Fr. Alvin) advocated conditional. What this helped illustrate for me, is that just as in Protestantism we have both classic Calvinists (what Patton advocates for) and Arminianism (what Roger Olson advocates); the Roman Catholics have their exacting corollaries — as I just noted. And this makes total sense given the fact that bothy systems come from the classical theistic, and Thomistic/Aristotelian metaphysic.

It’s really not as clear-cut as us Protestants would like to think in re. to Roman Catholicism. And as Stephen Strehle has highlighted in his book, “The Catholic Roots of the Protestant Gospel,” there is really a deep rooted correlation, not just in the grammar, but in the concepts between ‘orthodox Reformed theology’ (post-Reformed guys) and Roman Catholic theology (with its mirroring categories of classic Calvinism and Arminianism at play, respectively).

Perry,

My point was not to say that RC theology is not predestinarian, but that a large group of those we call “Arminians” today fall more into an RC view of God’s work in salvation. Many would affirm that God calls and pulls an individual to Himself, but then, once given that grace, must choose in not rejecting that gift. RC theology is not predestinarian in the sense that Reformed theology is (i.e., particular and monergistic, although one can describe it that way by defining things differently).
Now, because there is no official doctrine concerning LFW in terms of what is given by prevenient grace, many RC’s hold to it (e.g., Bryan Cross in the previous discussion). No Arminian I know of holds to a form of LFW that gained apart from prevenient grace. I’m not, therefore, sure what your comment is implying. I don’t see an LFW that does not stem from prevenient grace in the Wesleyian system either (unless you think I was implying that RC theology is semi-Pelagian). I, of course, do think one ought to ask the question, With what is a person using to cooperate with God’s grace? If we say that grace alone does this work, with no cooperation from the individual, then what is the reason for rejection, or rather, why do some accept where others reject? But perhaps that is for a different thread.

“Further, something can be a doctrine of the Catholic church without being at the level of dogma, so even if Rome didn’t eelvate such views to the status of dogma, it wouldn’t logically follow that it wasn’t Catholic doctrine.”

I disagree with this. If that is the case, then we ought to define RC theology as that which comes from its current priests and apologists. If that be the case, then the RC view would hold to a form of LFW.

I like this a lot, but it seems in Calvinism more like God throws a grappling hook that grabs us & cannot let go & he gradually draws us to the boat with the drawing being this life & the boat being life in the fully realized Kingdom.

Sorry, but you theologians need to adapt a “crayon language” that will portray what you mean graphically. I’m an engineer and would like to see how this works out in the physical medium world.

Maybe this needs one last illustration:

Calvinists: Those who are pulled in don’t know they’re really in until they’re back at land.

Arminians: Those who are pulled in know they’re in until they decide to leave some point later.

RCC and EO: Everyone under the shadow of the boat are safe because they got wet.

Pelagian: Really could’ve gotten to shore on their own and could decide to take the next boat.

Why not include the supralapsarian view?

Mistaken, but well-intentioned followers of Christ will arrive in Heaven one day discovering that monergistic Biblical Calvinism has brought them to Salvation in Christ.

Sola Dei Gloria!

Ron, supralapsarianism looks exactly the same as Calvinism in this picture, because it affects only whether God deliberately planned for the fall to occur; and that isn’t depicted in this illustration.

You forgot about Lutherans!

WM, while I admit I didn’t carefully read the entire thing (although I did skim over it!), the Pelagian description lists the ultimate reason people find themselves in the water (viz, “The reason why they jump in the water is because they are following numerous example of those who jumped before them.”)

In light of that, it would seem reasonable to give the reason from the opposite end of the spectrum– in other words; the reason why they are in the water is because God wants them to drown, and in fact created them for that very purpose (cf. “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction”)

So while I do appreciate your response, I do believe it misses the boat– pun definitely intended! (Yeah, that idiom is a bit of a stretch, but I couldn’t resist. 😀 )

At the heart of the debate is the question of what it means to be saved “by grace through faith.”

To what extent do humans have a say over what/who they place their faith in?

If God is 100% responsible for a believer’s act of faith, is human free will a mere illusion?

Does God’s sovereignty over the rescue of sinners require the absence of free will?

Does a belief in TULIP’s “P” automatically require belief in “L” and “I”?

CMP – Thanks for being fair to us Arminians. One thing I would change is the fact of irresistibility. Arminianism teaches, rather than grabbing on to the life preserver, the person that has been brought to life must decide whether to resist being pulled out of the water. Arminian theology doesn’t teach that one grabs the life preserver but rather does not resist when God comes to save. The person struggles when brought back to life, attempting to do everything possible to save him/herself and finally gives up, realizing that s/he cannot do anything. So, when going under, the lifeguard then pulls him/her out to salvation. This is so well put in Peter’s attempt to walk on water, asking for Jesus to save him. Also, when Peter said, “Lord to whom else can we go?”

Arminius parted way with Calvinism on the issue of God’s character, not free-will or ability/non-ability. He was concerned that irresistibility smeared God’s character.

Of course, all analogies fail at some level because analogies are just to prove one point.

So God loves us so much that He stands on the boat and watches us drown, while choosing to save a few for no reason in particular – a mystery indeed.

If you were saved by grabbing a life preserver would you get on the boat and boast that you and the life guard saved you or would you humbly thank the lifeguard for saving you? This idea that a helpless person accepting help allows them to take partial credit for it seems illogical to me.

I prefer the story of Naaman. God provided the means of cleansing, but Naaman had to choose to go into the water and be clean or walk away and remain unclean. He couldn’t be cleansed any other way but God’s way and he clearly could take no credit for his cleansing even though he walked into the water under his own power. In fact, doing it God’s way was completely humiliating to him and demonstrated complete dependence on God’s power. He stood naked before the people and said I need God’s cleansing power. Is that really synergy?

By the way, I don’t want to come off with a hostile tone. I really enjoy engaging with your posts!

There are those of us who believe in TD, but we define it a bit differently. I am dead to a relationship with God, but I can still respond to His call because he gives me the power to do so. I am dead to sin, it does not have the power to control my life as a believer, but I can certainly respond to its call.

Thanks John,

“So God loves us so much that He stands on the boat and watches us drown, while choosing to save a few for no reason in particular – a mystery indeed.”

No, he does not watch them drown…they were still born. He, for some reason, chooses not to bring some back to life while leaving others in their death.

John,

The boasting comes when asking why others who drowned were not saved. The inevitable answer is, “Because I chose to grab on and they didn’t.” Or, for the Classical Arminian, “I chose to let God save me and they didn’t (i.e., I chose not to reject).” Hence, I am saved both by what the rescuers have done, and by what I have done. That doesn’t sound illogical to me at all.

Hodge,

It isn’t practical. Would any common sense reporter claim that the rescue was synergistic? Wouldn’t the headline be, “Hero rescues drowning man from water!” Without the lifepreserver the man would have nothing to hold onto. The rescuer provides the means of salvation and does bring the saving to fruition. Grabbing the lifepreserver in no way gaurantees that the person on the other end will pull the drowning man to safety. The drowning man simply graps the lifepreserver and trusts that he will be pulled on board the boat. It would be odd if the man pulled from the water started praising himself for assisting in the effort to save him. In reality, you and I both know he would be praising is rescuer.

MCP – in my view we are drowning in the water but we have no way of getting into the boat. God throws the life preserver into the water and I can take hold of it and have him pull me into the boat or I can continue to try and stay afloat on my own, in which case I will eventually drown based on my rejection of his offer of salvation.

MCP: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).

The Arminiam position could be stated that God does not use a life preserver, but like in your Calvinist example, God immediately pulls the individual out of the water into the boat(sola fide) when they accept the offer of rescue. God holds onto them during the rescue and they do nothing to get into the boat beyond accepting the offer. The individual can fall down while remaining in the boat (sin), but that the individual can also make the decision to jump out. The guard railings on the boat are high enough that you won’t fall out, you have to make a conscious effort to jump.

It isn’t practical. Would any common sense reporter claim that the rescue was synergistic? Wouldn’t the headline be, “Hero rescues drowning man from water!”

The question is about boasting, not a third party. If you’re in the water with a bunch of others, and you’re rescued while they’re not, and (here’s where the analogy breaks down) they’re held morally culpable for their part in their lack of rescue while God is excused from any blame, aren’t you morally praiseworthy for your part?

-Wm