The Allure of Analogy (and its Pitfalls)
Let me start off by saying that analogies in and of themselves aren’t the problem. In fact, God and Scripture make use of many earthly analogies and metaphors to help us understand spiritual truth. For example, the Kingdom of Heaven is like…
Weeds (Matthew 13:24-26)
Mustard Seed (Matthew 13:31-32)
Leaven (Matthew 13:33)
Hidden Treasure (Matthew 13:44)
Pear of Great Value (Matthew 13:45-46)
Net (Matthew 13:47-48)
New and Old Treasures (Matthew 13:51-52)
All that in one chapter. So what’s the problem? There are two problems I’m aware of.
Making Up Your Own
The first problem is people’s tendency to create their own analogies. Some do it with the aim to faithfully explain difficult theological concepts to laymen, while others aim to refute a theological system they disagree with. Let me give a simple example.
“If someone were to tell you that they were going to ‘depart’ from your house, but they’re not in your house, would that make any sense? What if they are not in your house and have never been to your house? Still not making any sense.”
That was an attempt to refute Eternal Security, basing it on 1 Timothy 4:1. That sounds right, yet it is wrong and unbiblical (cf. Proverbs 16:25). It doesn’t make any sense when you lean on your own understanding (Proverbs 3:5-8), and from that, people are forced to make up an analogy to confirm their lack of understanding. Why not just go with the one Scripture has provided for us, Matthew 22:11–13?
11 “But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw a man there who did not have on a wedding garment. 12 So he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you come in here without a wedding garment?’ And he was speechless. 13 Then the king said to the servants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
According to Matthew 22:11-13, a person can be in a house and yet not truly belong there. In other words, in but not of. We learn from Christ that Christians can be in the world but not of the world (cf. John 17). Likewise, Satan’s ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness (2 Corinthians 11:13-15), who are in the community of faith but not of the faith. Eventually they will depart from the faith (cf. 1 Timothy 4:1) because they were “not of us” (1 John 2:19) or not of the faith. For my post on this, check out: https://soteriology.substack.com/p/on-eternal-security-part-5
If you don’t begin with the analogies and examples Scripture provides, you risk imbalance and potentially falling into heresy by shaping an analogy to suit your own views. For example,
When addressing the unsaved, preachers often draw an analogy between God’s sending of the Gospel to the sinner, and a sick man in bed, with some healing medicine on a table by his side: all he needs to do is reach forth his hand and take it. But in order for this illustration to be in any wise true to the picture which Scripture gives us of the fallen and depraved sinner, the sick man in bed must be described as one who is blind (Ephesians 4:18) so that he cannot see the medicine, his hand paralyzed (Romans 5:6) so that he is unable to reach forth for it, and his heart not only devoid of all confidence in the medicine but filled with hatred against the physician himself (John 15:18). O what superficial views of man’s desperate plight are now entertained! Christ came here not to help those who were willing to help themselves, but to do for His people what they were incapable of doing for themselves: “To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house” (Isaiah 42:7).
A non-Calvinist often employs analogy in a way that aligns with their theological system. However, if they sought an analogy faithful to Scripture, they would have no choice but to agree with the one A.W. Pink slightly modified. This isn’t limited to average or lay non-Calvinists; even learned men and scholars do it. Here is a perfect example of that: The following excerpt is taken from R.C. Sproul’s lecture, “Man’s Radical Fallenness”. Sproul once debated a New Testament scholar,
As we were discussing this question, he cited this verse, “No man can come to Me unless the Father draw him” (John 6:44), and He was interpreting it to mean “attract or woo.” And I quickly pointed to his attention something that I really didn’t think I needed to, since he was the New Testament scholar, and I’m not. I said, “What about the use of it in James 2 and Acts 16?” He granted that those texts did indeed use the more forcible interpretation of the verb and that the verb was capable of being translated “to drag.”
So I asked the question, “Then why are you insisting that ‘draw’ is less compelling than ‘drag’?” He said, “Because we have an instance of where this verb is used in the classical Greek language in a play by Euripides,” or something I had never heard of, and he said, “This is the verb the Greeks used when they ‘drew’ water out of a well.”
I was completely nonplussed—I had no idea of that particular usage. He said to me, “So you see, Professor Sproul, it’s perfectly legitimate to use the word ‘draw’ because nobody ‘drags’ water out of a well.” And the place broke up, you know, and I was embarrassed because I didn’t even know that occurred.
This New Testament scholar drew upon Greek literature to inform his understanding of Scripture and selected an analogy that aligned with his presuppositions. Here’s how Sproul responded:
Then I said, “I grant that you don’t drag water out of a well, but sir, how do you get water out of a well? Do you stand up at the top of the well and say, ‘Here, water, water, water’? Do you woo water out of a well? Do you entice water out of a well, or must you do something that will compel that water to go against gravity and get it up there where you can use it?”
That interaction is a perfect example of Proverbs 18:15. Always be on alert when you are dealing with lovers of analogy, and make sure you hear both sides.
Going Above and Beyond
The second problem is extending an analogy or metaphor beyond what Scripture intended. Every parable and analogy in Scripture makes its own point, and if pressed too far, it becomes foolish and ultimately teaches falsehood. A perfect example of this is the parable of the persistent widow found in Luke 18. The parable is given to teach us to be persistent in our prayers, “He spoke a parable to them, that men always ought to pray and not lose heart.” That’s the lesson of the parable. It’s not meant for us to compare God to the unjust judge in every way. While it’s true that God is, in a sense, like the unjust judge in that He will eventually answer those who cry out to Him day and night, even if delayed, demonstrating His justice and faithfulness, He is incomparable. God is not a man that He should lie, and there is none like Him.
The Parable of the Prodigal Son is another example of extending the passage beyond its intended scope. If the prodigal son could return home by his own free will while in a state of “deadness,” then it must be true for everyone, right? Wrong. Authors use words differently, and we must allow context to determine meaning. One can be called (Matthew 22:14) outwardly, in a general sense, yet not be effectually called (Romans 8:28). One can be chosen (John 6:70), yet not ultimately chosen (Matthew 22:14; Acts 1:24). Likewise, “dead” in Luke 15:24,32 is not the same as “dead” in Ephesians 2:1,5. We must allow the author to define his usage of words within his own writing rather than imposing our presuppositions onto the text—a practice non-Calvinists often exhibit.
Now, for the sake of argument, let’s assume the non-Calvinists are correct that “dead” in Luke 15 refers to spiritual inability as in Ephesians 2. If so, then God is far ahead of us, having already given us two parables that precede the prodigal son. This is the balance of Scripture which we’ll get to in a moment.
The third parable would be likely to be misunderstood without the first and the second. We have sometimes heard it said — here is the prodigal received as soon as he comes back, no mention being made of a Savior who seeks and saves him. Is it possible to teach all truths in one single parable? Does not the first one speak of the shepherd seeking the lost sheep? Why need repeat what had been said before? It has also been said that the prodigal returned of his own free will, for there is no hint of the operation of a superior power upon his heart, it seems as if he himself spontaneously says, "I will arise, and go unto my Father." The answer is, that the Holy Spirit’s work had been clearly described in the second parable, and needed not to be introduced again. If you put the three pictures in a line, they represent the whole compass of salvation, but each one apart sets forth the work in reference to one or other of the divine persons of the blessed Trinity. The shepherd, with much pain and self-sacrifice, seeks the reckless, wandering sheep; the woman diligently searches for the insensible but lost piece of money; the father receives the returning prodigal. What God has joined together, let no man put asunder. The three life-sketches are one, and one truth is taught in the whole three, yet each one is distinct from the other, and by itself instructive. —Spurgeon (The Lost Silver Piece, A Sermon, No.970)
Spurgeon asks, “Is it possible to teach all truths in one single parable?” The short answer is no. Each parable and analogy in Scripture makes a specific theological point. Just as we have four different gospel accounts to fully understand Christ and His Gospel rightly, the same holds true for parables, analogies, and metaphors. When taken together, biblical parables and analogies act as guardrails. Here’s a perfect example:
The Son of God is both the Word and Son. These two metaphors supplement and protect each other. To think of Christ merely as the Word might suggest an impersonal faculty in God. On the other hand, to think of Him only as the Son might limit us to the conception of a created being. When the two terms are combined, there is no room for either an impersonal faculty or a created being. The substance of John 1:1-18 is that He who is the logos was with God and was God. Three great facts are presented in John 1:1; they are: (1) When the Word was-‘in the beginning’; (2) Where the Word was-‘with God’; and (3) Who the Word was-‘God.’ First, the ‘Word was in the beginning.’ The sun, moon, and stars ‘were made’ in the beginning, but the Word ‘was’ in the beginning. —W.E. Best
And that brings us to the Balance of Scripture.
The Balance of Scripture
The wisdom of man cannot be compared to the wisdom of God. When people speak, they speak according to their own deceitful Hearts. People are often led astray by what sounds right rather than what is biblical. This is why we are exhorted to renew our minds daily. It’s also the reason we must guard our Hearts.
Only Scripture provides the balance and safeguards needed to protect us from the pitfalls of man-made analogies. Jesus, being both the Word and the Son, exemplifies this perfectly, as we have just seen. If we want to discuss making wise use of our time, gifts, and talents, the Parable of the Talents addresses that matter (Matthew 25:14–30). And if we want to discuss fruit-bearing and what it requires, we turn to the metaphor Christ gives us in John 15. The mistake lies in using the metaphor in John 15 to claim salvation can be lost when other parables and metaphors throughout Scripture teach the opposite.
The New Testament uses various metaphors and analogies to describe salvation. Here’s a helpful list I found, taken from: http://dogmadoxa.blogspot.ca/2011/10/how-new-testament-describes-conversion.html.
Justification: the lawcourt metaphor (Romans 5:1; Titus 3:7)
Sanctification: the cultus metaphor (1 Corinthians 1:2; 1 Thessalonians 4:3)
Adoption: the familial metaphor (Romans 8:15; 1 John 3:1–2)
Reconciliation: the relational metaphor (Romans 5:1–11; 2 Corinthians 5:18–20)
Washing: the physical cleansing metaphor (1 Corinthians 6:11; Titus 3:7)
Redemption: the slave market metaphor (Ephesians 1:7; Revelation 14:3–4)
Purchase: the financial transaction metaphor (1 Corinthians 6:20; 2 Peter 2:1)
Wedding: the marriage metaphor (Ephesians 5:31-32; Revelation 21:2)
Liberation: the imprisonment metaphor (Galatians 5:1; Revelation 1:5)
New Birth: the physical generation metaphor (John 3:3–7; 1 Peter 1:3, 23)
Illumination: the light metaphor (John 12:35–36; 2 Corinthians 4:4–6)
New Creation: the redemptive-historical metaphor (2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 6:15)
Resurrection: the bodily metaphor (Ephesians 2:6; Colossians 3:1)
Union with Christ: the organic or spatial metaphor (Romans 6:1–14; 2 Timothy 1:9)
As you can see, each metaphor conveys a specific theological point. And if we are going to use analogy or metaphor, it is wise to use those already found in Scripture. Otherwise, people may invent their own and begin teaching unbiblical doctrines. Once you understand and embrace the balance of Scripture, you will come to grasp what it truly means not to be led astray by philosophies and empty deceit (Colossians 2:8).
Lover of Truth
Love truth and stand firmly in it. When your delight is in God’s truth, He will give you the wisdom to speak in a way no one can refute (cf. Acts 6), so much so that you won’t need to depend on unbiblical analogies. A theological system or framework not grounded in Scripture will need man-made analogies for support. This is why non-Calvinists often rely on analogies to defend their theology, and when they do use Scripture, they frequently incorporate their own man-made analogies or presuppositions alongside it.
Let me end with a biblical analogy found in Proverbs 21:1.
The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD,
Like the rivers of water;
He turns it wherever He wishes.
There couldn’t be a better example than the one God Himself provides. If you want to understand how God changes the Heart and the extent of His control over our choices and direction in life, look no further than Proverbs 21:1: “Like rivers of water, He turns it wherever He wishes.” God doesn’t wait for rivers of water, nor does He seek their permission; He directs them wherever He wishes. God directs nature in the same way He directs Hearts. Yet, many non-Calvinists with whom I’ve interacted regarding this verse completely overlook the analogy God provides. Instead, they interpret it in terms of opportunities and external factors. God changes our Hearts through the circumstances He allows in life. This is the kind of argument one resorts to when Reformed Soteriology cannot be refuted with biblical analogies.