Several people have misinterpreted the analogy of the ship’s captain and the drowning man as if it is meant as a picture of a sinner and Jesus Christ in the event of salvation. I suppose someone could use it that way, but that was not my intention.
Here is a common mistake when thinking about an analogy–assuming it to be an analogy to something else even when it is clearly stated what it is an analogy to.
The story is not meant to depict the individual sinner’s salvation by Christ. It is meant ONLY to depict a situation in which a person cooperates in his rescue without effort.
My one and only point in composing and putting forth the analogy is to say that “cooperation” does not necessarily include “effort” in ordinary speech. Along with that point comes the implication (most important!) that credit for being saved or rescued does not go to the person who passively allows himself to be rescued but only to the rescuer.
Please don’t drift away from the point of the analogy into an argument that assumes it is what it isn’t.
Now, as for the issue of two or more people being offered rescue and one/some accepting it and one/some rejecting it. Would anyone actually give a rescued person some credit for allowing himself to be rescued (passively) just because someone else didn’t? I don’t think so. I can’t imagine anyone being taken seriously who says to the rescued man “You get some of the credit for being rescued because that other person (those other people) down there still in the water drowning declined the captain’s offer.” If that were right, then, of course, when the captain is given his medal the rescued man should stand next to him also getting a medal–just because others declined the captain’s offer of rescue. That makes no sense at all whatsoever. It would never happen.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In