As I read it, he was comparing it to confessing sin in advance of it being committed: "father, forgive me today fo the sin I'm gonna do tomorrow".
Yes, I understand the words he wrote. My question is how is this suppoed to be analagous at all? Can you help?
One case has a person who, if God did not intervene, would have sinned. Instead God "saved" that person from falling into sin. Not by pulling her out of the pit, but by keeping her on terra firma to begin with.
OK?
The other case is where a person sins and goes to obtain forgiveness. At this time the person (contrary to all proper and valid uses of hte Sacrament), expects to be given a license to sin and asks for forgiveness of the sins he will do in the future.
How is this a valid coparison at all?
in the one case the person never, ever sins.
In the other the person sins in the past, present and future.
In the one case the person is saved from sinning.
In the other, the person is "allegedly" save after sinning.
In the one, the person is prevented from sinning in the future.
In the other, the person pretends to obtain forgiveness while intending to sin in the future.
In the one repentence is not strictly necessary, though thankfullness is, since there is no sin to repent from.
In the other, repentence is not genuine, since repentence can not co-exist with an intention to continue sinnign in the future.
How is this an analogy of anything, except possibly how not to make analogies?
SD
And this right here is the sticking point. You assume it to be true. Havoc doesn't.