Sunday, August 14, 2011

Condolences for Nipper

Dave Armstrong said...

Hays has now refused to acknowledge cathmom's apology…He can't even accept and acknowledge a heartfelt apology; he has to play legalistic, Pharisaical-type games and say it is "irrelevant".

That's a good case of bad theology.

Suppose my next-door-neighbor has a dog named Nipper. Suppose a teenage boy named Darren is driving through the neighborhood. Unfortunately, Darren is too busy texting his girlfriend to keep his eyes on the road, so he accidentally runs over Nipper.

Suppose Darren knocks on my door and apologizes for running over Nipper. I point out that Darren is apologizing to the wrong guy. Nipper isn’t my dog. Darren hasn’t wronged me. Darren doesn’t owe me an apology. I tell Darren he ought to apologize to my next-door-neighbor. Save his apologies for Nipper’s owner. 

Along comes Armstrong. “Hays is such a Pharisee! He refuses to even accept or acknowledge Darren’s heartfelt apology! Instead, he plays legalistic games! How disgraceful!” 


  1. Nice try Steve,

    But your analogy was far too kind.
    You must be softening up a bit.

    To begin with-
    This was just a dog that was hurt.
    And the hurt was unintentional.
    Heck, it may even have been the dogs fault too!

    This reminds me of that book The Sunflower.
    Where a Nazi on his dying bed asks for wholesale absolution from a Jewish POW.
    The author canvas's numerous theologians for an opinion on whether or not absolution should be granted. The responses are overwhelmingly pathetic.

    Firstly, the POW doesn't have that sort of authority to begin with.
    And even if he did- there was simply no evidence of repentance or reparation involved.

    So many bad theologians point to the Prodigal Son parable or the blanket absolution allegedly granted by Jesus on the cross- to support their claim that we simply may and must grant forgiveness to all.
    It simply doesn't work that way.

    But maybe I'm just a little older and harder than you are, Steve.
    And I should soften up a bit...

  2. Yes, but if you check the original thread where her apology was announced, I was told that not all forgiveness involves absolution.

    I'm not sure how that works, but there you go.

  3. To ANY who may have been offended, cathmom5 has offered her apology. Dave is not asking any of you to accept her apology on behalf of anyone else - but if you were offended, she apologizes TO YOU. If you accept it... you could acknowledge it. If you don't, just remember that God will forgive you in the same manner that you forgive others.

    Mr. Fosi - The matter of "absolution" in the context it was used is the absolution which can only be granted through the apostolic authority of the bishopric as delegated by a bishop to one of his priests. What it "means" is that insofaras cathmom5 may have offended YOU, YOU can forgive her - but you cannot absolve her of all her sins - which again, IN CONTEXT that is what the "absolution" being talked about there referred to.

    In His Service,

  4. Interesting... Thanks for the explanation. :^)

  5. And a point I should add to all... if you were NOT offended, you don't need to accept her apology. Those who spoke out against her personal opinion on this matter could still do so.

    Mr. Fosi... you're welcome.