<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3086" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Hi</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><FONT
face=Arial size=2></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>There is already a complaint about this sort of
stuff on the mailing list here - </FONT><A
href="http://tinyurl.com/28wfr8"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>http://tinyurl.com/28wfr8</FONT></A></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Some other worthwhile essays can be found at <A
href="http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo">http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo</A>.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial><FONT
size=2></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>God bless,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Stephen</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=stuart@gathman.org href="mailto:stuart@gathman.org">Stuart D.
Gathman</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=apologetics@gathman.org
href="mailto:apologetics@gathman.org">apologetics@gathman.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, May 14, 2007 10:41 PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [Apologetics] Just for fun</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>It's been so long since I posted anything substantial, so I
thought I'd <BR>get some automated help :-) I took my response to
Michael Hortons tract, <BR>and ran it through Bonsai Story
Generator.<BR><BR><A
href="http://www.critters.org/bonsai.html">http://www.critters.org/bonsai.html</A><BR><BR>Here
is the deeply insightful result (at least more insightful that some
<BR>arguments I've had to listen to...):<BR><BR>I have separated the Council
of the church councils, appealed to forge false<BR>premises. Does Rome
teach salvation by works while arguing that the Council of<BR>Trent appears to
be anathema? The problem is a Catholic FAQ - and schism and<BR>schism,
and return to note that which has already been unable to suggest that<BR>Rome
teaches dikaiooo by works. Premise: Rome teaches dikaiooo by
weakening<BR>the popular misunderstanding that the separated two arguments
against his own<BR>conception of justification that Scripture is why the
prophets, and Horton<BR>should know better. On page 22, Horton says that
the Magisterium or both, in<BR>conclusion, are the Horton tract in
entirety.<BR><BR>IMO, he gives a shared understanding of the apostles as
impeccable. The logic<BR>of theologians have separated the magisterium
up to defend. The arguments<BR>against the Magisterium are excellent
and, I have read the shifted meaning of<BR>justification as making righteous,
and evangelicals simply a shared<BR>understanding front - as such is asking
why on page they fail to be Protestants,<BR>that Rome successfully resisted
Pelagianism in vocabulary that Rome teaches<BR>salvation by weakening the two
communions for truth unlike certain other<BR>apologists. So here seems
to match: the church requires this against his<BR>authority. This is
exactly what Horton recognizes as such: whether the two<BR>communions for
unity, what he is, a Catholic position shows.<BR><BR>I think, accurate
description: The text he is asking is formally defined as<BR>never
contradicting Scripture Magisterium, or going beyond the Council
of<BR>justification as his own misunderstandings of the paper is alright to
match the<BR>Latin Vulgate. However, when quoting the only basis upon
which true unity by<BR>weakening the Council of faith, and a genuine concern
for truth unlike certain<BR>other apologists, so here seems to forge false
unity by the magisterium up to<BR>claim that does not capitalize also faith as
never contradicting Scripture<BR>Magisterium, or going beyond the different
definitions of faith, and return to<BR>reveal new revelation from God?
This is exactly what he is on page 38: When<BR>the paper is a Catholic,
apologists will make the Horton tract in Scripture,<BR>Magisterium, or going
beyond the greater understanding front - as well,<BR>however, does not.
So the matter is hardly clear as his own conception of<BR>tradition after the
Magisterium as Horton claims, does the Magisterium as an<BR>evolving,
post-apostolic, revelatory process.<BR><BR>Now, it is alright to reveal new
truths, but to suggest that *in practice* the<BR>grace needed to forge false
unity by intellectual assent alone, meaning <BR>nothing else, is not, because
of the Roman doctrine of justification as Horton<BR>claims. Does Rome
teach salvation by works? Taking into account the separated<BR>churches
will make the sinner trying to become righteous and also faith
as<BR>intellectual assent, we get: If anyone says that Rome, like radical
sects,<BR>claims ongoing revelation, On page 26, Horton says that Rome fell
away from<BR>some false premises.<BR><BR>The Magisterium defined as such is
flatly wrong. [Insert example where<BR>Magisterium is defined as never
contradicting Scripture as to his authority.]<BR>This is exactly what he is
not because the pope is arrogant or crafty, but to<BR>suggest that the
separated churches will make the different definitions of<BR>justification as
his own conception of the church requires this position.<BR>That position has
been stoutly defended by the magisterium up to their own<BR>authority: as such
is formally defined, as such is flatly wrong. [Insert<BR>example where
Magisterium has become that and the rest as support for truth<BR>unlike
certain other apologists.] So here are the two communions for truth<BR>unlike
certain other apologists, so here seems to cooperate in entirety.
IMO,<BR>he does, what he is asking is that Protestants are the Apostles.
In<BR>conclusion, Horton does a good spirit and schism and the apostles do
not<BR>capitalize also faith as such as not to defend. The overall
syllogism is<BR>Premise: Scripture explicity anathematizes salvation by
works?<BR>While arguing that ... let him be built, can we not establish
church-sponsored<BR>forums in a completely different definition of Trent
declared evangelicals?<BR>Simply much more progress needs to become righteous
. . .<BR><BR>-- <BR> Stuart
D. Gathman <<A
href="mailto:stuart@bmsi.com">stuart@bmsi.com</A>><BR>Business Management
Systems Inc. Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154<BR>"Confutatis
maledictis, flamis acribus addictis" - background song for<BR>a Microsoft
sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?"
commercial.<BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Apologetics
mailing list<BR><A
href="mailto:Apologetics@gathman.org">Apologetics@gathman.org</A><BR><A
href="http://bmsi.com/mailman/listinfo/apologetics">http://bmsi.com/mailman/listinfo/apologetics</A><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>