[Apologetics] Just for fun

[Stuart D. Gathman]

It's been so long since I posted anything substantial, so I thought I'd 
get some automated help :-)  I took my response to Michael Hortons tract, 
and ran it through Bonsai Story Generator.

http://www.critters.org/bonsai.html

Here is the deeply insightful result (at least more insightful that some 
arguments I've had to listen to...):

I have separated the Council of the church councils, appealed to forge false
premises.  Does Rome teach salvation by works while arguing that the Council of
Trent appears to be anathema?  The problem is a Catholic FAQ - and schism and
schism, and return to note that which has already been unable to suggest that
Rome teaches dikaiooo by works.  Premise: Rome teaches dikaiooo by weakening
the popular misunderstanding that the separated two arguments against his own
conception of justification that Scripture is why the prophets, and Horton
should know better.  On page 22, Horton says that the Magisterium or both, in
conclusion, are the Horton tract in entirety.

IMO, he gives a shared understanding of the apostles as impeccable.  The logic
of theologians have separated the magisterium up to defend.  The arguments
against the Magisterium are excellent and, I have read the shifted meaning of
justification as making righteous, and evangelicals simply a shared
understanding front - as such is asking why on page they fail to be Protestants,
that Rome successfully resisted Pelagianism in vocabulary that Rome teaches
salvation by weakening the two communions for truth unlike certain other
apologists.  So here seems to match: the church requires this against his
authority.  This is exactly what Horton recognizes as such: whether the two
communions for unity, what he is, a Catholic position shows.

I think, accurate description: The text he is asking is formally defined as
never contradicting Scripture Magisterium, or going beyond the Council of
justification as his own misunderstandings of the paper is alright to match the
Latin Vulgate.  However, when quoting the only basis upon which true unity by
weakening the Council of faith, and a genuine concern for truth unlike certain
other apologists, so here seems to forge false unity by the magisterium up to
claim that does not capitalize also faith as never contradicting Scripture
Magisterium, or going beyond the different definitions of faith, and return to
reveal new revelation from God?  This is exactly what he is on page 38: When
the paper is a Catholic, apologists will make the Horton tract in Scripture,
Magisterium, or going beyond the greater understanding front - as well,
however, does not.  So the matter is hardly clear as his own conception of
tradition after the Magisterium as Horton claims, does the Magisterium as an
evolving, post-apostolic, revelatory process.

Now, it is alright to reveal new truths, but to suggest that *in practice* the
grace needed to forge false unity by intellectual assent alone, meaning 
nothing else, is not, because of the Roman doctrine of justification as Horton
claims.  Does Rome teach salvation by works?  Taking into account the separated
churches will make the sinner trying to become righteous and also faith as
intellectual assent, we get: If anyone says that Rome, like radical sects,
claims ongoing revelation, On page 26, Horton says that Rome fell away from
some false premises.

The Magisterium defined as such is flatly wrong.  [Insert example where
Magisterium is defined as never contradicting Scripture as to his authority.]
This is exactly what he is not because the pope is arrogant or crafty, but to
suggest that the separated churches will make the different definitions of
justification as his own conception of the church requires this position.
That position has been stoutly defended by the magisterium up to their own
authority: as such is formally defined, as such is flatly wrong.  [Insert
example where Magisterium has become that and the rest as support for truth
unlike certain other apologists.] So here are the two communions for truth
unlike certain other apologists, so here seems to cooperate in entirety.  IMO,
he does, what he is asking is that Protestants are the Apostles.  In
conclusion, Horton does a good spirit and schism and the apostles do not
capitalize also faith as such as not to defend.  The overall syllogism is
Premise: Scripture explicity anathematizes salvation by works?
While arguing that ...  let him be built, can we not establish church-sponsored
forums in a completely different definition of Trent declared evangelicals?
Simply much more progress needs to become righteous .  .  .

-- 
  	      Stuart D. Gathman <stuart at bmsi.com>
Business Management Systems Inc.  Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flamis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.