[Apologetics] Just for fun

[Stephen Korsman]

Hi

There is already a complaint about this sort of stuff on the mailing list here - http://tinyurl.com/28wfr8

Some other worthwhile essays can be found at http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo.

God bless,
Stephen
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Stuart D. Gathman 
  To: apologetics at gathman.org 
  Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 10:41 PM
  Subject: [Apologetics] Just for fun


  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.
  _______________________________________________
  Apologetics mailing list
  Apologetics at gathman.org
  http://bmsi.com/mailman/listinfo/apologetics
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gathman.org/pipermail/apologetics/attachments/20070515/25bfc9e2/attachment.html>