[Apologetics] Just for fun

Tue May 15 00:17:12 EDT 2007

This is funny, Stuart. And it makes about as much
sense as an article from Bob Sungenis.

Art

--- "Stuart D. Gathman" <stuart at gathman.org> wrote:

> 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
> 
> <!DSPAM:1128C53B24115692380717977>
> 
> 

ART KELLY, ATM-S
13524 Brightfield Lane
Herndon, Virginia 20171-3360
(703) 904-3763 home
(703) 396-6956 work
arthurkelly at yahoo.com
art.kelly at cox.net
ArtK135 at Netscape.net

____________________________________________________________________________________Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting 