What is a "transformational breath facilitator"?

Ooohhhhh....some of 'em from Naropa! Ommmmmmm.........

Denver Cemetery has come a long way since they used to teach about ecclesiastical separation, haven't they?

Don't have a problem with a certified massage therapist (unless they are different from licensed massage therapists, which I understand to be a legitimate line of work and they teach it at the community college that I currently attend).

But most of the other "professions", darned if I knew they existed.

I'm gobsmacked. This makes some of the stuff I have come across on Charismamag, the heights of Reformed Orthodoxy by comparison!

Don't know, don't watch television or take the Denver compost. Perhaps Naropa can scare them off the field by "Howl"ing?

Last rumour I heard was that CU was considering hiring "Coach Mac" back. Apparently Promise Keepers isn't keeping him busy any longer ;-)

Tim,

On the point of lacking authority - did you also notice that the closest she comes in her video to making a declarative statement is when she talks about those exegetical tools DenSem gave her so she can determine for herself what the "author of Scripture intended to convey"?

On second thought, it's not that close, is it?

Dear Sue,

Most of our readers are Protestant, which historically has meant that we believe Roman Catholic dogma is heresy, denying the free imputation of Christ's righteousness to all who believe and the proof of that free imputation the works or sanctification without which no man will see God. Of course, most Protestants today have no idea what it used to mean to be a Protestant and most Roman Catholics talk about the unity of the Roman Catholic church despite the plain fact that, although the manifestation of it is completely different in the Northern Hemisphere than in the Southern Hemishephere, Roman Catholicism is about as schismatic in its syncretism as Protestantism is in hers. Which is to say the unity of Roman Catholicism is a sham.

But here on Baylyblog, we assume most Protestants are historically orthodox Protestants and most Roman Catholics are orthodox in their commitment to the Roman heresy concerning justification. As to Eastern Orthodox, they're about as common here as feminist ideologues, so I don't bother including them in this e-mail.

We love having you here, and being able to make common cause with you and other Roman Catholics or sacramentalists despite your rejection of justification by "faith alone, but not faith by itself." But in case you ever wonder what we mean when we speak of sola fide, study up on Roman Catholicism's error of infusion (as opposed to imputation). Or better yet, read James Buchanan's masterful volume, "Justification."

With love,

David and Tim,

Thank you for your very carefully thought out response about your understanding of the theological difference between Protestants (in a general way; I know there are differences like a Baptist doesn't consider Holy Communion a sacrament and a Lutheran does) and Roman Catholics. I learned things I wasn't aware of before. But I think I gave you the wrong impression -- I am not Roman Catholic. I am Anglican (and a former Episcopalian) and was raised in a Lutheran family.

I could explain why Anglicans consider themselves neither Protestant nor Roman Catholic but that's not the point of this post and you probably knew that anyway.

All this to say that I've known Roman Catholics who have a deeply personal relationship with Jesus, study the Bible regularly, and have a prayer life that would put mine to shame, including my one of my husband's aunts and his sister and brother-in-law. For a number of reasons I don't think I could ever convert to Roman Catholicism, but I can't write off their denomination, lock, stock, and barrel as not being part of the worldwide body of Christ. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that and I'll try not to ruffle feathers because of my views on this issue.

Happy belated Feast of the Resurrection of our Lord,

Sue, my advice would be to distinguish between the gold from the dross here, and go with the gold. These guys are Truly Reformed, and so this is naturally what they're going to say about Catholicism. I just take that all with a grain of salt, and focus instead on the truth of what they're saying about Pomegranate Place.

Caedmon (Anglican Catholic)

From Wikipedia's lengthy entry under "Thirty-Nine Articles": "the Articles are a revealing window into the ethos and character of Anglicanism, in particular in the way the document works to navigate a via media, or 'middle path,' between the beliefs and practices of the Roman Catholic Church and of the English Puritans, thus lending the Church of England a mainstream Reformed air. The 'via media' was expressed so adroitly in the Articles that some Anglican scholars have labeled their content as an early example of the idea that the doctrine of Anglicanism is one of 'Reformed Catholicism.'"

And by "Catholicism," they do not mean Romanism.

Love,

Dear Caedmon,

Words have many meanings, and the much-vetted wiki piece says what I meant when I used the words in the first place. It's fine for you to say you don't agree, but both "reformed" and "Catholic" are much-debated terms and it's not really helpful to claim you alone guard them properly.

The 39 Articles are not semi-Pelagian, but Augustinian. My friend, Phil Jensen, and his brother, Peter, along with all those Sydney Anglicans they shepherd, are much closer to historic Anglicanism than either the North American sodomites or the Anglo-Catholics. And no one would ever argue they aren't reformed and Evangelical.

You and others may well argue, however, that they're not Anglican.

By the way, one of the most excellent short summaries of the Reformed and Evangelical Christian faith was written by Moore Theological College's T. C. Hammond, the Sydney Anglican, titled "In Understanding, Be Men."

It's in my library.

Love,