Concerning the article addressed, agree with the overall objective; disagree with adding the modifier "true" to "born-again believers." Dead give away that it is likely (I am not saying for sure) Mr. Idleman's theological position is reformed / Calvinist to some extent.

The way I know that saying "true" born-again believers is erroneous, because would you say "false" born-again believers? If the opposite doesn't have meaning, why does the counter-opposite? Folks are either born-gain, or not; God sorts it out just fine and I agree that a pastor teaching the Word faithfully and helping shepherd the flock to walk that teaching out in their lives daily will weed out the excess readily, whether they are believers not interested (yes, they can and do exist), or unbelievers not interested (yes, you could have something in your church who is curious, but not a believer, and listening to see whether there is veracity to the teaching and something to put their faith in for eternal life.

I continue to be troubled by this worship of Calvin. I attend a 5 point Calvinist church so I know not only the tenets of Calvin, but how it plays out in a church boldly celebrating Calvin, as an undercurrent, with every function of my local church.

FYI - I am not Arminian either. I am a biblicist and the Gospel isn't believe and commit, believe and produce works, or believe and anything else. "It is finished," as our illustrious Lord said, means there is nothing you do to gain eternal life, but to exercise your faith (not something God gives you, but what you exercise same as you believe George Washington walked the Earth, but you have never seen him) as the instrument God uses to impute to you spiritual righteousness, making you qualified to be with Him forever. Anything added to this is another Gospel and blasphemy (read Galatians).

Those that would say different I liken to JWs or Mormons, who are happy to take the same bible you take to church (I know they have other translations and such, but they won't quibble over versions...I have talked to them, so I know), yet, they twist and misinterpret toward and agenda set by a man, same as Calvinists and Aminians.

Couple things:
1) Why I go to this Calvinist church when I vehemently disagree with TULIP. Because it is the best church around that agrees with the fundamentals of the faith and the believers take the "one another" passages in the Epistles and some of the Gospels (as commands in so much there could be applicable to the Church) very seriously and live them out. This is rare and will not garner thousands of "butts in seats" as most church growth programs seek and think reflects blessing from God.
2) I have left many comments in the past indicating why I am not an adherent to Calvin (at least as his successors laid out in the counter remonstrants).
3) May I say this and I have yet to here a single pastor or other bible teacher mention this. Calvin had a major issue (as he states in his Institutes) with the "leadership from afar" approach by the Roman Catholic Church. This is now being reflected in these satellite churches pushed by the church growth movement. Now, some may ordain an asst. pastor, or pastor of another location to shepherd the flock there and as long as elders and deacons are elected and officed according to the Word, I have less an issue....the key is that the pastor is shepherding first through teaching the Word (not teaching stories with support by the Word). I cannot get my head around why it is so hard for pastors to each directly from the Word for a portion of their sermon, then turn and say, "folks, now what to do with this...I will walk you through it" on a practical level. Pastors just seem to have been sold a bill of goods out in the seminaries, if they attended, and now cannot seem to connect the Word with living....as I should, I have to explain to my wife what our pastor says because he doesn't say it plainly enough after going through the passage. Yes, I have told him....it won't change...I am one man vs a congregation that is "happy" that they simply have a faithful pastor and they swallow everything he says....that is another show altogether I won't get into here.

Mr. Lemay, I am sure you have heard of Francis Schaeffer. He addressed the very same subject matter and could see well ahead of his time because he understood the nature of man, as the Bible clearly teaches. I hope many will buy your book and read and learn about the cosmic deception the Enemy has foisted upon mankind called secular humanism, BUT, I am afraid that many in the Church are not capable of thinking any more because they have rejected thinking for so long, if they wanted to think, they would not know where to begin. This is largely caused by pastors who do not give congregants what they need, but what they want.

Concerning the bible studies occurring in Representative Tittle's government office, though such studies may be being held after work hours, that office is not his personal property, but government property. If there is no law against him holding such events on government property, then no issue, but if only official government business is to be conducted in his office, then he should hold the bible studies elsewhere.

It is not a matter of standing up against liberals and atheists, but respecting the laws of the government, which God established. There are plenty of locations where I am sure that bible study could take place (local burger joint, etc...), if there is any government rules against activities we are not official government business on government property.

It is that simple. Oh, by the way, I am a fundamental believer in Jesus Christ and want the bible taught in as many places as legally allowed as possible.

If we are to be "color-blind" as believers then why is there a statement in the above that Dr. Ware's bible college has almost an equal enrollment of minority and white students? Why is this important to state? It gives the reader the sense that the college uses some type of affirmative action, which we know is simply reverse racism. Please address as this is rather concerning. Thanks.

Hey Manny....just been busy with other things. Good to hear from you.

The decline of a nation proves to me that man doesn't evolve as he keeps making the same mistakes resulting in the same results, which can only be countered by biblical thinking and acting.

What we are seeing is the same degradation and lethargy that the population of Rome allowed themselves to be a part of. People choose all this entertainment and time-wasting.

Although reading books isn't necessarily a spiritual barometer, it is a barometer of literacy; hence a general guide as to those who might actually read the Bible. Considering this, I find it almost a point of amusement to ask friends and new acquaintances what books they have been reading lately. I get blank stares, then back-peddling into "well, I read the news online" or some other copout.

I will be honest here....I have to force myself to read because I am not excited about reading, but I know that literacy is directly connected and some, not all, of the best paying jobs require significant literacy and ability to communicate well in a particular language.

We have been in trouble for a long, long, long time.

Continually sinning in a particular area used to be called sinful backsliding and spiritual reversionism; now, words such as disorder and addiction reverse the responsibility from the committer to the environment.

Classic Satanic doctrine....just classic.

Boys and girls, don't let people who rely on humanistic, psychological studies to control the language, or definitions. No better way can this be demonstrated than the word "marriage."

Folks, remember the steering away from believing that the bible is the inerrant, infallible, complete Word of God back in the mid-1800's? This was called 19th Century Theological Liberalism creating a major split in the early 1900's amongst theologians.

Fast forward to today and this is what you get. Do not be surprised; better yet, get ready to minister to these poor souls and remember that they may very well be believers as one's fruit is not indicative of their justification as the Calvinists would teach.

I disagree with the premise of the first paragraph of this blog post, which assumes that we should not be so quick to profile Muslims for criminal activity because this could eventually lead to any religious group being targeted for profiling.

This of course is fallacious because Muslims are people that have a belief system which results in murdering people; those that are liberal in their religion are in denial of the true teachings of the Q'ran. God has charged gov'ts to protect their citizens from enemies external and internal. Profiling doesn't mean incarceration or conviction without reasonable suspicion, and of course those profiled could just as well lie as they could tell the truth; however, when you have a certain portion of the population of a country (fundamental Muslims) that believes in murder and most often will include themselves in the deadly application of their beliefs (murder/suicide), the gov't MUST act to protect the rest of society.

Christians do not have such a belief system; however, if a Christian were to violate the law by murdering in the name of God, then that one should be put to death per the Noahic Covenant which setup gov't for all the nations issuing the decree for innocent blood being shed to result in the death of the perpetrator. No, not all gov'ts put such a one to death, but it doesn't change the Bible. Experience should be interpreted in light of the Bible, not the other way around.

I am at a loss why there is this continued misapplication of "turning the other cheek" and Christian love as though this even applies to gov'ts. Gov't's primary purpose is to ensure freedom to worship God for its citizens and for those that do to be free to share the Gospel both inside and outside national borders. Not much more than that. When gov't refuses to protect free worship by restricting the activities of those that would kill such freedoms, then the gov't is the problem.