FBFI

Praying in Jesus' Name

NOTE: This article appears in the July/August 2006 issue of Frontline Magazine. It appears here with permission of the publisher.

By David Pennington

Alarmingly, Bible-believing Christians in the United States of America are being denied their God-given and constitutional rights. A clear example is that clergy or designated individuals who open the Indiana House of Representatives in prayer have been forbidden to pray in Jesus’ name (see December 1, 2005, edition of the Indianapolis Star). Surprisingly, this prohibition was upheld by Judge David Hamilton who required “any person chosen to give the invocation be instructed it must not advance any one faith or be used in bid to convert listeners.” Judge Hamilton’s ruling included the prohibition of invokers praying in Jesus’ name.

312 reads

A Sovereign Mandate

NOTE: This article appears in the July/August 2006 issue of Frontline Magazine. It appears here with permission of the publisher.

By Tavis J. Long

Believing that the privilege to pray in Jesus’ name is fundamental to the Christian’s relationship with Christ, and understanding that the privilege to reference the personage of Jesus in public prayer is under increasing attack in the military chaplaincy, we resolve that our Chaplains will be supported, defended, and encouraged to pray in the name of Jesus as mandated by the Scriptures. The practice is not done as a means to ostracize or exclude Americans of other religions; however, we believe that Christian chaplains are privileged to pray in Jesus’ name, not just as a right guaranteed by human governments, but because the Scriptures mandate all Christians to offer petitions in Christ’s stead. Therefore, as an endorsing agency, the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship will expect and prepare its chaplains to practice this God-ordained commandment of invoking Jesus’ name in such a way that glorifies God and edifies fellow Christians.

Here’s a theological question. Do we worship God because the Constitution permits us to or do we worship God because of Biblical mandate? It is a simple question with a very simple answer—our worship is mandated by God, and it is only protected, not granted, by the Constitution.

219 reads

Concerning Praying in Jesus' Name: FBFI Resolution 06-05

FBFI 2006 Annual ConferenceNOTE: The following standing resolution was presented at the 86th Annual Fellowship of the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International on June 13, 2006, at Hamilton Square Baptist Church in San Francisco, California.

Be it resolved that the membership of FBFI calls upon all genuine Bible-believing Christians, including its chaplaincy, to exercise daily their God-given and constitutional rights to pray public and private prayers in the name of Jesus Christ.

162 reads

Global Warming

NOTE: This article appears in the July/August 2006 issue of Frontline Magazine. It appears here with permission of the publisher.

By Mark Bouslog and Kevin Schaal

In early February of 2006, eighty-six prominent evangelical leaders, including Rick Warren, inaugurated the “Evangelical Climate Initiative,” seeking legislation on global warming. The initiative immediately sparked a reaction from politically active evangelicals such as Charles Colson and James Dobson, declaring that “global warming is not a consensus issue.”(1) Since that time the floodgates of discussion have opened from the broader evangelical movement concerning an evangelical approach to environmental issues. Because issues of environment have now been forced into the religious and theological arena, it is appropriate for Fundamentalists to address them.

173 reads

Concerning Global Warming and the Environment: FBFI Resolution 06-04

FBFI 2006 Annual ConferenceNOTE: The following standing resolution was presented at the 86th Annual Fellowship of the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International on June 13, 2006, at Hamilton Square Baptist Church in San Francisco, California.

Fundamentalists have always believed that we must apply the principles of Scripture to all areas of life. This would include applying Biblical principles to the stewardship of the planet on which dwell. We urge all Fundamentalists to teach and model clear Biblical ethics that include:

159 reads

Concerning the Integrated Church Movement: FBFI Resolution 06-03

FBFI 2006 Annual ConferenceNOTE: The following standing resolution was presented at the 86th Annual Fellowship of the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International on June 13, 2006, at Hamilton Square Baptist Church in San Francisco, California.

While recognizing that the family is under attack in our nation and in many churches today, and recognizing that choice to have (or not have) age-graded ministries is the prerogative of individual local churches as God directs them, the FBFI denounces the doctrinally errant and schismatic teaching characteristic of the Integrated Church movement for the following reasons:

223 reads

The New Perspective on Paul: "What Saint Paul Really Said"?

Rembrandt. The Apostle Paul. c. 1657. This article appears in the July/August 2006 issue of Frontline Magazine. It appears here with permission of the publisher.

By Albin Huss Jr.

The traditional Reformation understanding of the Pauline doctrine of justification has come under attack recently. Surprisingly, the chief assault has not come from Catholic or liberal Protestant theologians but from mainstream Evangelical theologians through an increasingly popular position known as the “New Perspective on Paul” (NPP).(1) Not only does this distinct theological perspective challenge the orthodox view of justification by faith, but it categorically rejects the traditional understanding that first-century Judaism was a works-based religion. In effect, the NPP charges that the Reformers, especially Luther, were so prejudiced by their own struggles with Catholicism that they falsely caricatured Judaism and, in so doing, misread Paul. Thus, NPP advocates have taken it upon themselves to tell us What Saint Paul Really Said.(2) Herein, we will critically examine this “new and informed” reading of Paul to determine whether it is accurate or aberrant.

257 reads

Pages