Teaching on Calling on the Name of the Lord

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

Yes, the name of Jesus has power in it. But even the account (I believe in Acts) has an account of men trying to do miracles by invoking the name of Jesus.

Simply saying things like " the name of Jesus . . . has power in it" you come off as seeming to invoke the name simply as a source of power. Reminds me of that scene in The Mummy where Evelyn starts to read something out loud from the Book of the Dead and it is evident that something happens immediately.

I am fully aware that God can and does do things exactly like that. But mostly He does not. And he is not simply a power to be called into action through special words. The one famous reference to calling on the name of the Lord is not associated with general receiving of power, but with obtaining salvation.

We understand that the name equals the person. So to use the name is to use the person. And the person has power, we cannot separate the power and the person.

Many Christians in the denominations say "in Jesus name" at the end of their prayers. Is this not their attempt to invoke a special power by special words?

Originally Posted by OBW

You are correct to say that there are many who do rote prayers who are not "getting through to God." But it is not because of how they do it (rote prayers v saying "Oh Lord Jesus") but that they are simply trying to use a "Christian" Talisman to force the God of power to come to their aid.

As for speaking about the provision, solving of problems, etc., by calling on His name or invoking his presence, is that really a true statement? Are problems as consistently solved as we like to say, or are we more often comforted in the midst of problems that continue? I think that we send the wrong message when we use the terminology of getting some kind of earthly benefit rather than simply recognize that the most important thing we get from God is not benefits to me other than the strength to live the life that we were created to live.

I honestly think that it is difficult to comment on "invoking His presence" in terms of solving problems because the number of such invocations relative to the number of problems solved is not necessarily different than the general resolution of such problems. I am one who will always give God the glory for what benefits come my way. But I do not presume that it is some kind of special provision that I get that is truly different from what others get just for being alive. The most important part of what I get from God is the opportunity to live my life as part of His kingdom — and more and more, day by day, living it in the way that he created us to live it.

What I don't see is any indication that "calling on the name of the Lord" is intended to simply be a kind of chant to feel better. And in the case of the usage by those in the so-called local churches, it has been used as a pick-me-up in the midst of very dark actions. The short break in the midst of the Whistler conference to roast Titus Chu for wanting clean sheets, teaching young ones to use Bible dictionaries and commentaries, and publishing his own materials is an excellent case in point. The end of this charade was the expulsion of Titus Chu. A gathering of leaders from North America plus a few from around the world excluded someone from fellowship for nothing that was worthy of such action from anything I can find in the Bible. Yet this is the action of those who are so proud of how the call on the name of the Lord.

It suggests that their practice really has no power in it at all. Not that God has no power, but that the mere invocation of His name is not the invocation of his power, or a rubber stamp on the actions of the one(s) doing the invoking.

There are many examples in the bible where people used the name of Jesus and things happened, they were rescued, they were saved, just by calling on the name. There are still many examples today in Christianity.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We understand that the name equals the person. So to use the name is to use the person. And the person has power, we cannot separate the power and the person.

The name does not equal the person. This has been said ad nauseum, especially by Lee, but with nothing to support it. That kind of thinking a making the name into a thing of its own that has power. But when you "call on the name of he Lord" the idea was to request the person who had the ability to act.

I know, it sounds like the same thing. But it is not. It is like a phone number. If you say that the phone number = the person who might answer the phone, you are wrong. But if you dial the number, you will get the person. The number is a means to get to the person. It is not the person.

Simply calling on the Lord over and over is like picking up your phone and dialing a number over and over but never letting it connect or talking to the person at the other end of the line.

To be honest with you, the whole idea of this kind of uber-religious mantra of calling on the name of the Lord reminds me of something like going to your father's house, studying the furniture in the various rooms, and occasionally knocking on the door to the room in which he resides, but never entering the room.

He knows you are out there. He knows that you speak his name over and over, and that you study about him. But you don't enter the room. Once inside the room, it is time for something besides the continuance of the mantra.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Many Christians in the denominations say "in Jesus name" at the end of their prayers. Is this not their attempt to invoke a special power by special words?

You could be correct on this one. I have said the same thing going back to my days in the LRC (that would be 1973 - 87). But they have less intentional expectation that they get what they want just because of the ending.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There are many examples in the bible where people used the name of Jesus and things happened, they were rescued, they were saved, just by calling on the name. There are still many examples today in Christianity.

Are you really sure about that? Are you stuck with the idea that the words "called on the Lord" simply means say the name? I'm pretty sure that in virtually every instance it is really an alternate term for praying. More than just the mantra. Real conversation. Real speaking about those low, personal needs that Lee was so loath to hear in any kind of LRC prayer meeting. Only high prayers allowed.

So, like aron notes elsewhere, badger skins are Christ, but calling on the name of the Lord is merely to say his name.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

The name does not equal the person. This has been said ad nauseum, especially by Lee, but with nothing to support it. That kind of thinking a making the name into a thing of its own that has power. But when you "call on the name of he Lord" the idea was to request the person who had the ability to act.

I know, it sounds like the same thing. But it is not. It is like a phone number. If you say that the phone number = the person who might answer the phone, you are wrong. But if you dial the number, you will get the person. The number is a means to get to the person. It is not the person.

Simply calling on the Lord over and over is like picking up your phone and dialing a number over and over but never letting it connect or talking to the person at the other end of the line.

To be honest with you, the whole idea of this kind of uber-religious mantra of calling on the name of the Lord reminds me of something like going to your father's house, studying the furniture in the various rooms, and occasionally knocking on the door to the room in which he resides, but never entering the room.

He knows you are out there. He knows that you speak his name over and over, and that you study about him. But you don't enter the room. Once inside the room, it is time for something besides the continuance of the mantra.

Yes it is our understanding that when we call the name we get the person. The name itself has no magical power and in fact the English name Jesus is the wrong name anyway.

What are you saying only applies to unbelievers or non-genuine believers, like the sons of Sceva, where the name does not necessarily equal the person.

If we are believers then the "phone line" is already installed in us. So when we "dial the number" by calling the name, we get the Person, always, 100%, there is no dropouts and nothing further we must do to access the Person.
So to us the name equals the person.

Technically when we pray a "normal" prayer, we don't get the person either. He does not come down from Heaven to meet with us physically. He meets with us by His Spirit.

Originally Posted by OBW

Are you really sure about that? Are you stuck with the idea that the words "called on the Lord" simply means say the name? I'm pretty sure that in virtually every instance it is really an alternate term for praying. More than just the mantra. Real conversation. Real speaking about those low, personal needs that Lee was so loath to hear in any kind of LRC prayer meeting. Only high prayers allowed.

So, like aron notes elsewhere, badger skins are Christ, but calling on the name of the Lord is merely to say his name.

Actually, it is not just saying the name. We must use our spirit. This is emphasized very much in the Recovery.

Jesus Himself said our personal needs would be taken care of if we seek first His kingdom. That is something we don't have to pray so much about and not really something worth everyone's time. I'm sure that when Jesus sent the disciples out two by two, they were not begging and pleading with God to feed and clothe them on the way. God provided as they went.

When we come together for fellowship we don't want to hear prayers about someone's lost puppy dog and things like that. That is a waste of everyone's time and defeats the purpose of coming together.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If we are believers then the "phone line" is already installed in us. So when we "dial the number" by calling the name, we get the Person, always, 100%, there is no dropouts and nothing further we must do to access the Person. So to us the name equals the person.

Actually, it is not just saying the name. We must use our spirit. This is emphasized very much in the Recovery.

Romans 10:9
if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

My brother, according to Witness Lee, "calling on the Lord" WAS TO "use our spirit". They were/are part and parcel of the very same thing. "Pray-Reading" was to use our spirit as well. You caught yourself, so you admit: "Actually, it is not just saying the name".

The verse I have cited above, though it ostensibly relates to our initial salvation, applies to the matter at hand, I believe. "Confess" is with the mouth - "Believe" is with the heart. I must tell you that to "believe in our heart" is altogether something different than "using our spirit" as taught by Witness Lee. Believing is a matter of conviction - a firm persuasion of heart and mind. "Calling on the Lord", even if taken in the sense you have presented, is only half the equation (at the very least in our salvation), yet it is taken to be much more in the teaching and practices established by Witness Lee, and continued by his followers to this very day.

I would contend that the vast majority of Local Church brothers and sisters have a firm persuasion of heart and mind towards the teachings and practices established by Witness Lee, but are decidedly and blissfully ignorant of the teachings and practices established by the Lord Jesus in the Gospels, and those established and exemplified by the original and scripture writing apostles of the New Testament era. There simply is no evidence that the early Christian apostles or disciples practiced verbally calling out "Oh, Lord Jesus", or even anything of the sort. There simply is no evidence that the early Christian apostles or disciples practiced "pray-reading" as practiced in the Local Church, or even anything of the sort. This is NOT to say that these practices are necessarily un-biblical per se, only that they are in no way provable to be "recovered truth".

OBW says it better than my babbling above, so I'll just re-post the applicable portion:

Originally Posted by OBW

Simply calling on the Lord over and over is like picking up your phone and dialing a number over and over but never letting it connect or talking to the person at the other end of the line.
To be honest with you, the whole idea of this kind of uber-religious mantra of calling on the name of the Lord reminds me of something like going to your father's house, studying the furniture in the various rooms, and occasionally knocking on the door to the room in which he resides, but never entering the room.
He knows you are out there. He knows that you speak his name over and over, and that you study about him. But you don't enter the room. Once inside the room, it is time for something besides the continuance of the mantra.

[Evangelical]

Verse 12 and 13 also says:

For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”[f]

14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in?

According to Romans 10, the pattern is sending, hearing, preaching, believing, calling, in that order.


That's not true. When we say the name of Jesus we must use our spirit. It is possible to call on the Lord without using our spirit, only using our natural man. It is possible to pray-read without using the spirit, using our natural man.

I never said we are just saying the name. That is what others are saying, that it is "merely saying a name".

To which I had two responses

a) It is not "just a name". It is the name of Jesus.
b) We do not merely say it, we use our spirit to pray.

There is no evidence that the disciples said "in Jesus name, amen" at the end of prayers either.

[Freedom]

Let's break down just what you are saying. You state "it is possible to call on the Lord without using our spirit..." In other words, you admit that there both a sincere and insincere way to do it. So it appears we agree that it's possible that the practice could be saying "just a name." No one ever said that you yourself don't practice it sincerely, but the concern has been raised (which you dismissed) that it could be practiced insincerely in the LC.

Earlier in the thread I described a situation of being in the car and the LC elder I was with wanted to call on the Lord the whole time. That whole experience was the repeating of a name ad nauseam. So without any doubt, it could be a practice of "merely saying a name." And please note that in situations like the one I noted, refusal would not have been a viable option. I had no intention of engaging in a practice of vain repetition, yet somehow I got pressured into doing so. Do you see the problem here?

So who gets to be the one to qualify whether or not the practice is done "using the spirit"??? You can say that the LC practice is genuine as much as you want, but I've experienced otherwise. There really aren't any checks in place to ensure that it isn't just a practice of mindless repetition.

[Evangelical]

The practice, if practiced in a genuine way, is nothing more and nothing less than genuine prayer - a short, effective and intimate form of prayer.

A practice is not genuine in and of itself. What makes it genuine is whether a person is using their spirit or their soul ( mind, emotion etc). It is possible to be in the mind one minute and in the spirit the next. Unresolved sin, and other matters may block our fellowship with the Lord, and a person's calling on the Lord may become mindless repetition of a name. We can only exhort people to resolve anything between them and the Lord (confess their sin and obey the Lord), and use their spirit rather than their mind.

We can sometimes sense who is sincere in their prayer or prophesying. If what they say might touch our spirit and enlighten us, they are probably sincere. But we are not the best judge of that, only the Lord is.