Teaching on Calling on the Name of the Lord

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It is calling on the name of the Lord though, isn't it? Does it have to be done in the original Aramaic or Hebrew language to be "biblical" ?

Does it have to be done the way Lee prescribed to be biblical? And if it's not done the way Lee said, then how can you say that your local church is "absolutely identical" to the rest, with no differences whatever? Because that's what Lee prescribed in the footnotes. And Lee can't be wrong, ever, because then the whole thing would crumble like a house of cards. If people ever began to think critically, or act differently, the whole thing would come apart.

Originally Posted by Freedom

My biggest problem with the RcV is that the LC mandates it. To mandate any teachings, no matter whose they are is going too far. I have various study Bibles. I take all of the commentary with a grain of salt. And there's really nothing wrong with commentary as long as it's used as an aid and not a lens by which everything is interpreted.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So instead of being hypocrites about it, if you don't like bible versions with footnotes by someone, why don't you all go back to using the Latin Vulgate?

Actually I increasingly go back to the Greek and Hebrew texts. And even there, they don't always agree. Some of the variants are striking.

But I still keep my English versions, and use them. Even, occasionally, the RecV. But I keep my salt-shaker handy. Never know when you'll need a grain or two.

But really, objectively, the RecV is an abysmal translation. The footnotes are ruinous. Maudlin. "So subjective, is my Christ, to me!" Yes all we get is Witness Lee's subjective Christ. And very little objective reality. It's like reading a 6th-grader's essay. Not really completely wrong in and of itself, but so horribly personal, self-focused. And the person isn't Jesus Christ. It's the expositor. The focus isn't Christ, but Witness Lee's understanding.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

Does it have to be done the way Lee prescribed to be biblical? And if it's not done the way Lee said, then how can you say that your local church is "absolutely identical" to the rest, with no differences whatever? Because that's what Lee prescribed in the footnotes. And Lee can't be wrong, ever, because then the whole thing would crumble like a house of cards. If people ever began to think critically, or act differently, the whole thing would come apart.

I noticed that Evangelical has yet to back up his assertion that what the LC labels as "calling on the name of the Lord" is something more than just a practice peculiar/unique to the LC. The main problem, of course, is that WL wanted everyone to think that his version of practices represented the true Biblical form (if there were such to begin with). I'm not out to detract from things that LCers appreciate, but I take issue with with the promotion of certain LC practices as if those not practicing such things are deficient or lacking. Take example for the the practice of LC "love feasts." What many groups would simply call a lunch, is what the LC would give a name found in the Bible, as if to validate it as something 'better' than what other groups are doing.

While all groups have unique practices, and might have some amount of disagreement on the specifics, the LC is the only group that I know of that claims to practice things that they alone have 'recovered'. It's kind of convenient for them to be able to do this, because when they speak of a practice that no one else does, they don't have to engage in discussion of the 'correct' way to do it. They just have to provide sufficient justification for the practice to those willing to listen.

[Evangelical]

I haven't yet come across any denomination outside of the recovery that practices calling on the name of the Lord. Some movements in neo-pentecostalism come close to "calling on the Lord". I think it is true in my experience that this is something that was recovered.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I haven't yet come across any denomination outside of the recovery that practices calling on the name of the Lord. Some movements in neo-pentecostalism come close to "calling on the Lord". I think it is true in my experience that this is something that was recovered.

Sadly, what was once a reality, became merely vain babbling under the Blended administation.

It became all too evident at the Whistler Kangaroo Quarantine Court for Titus Chu. After a couple hours of nonsensical "testimonies," it was announced from the podium, "let's all rise and call on the Lord 5 times."

They took the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

All the Recovery was watching, or was about to on video.

The same can be said for pray-reading.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I haven't yet come across any denomination outside of the recovery that practices calling on the name of the Lord. Some movements in neo-pentecostalism come close to "calling on the Lord". I think it is true in my experience that this is something that was recovered.

Originally Posted by RcV

Acts 2:21 Note 1
Calling on the name of the Lord is not a new practice that began with the New Testament. Rather, it began with Enosh, the third generation of mankind, in Gen. 4:26. It was continued by Job, Abraham, Isaac, Moses and the children of Israel…

In the New Testament, calling on the name of the Lord was first mentioned by Peter, here, on the day of Pentecost, as the fulfillment of Joel's prophecy... Calling on the Lord's name is vitally necessary in order for us, the believers in Christ, to participate in and enjoy the all-inclusive Christ with all He has accomplished, attained, and obtained (1 Cor. 1:2). It is a major practice in God's New Testament economy that enables us to enjoy the processed Triune God for our full salvation (Rom. 10:10-13)…
The Greek word for call on is composed of on and call (by name); thus, it is to call out audibly, even loudly, as Stephen did (7:59-60).

Let’s examine the first sentence of WL’s footnote about calling on the name of the Lord. Notice the word practice. This word is suggestive. Before any commentary has even been made on the verse, the footnote has already asserted that calling on the name of the Lord is, above anything else, a practice. Now look at the phrase not a new practice. I’ve never heard anyone outside the LC claim that the phrase in Acts 2:21 represents a “new practice,” however, WL seems to have thought so. Maybe that's because a newcomer to LC meetings might be surprised by a “new practice” in LC meetings. So the footnote is subtly hinting that what is being practiced in the LC is not 'new', but supposedly a Biblical practice with precedent dating back to Genesis.

Gen 4:26 And as for Seth, to him also a son was born; and he named him Enosh. Then men began to call on the name of the LORD.

Originally Posted by Barnes Notes on the Bible

The closing sentence signalizes a remarkable event, which took place at the birth of Enosh, about two hundred and forty years after the creation of Adam. "Then was it begun to call upon the name of the Lord." The solemn invocation of God by his proper name in audible and social prayer and praise is the most usual meaning of the phrase now before us, and is to be adopted unless there be something in the context or the circumstances demanding another meaning. This involves also the first of the meanings given above, as we call God by his name in oral worship. It includes the third in one of its forms, as in praise we proclaim the name of our God. And it leads to the second, as those who call on the name of the Lord are themselves called the children of God.

Some change is here intimated in the mode of approaching God in worship. The gist of the sentence, however, does not lie in the name "Yahweh". For this term was not then new in itself, as it was used by Eve at the birth of Cain; nor was it new in this connection, as the phrase now appears for the first time, and Yahweh is the ordinary term employed in it ever afterward to denote the true God. As a proper name, Yahweh is the fit and customary word to enter into a solemn invocation. It is, as we have seen, highly significant. It speaks of the Self-existent One, the Author of all existing things, and in particular of man; the Self-manifest, who has shown himself merciful and gracious to the returning penitent, and with him keeps promise and covenant. Hence, it is the custom itself of calling on the name of Yahweh, of addressing God by his proper name, which is here said to have been commenced.

I could quote other commentaries too, but I will save the space. There is general agreement that the phrase calling on the name of the Lord denotes worship. There is no evidence to indicate it denotes a literal practice of repeating or proclaiming a phrase. Even the context itself is indicative of that.

Gen 12:18 And he moved from there to the mountain east of Bethel, and he pitched his tent with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east; there he built an altar to the LORD and called on the name of the LORD.

When Abraham built an alter to the Lord, that predicated his worship of the Lord. Wouldn’t it seem a bit odd if all that was just so he could repeatedly shout something like “praise the Lord”? To me, what Abraham did is suggestive of a much deeper worship. Something more serious.

Rom 10:9-10 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.
Rom 10:13 For “whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.”

In this set of verses, Paul talks about two actions relating to salvation 1) confessing with your mouth and 2) believing in your heart. It is after this that he quotes Joel. So according to the context of what Paul was talking about here, it would be absurd to claim that Rom 10:13 talks about a simple and literal proclamation. For sure, someone could profess “Jesus is Lord,” but there the aspect of believing in your heart. Salvation isn’t a mere proclamation. Belief (faith) is the other half. So again, I think this would necessitate that we move away from any literal ideas about calling on the name of the Lord, being a simple proclamation. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with proclamations, but salvation requires faith. A profession of faith, such saying a phrase like "Jesus is Lord," is not faith itself, it is just 1/2 of the equation. Faith in the heart.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Let’s examine the first sentence of WL’s footnote about calling on the name of the Lord. Notice the word practice. This word is suggestive. Before any commentary has even been made on the verse, the footnote has already asserted that calling on the name of the Lord is, above anything else, a practice. Now look at the phrase not a new practice. I’ve never heard anyone outside the LC claim that the phrase in Acts 2:21 represents a “new practice,” however, WL seems to have thought so. Maybe that's because a newcomer to LC meetings might be surprised by a “new practice” in LC meetings. So the footnote is subtly hinting that what is being practiced in the LC is not 'new', but supposedly a Biblical practice with precedent dating back to Genesis.

Gen 4:26 And as for Seth, to him also a son was born; and he named him Enosh. Then men began to call on the name of the LORD.

You seem to be addressing a view or claim that it is a new practice? I never made that claim and I'm not aware of WL making that claim either. Its origins in the Old Testament is well known and in the footnotes as you showed. If WL said something about it being a new practice it must be in reference to the Recovery or to modern Christianity.

In Christianity today most people are familiar with only one or two kinds of prayer such as the prayer of supplication - asking God to please provide or do something. In the Bible there said to be many different kinds of prayer. There is even a thing called "prayer of worship". This article explains about "prayer of worship", how worship can be a kind of prayer:
https://gotquestions.org/types-of-prayer.html

Originally Posted by Freedom

I could quote other commentaries too, but I will save the space. There is general agreement that the phrase calling on the name of the Lord denotes worship. There is no evidence to indicate it denotes a literal practice of repeating or proclaiming a phrase. Even the context itself is indicative of that.

Gen 12:18 And he moved from there to the mountain east of Bethel, and he pitched his tent with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east; there he built an altar to the LORD and called on the name of the LORD.

When Abraham built an alter to the Lord, that predicated his worship of the Lord. Wouldn’t it seem a bit odd if all that was just so he could repeatedly shout something like “praise the Lord”? To me, what Abraham did is suggestive of a much deeper worship. Something more serious.

I think we should examine the commentaries further. Contrary to what you are saying, I have found that commentaries seem to say it is using the Lord's name in public prayer or worship. Obviously this requires an audible and possibly loud proclamation of the name of God, somewhat like the Recovery practices.

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/genesis/4-26.htm

Matthew Poole's commentary explains that it is using the name of the Lord in prayer or worship in the public assembly

To call upon the name of the Lord; to pray unto God, to worship God in a more public and solemn manner; praying being here put for the whole worship of God

Benson commentary explains that it is using the name of the Lord in prayer or worship in the public assembly:

Doubtless God’s name was called upon before: but now, 1st, The worshippers of God began to do more in religion than they had done; perhaps not more than had been done at first, but more than had been done since the defection of Cain. Now men began to worship God, not only in their closets and families, but in public and solemn assemblies.


Gill's:

then began men to call upon the name of the Lord; not but that Adam and Abel, and all good men, had called upon the name of the Lord, and prayed to him, or worshipped him

There is one commentary which more closely matches the understanding of it in the Recovery and that is the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges:

to call upon] “Properly, as always, to call with, i.e. to use the name in invocations, in the manner of ancient cults, especially at times of sacrifice; cf. Genesis 12:8, Genesis 13:4, Genesis 21:33, Genesis 26:25.” (Driver.)

In the Recovery calling on the name of the Lord is considered to be a type of invoking prayer. Given that the purpose of calling on the name of the Lord is to invoke the Lord's presence, it is distinct from the kind of prayer practiced in Christianity today, which is mainly supplication.

It is not surprising that Christianity has lost the practice of calling upon the Lord's name. Christianity has also lost the practice of lamentation in worship. The majority of the Bible's worship is in fact lamentation (expressing grief or sorrow unto God).

Originally Posted by Freedom

Rom 10:9-10 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.
Rom 10:13 For “whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.”

In this set of verses, Paul talks about two actions relating to salvation 1) confessing with your mouth and 2) believing in your heart. It is after this that he quotes Joel. So according to the context of what Paul was talking about here, it would be absurd to claim that Rom 10:13 talks about a simple and literal proclamation. For sure, someone could profess “Jesus is Lord,” but there the aspect of believing in your heart. Salvation isn’t a mere proclamation. Belief (faith) is the other half. So again, I think this would necessitate that we move away from any literal ideas about calling on the name of the Lord, being a simple proclamation. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with proclamations, but salvation requires faith. A profession of faith, such saying a phrase like "Jesus is Lord," is not faith itself, it is just 1/2 of the equation. Faith in the heart.

In Christianity today it is generally thought that if a person believes and declares certain facts about Christ (Jesus is Lord, Jesus was the Son of God etc), then they have satisfied the criteria to be saved and get the tick of approval.

However calling upon the name of the Lord is something different. In the Recovery the practice of calling upon the name of the Lord is not thought of as a proclamation of a fact. It is a kind of seeking. To call on the Lord's name requires faith that He exists and is a kind of seeking:

Hebrews 11:6 "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."

How do we seek sometime? By calling their name repeatedly. This is what calling upon the name of the Lord as practiced in the Recovery is about.

I believe that for a new believer to call upon the name of the Lord is better than merely proclaiming statements of fact. I believe it is much harder for someone to insincerely call upon the name of the Lord (to invoke his presence) than to declare certain facts about Him. Even demons believe that Jesus is Lord and might be able to declare certain facts. But a demon would never call upon the Lord's name so as to invoke His presence. A demon would not like to be in the Lord's presence at all.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You seem to be addressing a view or claim that it is a new practice? I never made that claim and I'm not aware of WL making that claim either. Its origins in the Old Testament is well known and in the footnotes as you showed. If WL said something about it being a new practice it must be in reference to the Recovery or to modern Christianity.

The claim I am addressing is what is stated in the footnote: “Calling on the name of the Lord is not a new practice that began with the New Testament...” This is a loaded statement. Firstly, it suggests that calling on the name of the Lord is a specific practice versus a form of worship. Secondly, the statement implies that either people aren’t aware of such a ‘practice’, or that they ‘surprised’ by the practice as seen in the LC. Don’t forget, we are talking about a phrase found throughout the Bible. Where is there any evidence that other Christians remain unaware or ignorant of this phrase?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think we should examine the commentaries further. Contrary to what you are saying, I have found that commentaries seem to say it is using the Lord's name in public prayer or worship. Obviously this requires an audible and possibly loud proclamation of the name of God, somewhat like the Recovery practices.
...
Benson commentary explains that it is using the name of the Lord in prayer or worship in the public assembly:
Doubtless God’s name was called upon before: but now, 1st, The worshippers of God began to do more in religion than they had done; perhaps not more than had been done at first, but more than had been done since the defection of Cain. Now men began to worship God, not only in their closets and families, but in public and solemn assemblies.

I agree that Gen 4:26 likely indicates a move to more public forms of worship. But my question for you is why are you so quick to assume that using the Lord’s name is simply a loud proclamation of a name? Do you accept the possibility that there was more depth to worship than just that? If the context of this verse is indeed worship (which I think we agree), then where do you see evidence that it indicates it was something more specific than what we might call public worship?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

However calling upon the name of the Lord is something different. In the Recovery the practice of calling upon the name of the Lord is not thought of as a proclamation of a fact. It is a kind of seeking. To call on the Lord's name requires faith that He exists and is a kind of seeking:

Hebrews 11:6 "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."

How do we seek sometime? By calling their name repeatedly. This is what calling upon the name of the Lord as practiced in the Recovery is about.

In the Recovery calling on the name of the Lord is considered to be a type of invoking prayer. Given that the purpose of calling on the name of the Lord is to invoke the Lord's presence, it is distinct from the kind of prayer practiced in Christianity today, which is mainly supplication.

It is not surprising that Christianity has lost the practice of calling upon the Lord's name. Christianity has also lost the practice of lamentation in worship. The majority of the Bible's worship is in fact lamentation (expressing grief or sorrow unto God).

The LC, of course, believes that calling on the name of the Lord is the way by which we can invoke God. However, the question arises, would they claim this is the only way by which God is invoked? Do they perhaps think it’s the best way? The fact that the LC so heavily emphasizes their version of invocation suggests that they feel their version to be superior. In places like the Psalms, we can find literally 100’s of examples of invocations. Christians use such examples as prayers all the time. Yet, you instead assert the following: It is not surprising that Christianity has lost the practice of calling upon the Lord's name. I’m not sure where you come up with these ideas.

What is practiced in the LC resembles repetition more than it does invocation. True, calling the name of the Lord is a form of invocation, but it doesn’t and can’t stop there. Once I was in the car with an elder and he wanted to call on the Lord the whole time we were in the car. So we did, but it was awkward. There wasn't really any purpose in doing that, and I wouldn’t have done that except the elder insisted we do it. The analogy I would use is this - if I call someone's name, they would be expected to respond. But what if after they responded, I kept calling their name? Then it’s no longer an invocation. It would mean I haven’t acknowledged their response for whatever reason. So I’m not saying that there’s anything wrong with proclaiming “Oh Lord Jesus.” I’m just saying if it goes on too long, or if it’s used methodologically (such as “brothers stand and call on the Lord three times”), that would suggest that everyone is missing the point.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I believe that for a new believer to call upon the name of the Lord is better than merely proclaiming statements of fact. I believe it is much harder for someone to insincerely call upon the name of the Lord (to invoke his presence) than to declare certain facts about Him. Even demons believe that Jesus is Lord and might be able to declare certain facts. But a demon would never call upon the Lord's name so as to invoke His presence. A demon would not like to be in the Lord's presence at all.

This I must disagree with. The Bible tells us that confessing that Jesus is Lord with our mouths is part of salvation. In the context of salvation, the word confess basically means an acknowledgement of one’s state before God. You cannot gauge that action on a scale of sincerity. The sincerity part is related to belief, and belief is in the heart. When it comes to the facts of salvation, any confession made with the mouth should serve to confirm that the individual understands salvation and their state before God. So getting someone to say “Oh Lord Jesus” doesn’t necessarily mean that they have acknowledged and confessed their sinful state before God. It just means they know God’s name.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Freedom

The claim I am addressing is what is stated in the footnote: “Calling on the name of the Lord is not a new practice that began with the New Testament...” This is a loaded statement. Firstly, it suggests that calling on the name of the Lord is a specific practice versus a form of worship. Secondly, the statement implies that either people aren’t aware of such a ‘practice’, or that they ‘surprised’ by the practice as seen in the LC. Don’t forget, we are talking about a phrase found throughout the Bible. Where is there any evidence that other Christians remain unaware or ignorant of this phrase?

According to the commentaries it is not just worship it is prayer. How many churches today worship God by calling His name? They sing songs, they don't call His name for the purpose of invocation of His presence.

Having been in denominational churches for 30 years I and my family can testify that the phrase is not mentioned at all and not focused on. WL could possibly be the only bible teacher to highlight this matter and elevate it to the importance that he has. In most churches the only time the Lord's name is used is during prayers of supplication, which is the majority of Christian prayer today. Some churches do not even use the name of Jesus that much, they might use the name God or Father only. However this form of prayer does not invoke the Lord's presence because it is a request for things not a request for the Lord Himself.

In certain denominations I was involved with, it was recognised that there needed to be something more. So sometimes we would practice meditative and contemplative prayer. The aim of this practice was more so to experience the Lord's presence, however I fear it was born out of ritualistic traditions more so than a genuine calling on the Lord.

In Pentecostal churches some of them promote a practice of waiting in the Lord's presence, often using worship music and perhaps calling out to God "Oh God Oh God" etc. This also serves a similar purpose to invoking the Lord's presence but I have observed that a) they do not necessarily use the name of Jesus, and I think that is a key missing ingredient, and also calling on the "Spirit" to come may invoke the wrong spirit, not the Spirit of Christ. Once I worshipped with a lady in this way and she was calling for many spirits of God to come. b)They can overly focus on the atmosphere and music which means it is difficult for them to invoke the Lord's presence unless they have worship music playing.

In the stock standard evangelical biblical churches, they do not practice the presence of God at all according to my knowledge and experience. This could be for a number of reasons: a) they don't believe in or focus on the experience of the Spirit (they may view that as overly charismatic or pentecostal), b) they may believe that the bible replaced the Spirit c) they believe that God's presence is not something to be manifested or experienced, d) they believe God's presence is manifested in an unseen way and we should not use our feelings, etc.

Originally Posted by Freedom

I agree that Gen 4:26 likely indicates a move to more public forms of worship. But my question for you is why are you so quick to assume that using the Lord’s name is simply a loud proclamation of a name? Do you accept the possibility that there was more depth to worship than just that? If the context of this verse is indeed worship (which I think we agree), then where do you see evidence that it indicates it was something more specific than what we might call public worship?

I believe that to "call upon the name of the Lord" means what it says. Even more so when we consider the time period of 3000 BC, I believe it was simple and genuine.

Why do you assume that calling on the name of the Lord is any more than a simple calling on the name of the Lord for salvation?:

Romans 10:13 "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved"

If you think calling on the name of the Lord is "deep worship" then this would mean that a person must conduct deep worship to be saved. So your view does not really make sense.

And how is singing a 5 minute song by Hillsong "Awesome God" (for example), any deeper than calling the Lord's name to invoke His presence? I would question any view that says any religious activity we do is somehow deeper than the Lord's presence. We cannot get much deeper than the Lord's presence.

Christians assume many things. Why are so many Christians quick to assume that to pray in the Lord's name means to say "in Jesus name" at the end of prayers? There is no biblical evidence for that formulaic prayer ritual.

Originally Posted by Freedom

The LC, of course, believes that calling on the name of the Lord is the way by which we can invoke God. However, the question arises, would they claim this is the only way by which God is invoked? Do they perhaps think it’s the best way? The fact that the LC so heavily emphasizes their version of invocation suggests that they feel their version to be superior. In places like the Psalms, we can find literally 100’s of examples of invocations. Christians use such examples as prayers all the time. Yet, you instead assert the following: It is not surprising that Christianity has lost the practice of calling upon the Lord's name. I’m not sure where you come up with these ideas.

It is not the only way but it is said to be the best way according to our experience. It is something that can be done easily, wherever we are, quietly, loudly, and does not require worship music to be playing as we do it. It is quick and effective way to invoke the Lord's presence, perhaps it has more practical relevance in the underground churches where they don't have the time or cannot risk a long deep worship meeting.

Originally Posted by Freedom

What is practiced in the LC resembles repetition more than it does invocation. True, calling the name of the Lord is a form of invocation, but it doesn’t and can’t stop there. Once I was in the car with an elder and he wanted to call on the Lord the whole time we were in the car. So we did, but it was awkward. There wasn't really any purpose in doing that, and I wouldn’t have done that except the elder insisted we do it. The analogy I would use is this - if I call someone's name, they would be expected to respond. But what if after they responded, I kept calling their name? Then it’s no longer an invocation. It would mean I haven’t acknowledged their response for whatever reason. So I’m not saying that there’s anything wrong with proclaiming “Oh Lord Jesus.” I’m just saying if it goes on too long, or if it’s used methodologically (such as “brothers stand and call on the Lord three times”), that would suggest that everyone is missing the point.
.

I agree with you there needs to be balance. As you probably well know in a meeting calling upon the name of the Lord does not normally go on for ever. Normally it is 2 or 3 times. Privately we can do it as much as we feel like. Some see calling upon the name of the Lord as a simple way to "pray continually" as the New Testament commands.

Originally Posted by Freedom

This I must disagree with. The Bible tells us that confessing that Jesus is Lord with our mouths is part of salvation. In the context of salvation, the word confess basically means an acknowledgement of one’s state before God. You cannot gauge that action on a scale of sincerity. The sincerity part is related to belief, and belief is in the heart. When it comes to the facts of salvation, any confession made with the mouth should serve to confirm that the individual understands salvation and their state before God. So getting someone to say “Oh Lord Jesus” doesn’t necessarily mean that they have acknowledged and confessed their sinful state before God. It just means they know God’s name.

Actually it is not just to confess our sinful condition, but to confess that Jesus is Lord.

"confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus" means to confess that Jesus is Lord.

When a person (genuinely) calls Lord Jesus, they are in fact 1) affirming that Jesus is their Lord, and 2) invoking the Lord's presence by prayer so that He can give them the Spirit for salvation. Demons do not call Jesus Lord, e.g. Mark 1:24 they called Him "Jesus of Nazareth". When sinners use the name of the Lord in vain (as a curse word) they say Jesus they don't say Lord Jesus.

The word rendered confess in our bibles is sometimes more properly rendered as profess, which is more than just professing statements of fact but to profess our attachment and identification with Jesus Christ. There is actually no better way to do that than to loudly call upon the Lord's name in public. Just like a child might call out for their parent to show their attachment and identification with their parent.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I agree with you there needs to be balance. As you probably well know in a meeting calling upon the name of the Lord does not normally go on for ever. Normally it is 2 or 3 times. Privately we can do it as much as we feel like. Some see calling upon the name of the Lord as a simple way to "pray continually" as the New Testament commands.

The situation that I described highlights what I'm trying to get at here, and Ohio's post reflects the same.

I would say that the LC practice of "calling on the name of the Lord," was originally intended to be an 'active' form of prayer/worship. In other words, it wasn't supposed to just be something that everyone goes along with just because.

What happens in LC meetings is that someone will tell everyone to call on the Lord three times, or sometimes it just happens spontaneously. When the whole group is doing it, no one wants to be the odd one out, so simple group pressure ensures that 99.9% will follow suit. Unless an individual has made a conscious decision to pray/worship the Lord in that way, then it is the exact opposite of what was intended. It becomes passive and perhaps a form of taking the Lord's name in vain.

I do understand what the LC practice was intended to accomplish. I never saw it practiced in a meaningful way. It just became part of the LC formula, right down to the rhythmic phrasing of "Oh Lord Jesus."

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

How many churches today worship God by calling His name? They sing songs, they don't call His name for the purpose of invocation of His presence.

Having been in denominational churches for 30 years I and my family can testify that the phrase is not mentioned at all and not focused on. WL could possibly be the only bible teacher to highlight this matter and elevate it to the importance that he has. In most churches the only time the Lord's name is used is during prayers of supplication, which is the majority of Christian prayer today.

You mean to elevate the recitation of words to invoke His presence?

There are so many forms by which people think that they invoke the presence, blessing, power, etc., of the Lord. Like an incantation.

That is the standard MO of the healthy, wealthy and wise gospel.

It is the claim of faith healers.

And while the benefit gained is not a narrowly defined, Lee would have us understand that chanting words is such an important thing to do.

In hindsight, it seems so detached from anything of any real prayer or even truly spiritual activity that is seems more like crank telephone calls. Dial the number, say the words, and hang up. Repeat ad nauseum.

Meanwhile, there are those who follow the way provided by Christ and pray:
— to the Father
— concerning his attributes
— concerning their needs
— repenting for their sins
— forgiving others
— recognizing the kingdom and whose it is

And then act according to the will of the one they have prayed to. They ask about those "low" things like which alternative (whatever) to choose. And so on. And then they step out and act according to what they sense as the leading.

They have spent time with God.

Your way is to say "Hey! Hey! Hey! Hey! Hey! Hey!" And then when you realize you haven't said it in a while, you do it some more. Its seems like a kind of "Look at me God. I'm saying your name." But there is nothing to go with it. That is what small children do to get attention. But they don't really want to interact. They just want the attention.

Seems backwards.

[DistantStar]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Take example for the the practice of LC "love feasts."

I've never heard of this before. What is it exactly?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

I've never heard of this before. What is it exactly?

Where I'm from, and I saw this practiced in various LC's, they will call a lunch after a meeting a love feast. The question that was always in the back of my mind was why they made such a point to be particular about their vocabulary. Why not just call a potluck a potluck? In the context of the LC, the term love feast wasn't anything more than a synonym for a potluck, yet they throw around this kind of terminology as if it were to indicate that the LC is something more than it really is.

In Jude 1:12, where the term love feast is found, the context seems to indicate the term is descriptive of a practice among early Christians, as opposed to just being a name for a practice. Other groups like the Brethren have instituted a practice of love feasts, but from what I've read, the term describes a more specific, type gathering. Here is what Wikipedia says regarding what the Brethren practice:
"A Lovefeast seeks to strengthen the bonds and the spirit of harmony, goodwill, and congeniality, as well as to forgive past disputes and instead love one another."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lovefeast

Also, for further reading on the subject, here is an interesting discussion about what was practiced in the early church:
http://www.earlychurch.com/LoveFeast.html

So if you consider the other groups who have "love feasts," the term is actually descriptive for something they do, rather than it being a phrase thrown about just because. So I think that the point I was trying to make to Evangelical earlier in the discussion is that just because the LC labels their practices using terminology found in the Bible doesn't mean what they are practicing is anything more legitimate than what anyone else does.

This goes back to the discussion of calling on the Lord. We have been told that only the LC has 'recovered' this practice, yet Christians have always had a practice of "calling on the name of the Lord." They just practice it through prayer, not the way that the LC claims it should be done, so what others Christians practice has been deemed invalid in the eyes of the LC. But the LC seems to try to assert their position partially because they take a phrase found in the Bible (a phrase which Christians don't use on a regular basis), and then the LC claims that because they have a practice of X (that supposedly no one else has), that they are better than everyone else.