Teaching on Calling on the Name of the Lord

countmeworthy · 01-25-2009, 09:38 AM

One good meaningful teaching and memory I have from my days in the LC..from my church in San Diego was a weekend series of messages on 'Calling on the Name of the Lord'.
We former and current LCrs know all too well that was our 'mantra' if you will.
Truth be told...it IS biblical and sound.
The scriptures we 'pray-read' are still grafted in me.,,and they are more living to me..that is they truly speak to me more today than back in the day.

With this intro..

I have a Praise Report to the Glory of God I'd like to share.

For years and years, I have been troubled by how disrespectful the Name of our LORD and SAVIOUR ---JESUS is tossed around....mainly non-believers and carnal Christians (some of whom are probably not believers..but think they are)..

Everytime I hear someone disrespect His SACRED Name, my spirit grieves..for it is the Holy Spirit grieving in me. When I hear His Name trashed around, I quietly call on Him with a grieving heart "Lord Jesus." Nothing LOUD..nothing emotional...but with reverence and a grieving heart.

Around my carnal friends who I am ministering to..I scold them if they slip and disrespect the Name of Jesus. I tell them "HEY!! Pay ATTENTION how you use His Name! BE respectful of Him...He is GOD!" The Name of JESUS is HOLY..and SACRED!!! Sometimes I 'lecture' them...and other times..just a stern reminder.
It gets their undivided attention and I think they are much more mindful next time around.

So...this past week, a childhood friend of mine asked me to come over and hold a 'bible study' for her, and her parents who are in their 80s. I've known the entire family since I was 6 yrs old...My friend and I are in our YOUNG 50's..

and I was told yesterday I looked like I was in my 40's.

(Praise You Lord Jesus! )

I knew it was the perfect opportunity to 'teach' them on Power and Holiness of the Name of Jesus...oh..and not because I was told I looked good and in my 40's. LOL!

For 85 yr old Mr. A... I wrote out the scriptures on BIG index cards. We all had bibles and we opened up with prayer for the Lord to anoint our time together and enlighten us all. Including me, there were 5 present..they were all saved already but are not delivered.

This is the family who some of you might remember..that lost a son, a brother to suicide earlier this year. He was only 38.

The scriptures I used were many of the scriptures we/I learned in the LC..
John 10:10
John 14:6
Acts 4:12
Romans 10:9-11 and 13
John 6:35

I began by telling them how HOLY and Sacred His Name is and people need to call on Him out of Respect for He is our Saviour..and our very present Help in time of need.

We turned to the scriptures..and most of the time together, out loud, we read the scriptures from the Bible. Sometimes individually, I would have them re-read them. I'd expound on each scripture one by one and then turned that scripture into prayer and had them pray that scripture.
For example John 10:10b.. I (Jesus) came that you would have Life and have it more abundantly..until it overflows.I explained how Jesus came that we would have LIFE..and not only ETERNAL LIFE..but Life in our every day living....I had them pray something like:

"Thank YOU LORD JESUS..You came that I would have Life and have it more abundantly. Praise You Lord Jesus."

I went through each scripture, giving a short teaching and prayer with it.
The bible study probably lasted 20-25 minutes and they all said it was AWESOME. To GOD be the GLORY!
Mr A asked if he could keep the index cards. I chuckled and hugged him and told him I wrote them specifically just for him.
......I share this praise report because giving credit where credit is due, I, personally, learned to call on the Name of the Lord...learned all the scriptures on the Lord Jesus..and 'Life' in the LC.

Sooo...that is one reason I am grateful to the LORD for my time there. I'm just as grateful I am no longer there too.
.....................................Thanks everone for reading my postl! I pray it blessed you , encouraged you & lifted your spirit

Hope · 01-25-2009, 11:26 AM

Dear Countmeworthy,

Your post has been read. I am very encouraged and refreshed. Thank you for sharing and for having the love of God for these dear ones to help them to know more of the living Christ.

It is so wonderful that you are able to help some who perhaps know little of Christ.

This morning in our meeting here in Durham we had four gospel friends with us. We read together the story of the woman at the well. Several of us shared the joy of the living water and of knowing the Savior. One of the four confessed faith in Jesus a few weeks ago. Her sister in law is very open and asked if we would get her a bible. The other two said they were very interested in learning more about Jesus.

One of the later two had his 33rd birthday today. Unbeknowst to him one of the sisters made him a birthday cake and gave it to him this morning at the meeting. He was smiling from ear to ear. He spoke of how he has been touched to consider Christ due to the kindnesses that have been shown to him.

Last night we had a couple who have been married 25 years renew their vows. They have three young adult children. The three children and their sister in law and cousins worked out all the arrangements and along with their dad gave the mom a wonderful surprise. About 20 relatives came in and we had a big celebration of natural family and church family all together.

This family has had some very big challenges and trials. The wife declared it was due to Christ and the care they had received in the church that they had been able to stay together. We all are so thankful to the Lord for His never failing love and mercy.

In Christ Jesus,

Hope, Don Rutledge

countmeworthy · 01-25-2009, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hope

This morning in our meeting here in Durham we had four gospel friends with us. We read together the story of the woman at the well. Several of us shared the joy of the living water and of knowing the Savior. One of the four confessed faith in Jesus a few weeks ago. Her sister in law is very open and asked if we would get her a bible. The other two said they were very interested in learning more about Jesus.

Praise the Lord for how He is using us all Brother Hope!

I was going to use that parable last night too. But I was being sensitive to the Holy Spirit and not overload them.

I did explain the emptiness in us causes us to desire things we ought not to.. if we do nothing more than give Praise and Honor with Thanksgiving to the Lord Jesus, He will change our tastebuds.

So we/you/I were on the same page it seems!

Your meeting was very anointed. There is so much HOPE !

The LORD is really speeding things up isn't He?

"Give the LORD a SHOUT of Praise!"

Hope · 01-25-2009, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Praise the Lord for how He is using us all Brother Hope!

I was going to use that parable last night too. But I was being sensitive to the Holy Spirit and not overload them.

I did explain the emptiness in us causes us to desire things we ought not to.. if we do nothing more than give Praise and Honor with Thanksgiving to the Lord Jesus, He will change our tastebuds.
So we/you/I were on the same page it seems!

Your meeting was very anointed. There is so much HOPE !

The LORD is really speeding things up isn't He?

"Give the LORD a SHOUT of Praise!"

Countmeworthy,

I really like your explanation which I have high lighted. Is it okay with you if I use and adapt it to our fellowship?

In Christ Jesus,

Hope, Don Rutledge

countmeworthy · 01-25-2009, 05:02 PM

Of course Don! We, true believers don't mind 'spreading the wealth' around with our beloved brethren in Christ.

Evangelical · 11-02-2016, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

How about addressing all the peculiar teachings of the LC?

Calling on the name of the Lord would be one of the least peculiar, or not peculiar at all. Whoever wrote the article is an idiot if he thinks calling on the name of the Lord is somehow peculiar.

Freedom · 11-03-2016, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Calling on the name of the Lord would be one of the least peculiar, or not peculiar at all. Whoever wrote the article is an idiot if he thinks calling on the name of the Lord is somehow peculiar.

The LC practice of "calling on the Lord" is peculiar because there is no indication that what is practiced in the LC has any relation to the phrase found in the Bible. Actually even if "calling on the name of the Lord" as it is found in the Bible was a formal devotional practice, we don't know what that practice entailed because we weren't there. It was presumptuous on Lee's part to claim that a loud repetitious shouting of the phrase "O Lord Jesus" was a lost Biblical practice that he had uncovered. I am confident that if there were any loud shouting that happened in the Bible, it was joyful praise, not a repetitious and rhythmic chanting. What happens in the LC is an classic example of group-think. Ever notice how awkward it was when a newcomer would enter a LC meeting and not participate fully in what the rest of the group was doing? It would make everyone so uneasy that one person wasn't going along with the 'flow' of the meeting. That's what it's really about.

Back on the subject of the RcV, when the footnotes serve to introduce or promote a practice unique to the LC such as calling on the Lord, it is a subtle form of propaganda being utilized. People reference study Bibles for help with difficult text or to get a better overview. When the commentary instead is used as a platform to introduce ear-tickling teachings or practices, the average reader might not catch on to what is being done. Don't forget, the RcV is being distributed all across the US as a free "study Bible." Do people who receive one realize what they're really being given?

If the LC thinks they have a practice that is beneficial to Christians at large, that's great, they can go write a book about it or discuss it in a way that allows other Christians to accept or reject it. By putting it in study Bible commentary, they are presenting it as fact or as something intimately associated with scripture. Unless the reader is aware of what is going on, it is not hard to give study notes more precedence than material written in a book on a certain subject. And that is exactly what the LSM is hoping accomplish with the RcV. They want LC teachings to be accepted as fact bypassing normal discourse, because LC teachings can't stand up to that test.

I went to plenty of LC meetings where we exhaustively read the footnotes for whatever verses we were reading, and of course the idea behind doing this was that everyone presumed that thorough the footnotes (and only through the footnotes) could you obtain the 'correct' interpretation. And if that is the thought process that exists, people will swallow it all without a second thought.

Evangelical · 11-06-2016, 01:24 AM

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" ?

aron · 11-07-2016, 03:40 PM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · 11-07-2016, 03:46 PM

Quote:

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 · 11-07-2016, 04:37 PM

Quote:

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 · 11-07-2016, 09:44 PM

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.

Freedom · 11-07-2016, 10:07 PM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · 11-08-2016, 03:05 AM

Quote:

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

Quote:

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).

Quote:

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 · 11-08-2016, 02:58 PM

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · 11-08-2016, 04:33 PM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Ohio · 11-09-2016, 08:54 AM

Quote:

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 · 11-09-2016, 12:59 PM

Quote:

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."

Ohio · 11-09-2016, 01:32 PM

Years ago Ray Graver compiled an account of those who prayed the scriptures, calling Lord .. Thou said. The book was a spiritual account from many men of God. They practiced "Pray-Reading" the scriptures. The booklet was well written and well received.

Compare that to the LC practice of Pray-Reading, which is mere repetition of parts of verses, and PSRP what their robotic practice has morphed into. It is merely a mechanical exercise, and not at all spiritual. It could easily become part of a political campaign rally. "Now repeat after me ..."

The Bible says to "test all things, hold on to the good." We should always ask, is my heart engaged now? Or am I just going along with the crowd? Does this require an active exercise of faith? Or am I just doing a thing to please others? Am I worshiping God our Father in spirit? Or am I just honoring God with my lips?

Evangelical · 11-09-2016, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

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.

From what yourself and Ohio are saying it seems you are doubting the sincerity of the practice rather than the practice itself.

But the same argument you described could be applied to anything Christians need to do but may not want to do - going to church, bible reading, singing hymns etc. This does not mean there is something wrong with the practice itself.

What you describe is the person's own fault (they are the hypocrite, not the person asking them to call on the Lord). Sometimes we need to do things we don't feel like doing and when we do them we are blessed. Prayer is one of those things. Sometimes encouragement from others is a good thing. Anyway, what is the difference between someone telling you to pray in a meeting, and the Bible telling you to pray?

Ohio · 11-09-2016, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

From what yourself and Ohio are saying it seems you are doubting the sincerity of the practice rather than the practice itself.

What Biblical support do you provide for pray-reading Lee's outlines and messages. Have they now become scripture for those in the LC's?

Freedom · 11-09-2016, 03:12 PM

I'm not talking about sincerity here. I'm talking about initiative. If the point of a practice is what you call an "invocation of His presence," then I don't think being nudged to do it counts. Singing, prayer and worship can all be done passively, and I'm not judging that. I know that I've done it myself. What I'm saying is that if "calling on the name of the Lord" refers to a direct interaction with God, then it can't be a passive practice done according to some formula.

least · 11-09-2016, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

What Biblical support do you provide for pray-reading Lee's outlines and messages. Have they now become scripture for those in the LC's?

And singing training textbook outlines?
I wonder why Evangelical is so keen to put down reading the bible and singing hymns.

Evangelical · 11-09-2016, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

I'm not talking about sincerity here. I'm talking about initiative. If the point of a practice is what you call an "invocation of His presence," then I don't think being nudged to do it counts. Singing, prayer and worship can all be done passively, and I'm not judging that. I know that I've done it myself. What I'm saying is that if "calling on the name of the Lord" refers to a direct interaction with God, then it can't be a passive practice done according to some formula.

What about all of those people calling on the name of the Lord in a genuine way? What do you say about those? How is this peculiar? How it is any more peculiar than praying in tongues?

I agree it can't be a passive practice done according to some formula, and I could say the same about any aspect of the Christian life. That does not mean the practice itself is wrong.

This seems to be your attempt to discredit the practice of calling on the name of the Lord by pointing to examples by which people may not initiate to call on the Lord. If that is to be the standard of how we determine something to be peculiar or not, then we better start discussing the fact that in practically every denominational church there is someone at the front initiating and telling everyone what to do, and they do it, even if they don't feel like it.

Evangelical · 11-09-2016, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

What Biblical support do you provide for pray-reading Lee's outlines and messages. Have they now become scripture for those in the LC's?

I will answer that if you can tell me what biblical support do you have that says we can study and pray Paul's epistles ? Where is your biblical support for the Canon of the New Testament?

Ohio · 11-09-2016, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I will answer that if you can tell me what biblical support do you have that says we can study and pray Paul's epistles ?

Where is your biblical support for the Canon of the New Testament?

For nearly two millennia, these 27 books, and no others, have been accepted by professing Christians and churches. The addition or subtraction of these books from the recognized canon is a hallmark of cults.

You obviously are not pleased with this answer, and might want to take it up on the Alt-Views sub-forum.

This LCD forum will not entertain discussions about reinventing the Christian wheel of the New Testament. That discussion is outside the prescribed boundaries of this forum.

The owner, moderator, and grateful servant here -- UntoHim -- has made this abundantly clear since the forum's inception.

Evangelical · 11-09-2016, 06:48 PM

To give an example, suppose someone knows the verse about nothing being impossible for God. They then pray the verse in the context of asking God for a million dollars for their own selfish pursuits. They are praying the Bible but they ask amiss according to God. According to you, since they pray the bible they are praying right.

Suppose someone pray reads a message from Lee about nothing being impossible for God in the context of God changing our sinful hearts. According to you, to pray such a prayer would be wrong, because it uses Lee's message. But according to God the prayer itself is right.

We are not discussing reinventing the wheel. I believe in the Canon. So did Witness Lee. My point is that we have received the (written) Word of God through men. Yet you seem to believe that we need an instruction from the Bible to do anything. We need an instruction from the Bible to pray-read messages. Yet you know as well as I that following instructions from the Bible is not how the Bible itself was constructed. If that were true, then the Old Testament should define the New Testament. But men had to figure it out, pray about it, put two and two together, and give us the New Testament Canon.

I believe that God still speaks today and did not stop speaking when the Bible was written. I believe there is no difference between pray-reading a (biblical) message from Lee, and you pray -reading a bible verse which has gone through umpteen different translations. I believe that prayer from our own misguided hearts can potentially be worse than pray-reading a message from Lee if that message is on target. I believe that pray-reading a bible verse that we may understand out of context to be no better than pray-reading a message of Lee that is "in context".

Ohio · 11-09-2016, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What about all of those people calling on the name of the Lord in a genuine way? What do you say about those? How is this peculiar? How it is any more peculiar than praying in tongues?

Obviously any brain dead lurker here knows that we are not criticizing those who call on the Lord in a genuine way. I myself do this still, as do many others in and out of the LC's. Contrary to popular opinion, the LC's have never cornered the market on calling on God in prayer and worship. Whether they say "Oh Lord Jesus," or "Jesus. Jesus" or "My God, My God," our Heavenly Father knows all hearts, and knows vanity and vain babbling when He sees it.

Even in Paul's final days this item of worship had degraded into a showy formality, otherwise he would not have written favorably to Timothy about those who "call on the Lord out of a pure heart." (2 Tim 2.22) What I saw on that Whistler Kangaroo Quarantine Court for Titus Chu was not the genuine article. The instruction from the podium, "let's all rise and call on the Lord 5 times," should remind us all of the warning from Jesus Himself in Matthew 7.21.

Go watch that video again. You will become keenly aware of how exclusive and divisive LSM has become, and how degraded their practice is. The Lord seems to hate performances such as these. Why else would He expose those who make ostentatious spiritual performances. (See Matthew 7.5-8) When that happens, He advises us to go pray in closets, because there in the closet all alone we are not man-pleasing hypocrites, neither do we repeat empty words like the Gentiles.

Evangelical · 11-09-2016, 07:08 PM

The "calling on God in prayer and worship" you refer to is mostly to do with supplication. In the denominations they do not teach about or practice calling on the name of the Lord, (which is Jesus, many denominations do not even use the name of Jesus), for the purpose of invoking the Lord in the public assembly.

It is for this reason that the author of this article thinks it to be a "peculiar teaching" -

Some of the notes are good and helpful, but many promote some of the peculiar teachings of The Local Church. These include what seems to be a modalistic understanding of the Triune God, “calling on the name of the Lord”, the mingling of the divine with human in believers, and an eschatology which, while pre-millennial, includes several unusual particulars.

The author himself fails to admit that many practices and teachings in Christianity today would be peculiar to the early church - such as Christmas, Easter, mandatory tithing, ritualistic mass or communion services, clown shows, smoke machines etc because of their pagan or worldly origins.

The sincere calling on the name of the Lord and the teaching by Lee to do so is most definitely not peculiar but what Watchman Nee might call "normal".

Ohio · 11-09-2016, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

To give an example, suppose someone knows the verse about nothing being impossible for God. They then pray the verse in the context of asking God for a million dollars for their own selfish pursuits. They are praying the Bible but they ask amiss according to God. According to you, since they pray the bible they are praying right.

Suppose someone pray reads a message from Lee about nothing being impossible for God in the context of God changing our sinful hearts. According to you, to pray such a prayer would be wrong, because it uses Lee's message. But according to God the prayer itself is right.

We are not discussing reinventing the wheel. I believe in the Canon. So did Witness Lee. My point is that we have received the (written) Word of God through men. Yet you seem to believe that we need an instruction from the Bible to do anything. We need an instruction from the Bible to pray-read messages. Yet you know as well as I that following instructions from the Bible is not how the Bible itself was constructed. If that were true, then the Old Testament should define the New Testament. But men had to figure it out, pray about it, put two and two together, and give us the New Testament Canon.

Please don't project these ridiculous ideas on me. I never wrote them.

To ask God for a million dollars is not to pray according to the Bible.

To ask God to win that lawsuit against Heritage House Publishers is to pray according to Lee, but it also is not to pray according to the Bible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I believe that God still speaks today and did not stop speaking when the Bible was written. I believe there is no difference between pray-reading a (biblical) message from Lee, and you pray -reading a bible verse which has gone through umpteen different translations. I believe that prayer from our own misguided hearts can potentially be worse than pray-reading a message from Lee if that message is on target. I believe that pray-reading a bible verse that we may understand out of context to be no better than pray-reading a message of Lee that is "in context".

I have read many messages from Lee that were not on target. You, however, are entitled to your own prayer life. My only suggestion is that which Jesus gave to His own disciples, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees" at LSM.

Evangelical · 11-09-2016, 07:18 PM

My post is not really addressing "praying according to the Bible" but what we can and cannot pray-read.

My point is that it is not whether we pray-read the Bible or not that really matters but whether what we pray is truthful or not.

It is possible to pray read a Lee message and pray according to the Bible. It is possible to pray-read the Bible and not pray according to the Bible (ask amiss, or have the wrong understanding of the verse). It is also possible to pray-read a Less message and ask amiss. What matters is where our hearts are at when we pray - the key thing about pray-reading is not just simply "praying verses back to God" but to pray our (Spirit-given) inspiration from the verses back to God. This is another key difference between pray-reading in the Recovery and merely repeating verses back to God in prayer as practiced in denominations - the Recovery emphasizes the subjective aspects whereas denominations make it an objective religious practice.

Freedom · 11-09-2016, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What about all of those people calling on the name of the Lord in a genuine way? What do you say about those? How is this peculiar? How it is any more peculiar than praying in tongues?
I agree it can't be a passive practice done according to some formula, and I could say the same about any aspect of the Christian life. That does not mean the practice itself is wrong.
This seems to be your attempt to discredit the practice of calling on the name of the Lord by pointing to examples by which people may not initiate to call on the Lord. If that is to be the standard of how we determine something to be peculiar or not, then we better start discussing the fact that in practically every denominational church there is someone at the front initiating and telling everyone what to do, and they do it, even if they don't feel like it.

Again, I think you're missing my point. I'm not attempting to gauge sincerity or suggest that a lack of genuineness can invalidate a practice. We have discussed the intended purpose of the LC practice of calling on the name of the Lord. Since this discussion started, I have been making the argument that the LC practice does not necessarily reflect the phrase "call on the name of the Lord" which is found in the Bible. You might not agree that I distinguish between the two, but unless you are able to come to terms with the possibility that the two aren't necessarily synonymous, then it will be hard to see the point that some of us are trying to make here.

Unless the LC practice consistently fulfills it's intended purpose, then a continued promotion is questionable. I don't doubt that the practice was originally intended to help everyone practice to invoke the Lord's name. However, given the tendency for it to be practiced formulaically, there is indication that something has gone awry. Indeed, there are even aberrant sects like The Shouters in China. Talk about extreme. That is what happens when something is taken to the extreme. Again, that doesn't automatically invalidate the practice, it just makes you wonder as to it's true benefit.

Evangelical · 11-09-2016, 08:46 PM

I take your point. You are saying it has become formulaic just like reciting the Lord's prayer has become formulaic in Christianity.

But if we consider the teaching of it, the various purposes of calling on the Lord can be found here:
http://www.callingonthelord.org/

That is the teaching of it.

I cannot think why a person would think teaching about calling on the Lord to be peculiar (not referring to you, but the author of the site that said it was a peculiar teaching), unless they had a love of religion but an aversion to the Lord's presence, like the Pharisees.

Freedom · 11-10-2016, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I cannot think why a person would think teaching about calling on the Lord to be peculiar (not referring to you, but the author of the site that said it was a peculiar teaching), unless they had a love of religion but an aversion to the Lord's presence, like the Pharisees.

On two different sections of the site you linked, I came across the following statements:
Some Christians may consider calling on the Lord equivalent to the same as praying to Him. It is true that calling is a type of prayer, but calling is not merely praying. For example, Jeremiah 29:12 clearly differentiates the two: “Then you will call upon Me and come and pray to Me, and I will listen to you.”

When we call loudly with an open mouth we experience Psalm 81:7a, 10b. As we love the Lord with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength (Mark 12:30), we call upon Him with all of our being. The use of the word “wide” in Psalm 81:10 implies a strenuous exercise. Opening our mouth this way leads us into a richer experience of Christ.

It is troubling that they would distinguish calling and prayer. The two can be the same thing. A prayer can be a cry out to God. It's these kind of statements that raise a bit of a question mark. They provide one example of a difference between calling and prayer and then they ready to make a claim about what other Christians fail to 'see' or practice.

The second sentence is even more troubling. It talks about audible calling. I don't necessarily have a problem with that by itself, but it also suggests it should be 'loud' and finally says that it should be a "strenuous exercise." When there start to be assertions about the intensity or volume at which it should be practiced, that's where things can get questionable and give people the ground to label it as a peculiar teaching.

A number of years ago, I attended a college conference where there was a message given on the subject of calling on the Lord. The brother who gave that message mentioned listening to some old tapes of WL speaking on the subject of calling on the Lord, and he was impressed by the way that WL had demonstrated "calling on the Lord." Apparently, the example WL gave was done at the top of his lungs with much more exuberance than it is normally practiced. So the brother was trying to make the point that there was supposedly a minimal level of intensity at which it should be practiced (I guess this might have been what WL taught at some point).

Later that day after getting back, we had a home meeting with a few who had been at the conference. One person in the meeting (who was at that conference) had a history of being a bit mentally unstable. During the meeting, we wanted to try to practice what the brother had talked about at the conference. As we were all shouting "Oh Lord Jesus" the unstable person started shouting louder and louder, and after a minute or so, this person had worked himself into a fit of rage and was yelling at all of us in the room. It took some effort to calm him down and the situation was a bit scary as it was completely unexpected.

Apparently, he had gotten angry that the rest of us weren't calling loud enough, based upon what he heard at the conference. Anyways, my point here is that the whole situation was instigated by a message claiming that the practice of calling on the Lord should have a certain level of 'intensity' to it. The person who was mentally ill took it to the extreme, but the rest of us didn't know any better either. We were just attempting to practice what we had been taught. This is where peculiarity comes into play. At least from what I've seen, what the LC teaches about calling on the Lord has the potential to be (and has been) taken to certain extremes.

Evangelical · 11-11-2016, 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

On two different sections of the site you linked, I came across the following statements:
Some Christians may consider calling on the Lord equivalent to the same as praying to Him. It is true that calling is a type of prayer, but calling is not merely praying. For example, Jeremiah 29:12 clearly differentiates the two: “Then you will call upon Me and come and pray to Me, and I will listen to you.”

When we call loudly with an open mouth we experience Psalm 81:7a, 10b. As we love the Lord with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength (Mark 12:30), we call upon Him with all of our being. The use of the word “wide” in Psalm 81:10 implies a strenuous exercise. Opening our mouth this way leads us into a richer experience of Christ.

It is troubling that they would distinguish calling and prayer. The two can be the same thing. A prayer can be a cry out to God. It's these kind of statements that raise a bit of a question mark. They provide one example of a difference between calling and prayer and then they ready to make a claim about what other Christians fail to 'see' or practice.

The second sentence is even more troubling. It talks about audible calling. I don't necessarily have a problem with that by itself, but it also suggests it should be 'loud' and finally says that it should be a "strenuous exercise." When there start to be assertions about the intensity or volume at which it should be practiced, that's where things can get questionable and give people the ground to label it as a peculiar teaching.

A number of years ago, I attended a college conference where there was a message given on the subject of calling on the Lord. The brother who gave that message mentioned listening to some old tapes of WL speaking on the subject of calling on the Lord, and he was impressed by the way that WL had demonstrated "calling on the Lord." Apparently, the example WL gave was done at the top of his lungs with much more exuberance than it is normally practiced. So the brother was trying to make the point that there was supposedly a minimal level of intensity at which it should be practiced (I guess this might have been what WL taught at some point).

Later that day after getting back, we had a home meeting with a few who had been at the conference. One person in the meeting (who was at that conference) had a history of being a bit mentally unstable. During the meeting, we wanted to try to practice what the brother had talked about at the conference. As we were all shouting "Oh Lord Jesus" the unstable person started shouting louder and louder, and after a minute or so, this person had worked himself into a fit of rage and was yelling at all of us in the room. It took some effort to calm him down and the situation was a bit scary as it was completely unexpected.

Apparently, he had gotten angry that the rest of us weren't calling loud enough, based upon what he heard at the conference. Anyways, my point here is that the whole situation was instigated by a message claiming that the practice of calling on the Lord should have a certain level of 'intensity' to it. The person who was mentally ill took it to the extreme, but the rest of us didn't know any better either. We were just attempting to practice what we had been taught. This is where peculiarity comes into play. At least from what I've seen, what the LC teaches about calling on the Lord has the potential to be (and has been) taken to certain extremes.

I think you are reading too much into what they are saying. I think they are saying it's a type of prayer because it is about contacting the Lord. On the other hand it's not "just prayer", because we cannot do so well just by calling. If we just called on the Lord and did not ask God for anything we would not receive anything.

I think anything in Christianity can be taken to the extreme. I have also observed the extreme angry behavior in churches before but it was to do with the doctrine.

Freedom · 11-11-2016, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think you are reading too much into what they are saying. I think they are saying it's a type of prayer because it is about contacting the Lord. On the other hand it's not "just prayer", because we cannot do so well just by calling. If we just called on the Lord and did not ask God for anything we would not receive anything.

I think anything in Christianity can be taken to the extreme. I have also observed the extreme angry behavior in churches before but it was to do with the doctrine.

It has been my observation and that of many others that the LC has a pattern of taking things to the extreme. Of course, anyone can take something to the extreme if they want to, but when a pattern exists, that's when it raises more difficult questions. At a very general level, the LC practice of calling on the name of the Lord is a 'shock' to newcomers and something that they generally have to acclimate themselves to. My question for you is whether or not this 'hurdle' to newcomers is necessary or not. Unless you can make the compelling argument that it is, then it is an 'extreme' that people must embrace in order to exist in the LC.

Time and time again, I saw people get scared off by practices like calling on the Lord. When people who have a genuine heart to follow the Lord are driven away by practices that they don't feel comfortable with, it raises difficult questions. I'm not talking about people just not liking the environment of a particular church or particular practices. I'm talking about practices that raise genuine and valid questions time and time again. If a Christian group is put in the position of having to constantly defend what they do, then maybe it's time to stop blaming the concerned individuals and instead start putting practices under the microscope.

So it is on this basis that I read things like that site you linked with a grain of salt. When I read that calling must happen 'loudly' or that it must be an "strenuous exercise", that raises a red flag. I've seen firsthand such things taken to an extreme in this way. And this is what is being taught in the LC. There is no way to question it in that environment or to put safety measures in place so that it doesn't get taken the wrong way. They just teach something and let people run with it. If it gets taken too far, they just point fingers.

Evangelical · 11-11-2016, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

It has been my observation and that of many others that the LC has a pattern of taking things to the extreme. Of course, anyone can take something to the extreme if they want to, but when a pattern exists, that's when it raises more difficult questions. At a very general level, the LC practice of calling on the name of the Lord is a 'shock' to newcomers and something that they generally have to acclimate themselves to. My question for you is whether or not this 'hurdle' to newcomers is necessary or not. Unless you can make the compelling argument that it is, then it is an 'extreme' that people must embrace in order to exist in the LC.

To a newcomer anything done in church will seem strange. I would never say contacting the Lord is a hurdle. I would say it is far less extreme and off putting than a room full of people blabbering in tongues.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

Time and time again, I saw people get scared off by practices like calling on the Lord. When people who have a genuine heart to follow the Lord are driven away by practices that they don't feel comfortable with, it raises difficult questions. I'm not talking about people just not liking the environment of a particular church or particular practices. I'm talking about practices that raise genuine and valid questions time and time again. If a Christian group is put in the position of having to constantly defend what they do, then maybe it's time to stop blaming the concerned individuals and instead start putting practices under the microscope.

I should think demons and sinners get scared off by calling on the Lord.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

So it is on this basis that I read things like that site you linked with a grain of salt. When I read that calling must happen 'loudly' or that it must be an "strenuous exercise", that raises a red flag. I've seen firsthand such things taken to an extreme in this way. And this is what is being taught in the LC. There is no way to question it in that environment or to put safety measures in place so that it doesn't get taken the wrong way. They just teach something and let people run with it. If it gets taken too far, they just point fingers.

Maybe we are just applying/following this Bible verse?:

Isa. 12:4, 6 “Call upon His name!..Cry out and give a ringing shout”

Freedom · 11-11-2016, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

To a newcomer anything done in church will seem strange. I would never say contacting the Lord is a hurdle. I would say it is far less extreme and off putting than a room full of people blabbering in tongues.

There’s a big difference between someone feeling apprehensive/confused walking into a church for the first time as opposed to feeling alarmed at what has been encountered. I’m talking about the latter, yet it seems you would like to blur any line of distinction. Lots of Christian groups strive to be welcoming to newcomers, and for good reason. The LC environment requires explanation. Even someone who has been a Christian for many years might be taken aback at the shouting of “Oh Lord Jesus.” It’s not that there’s necessarily anything wrong with what is being practiced, it’s just that the practice is peculiar, because it is unique to the LC.

Peculiar - belonging exclusively to some person, group, or thing

The practice the LC labels calling on the name of the Lord, is unique to their group - and therefore peculiar. Again, I say, there is no evidence to link what the LC practices to any form of Biblical practice. If there were, then it might be justifiable to have something ‘peculiar’ going on. What happened in Acts 2 was considered peculiar to those observing. But that doesn’t mean that we purposely need to act ‘different’ when there is no reason to.

Quote:

I should think demons and sinners get scared off by calling on the Lord.

Your mention of demons in attempt to rationalize LC practices is getting to be a bit absurd. It’s not a good way to get any of us here to take your positions seriously.

Evangelical · 11-11-2016, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

There’s a big difference between someone feeling apprehensive/confused walking into a church for the first time as opposed to feeling alarmed at what has been encountered. I’m talking about the latter, yet it seems you would like to blur any line of distinction. Lots of Christian groups strive to be welcoming to newcomers, and for good reason. The LC environment requires explanation. Even someone who has been a Christian for many years might be taken aback at the shouting of “Oh Lord Jesus.” It’s not that there’s necessarily anything wrong with what is being practiced, it’s just that the practice is peculiar, because it is unique to the LC.

Peculiar - belonging exclusively to some person, group, or thing

The practice the LC labels calling on the name of the Lord, is unique to their group - and therefore peculiar. Again, I say, there is no evidence to link what the LC practices to any form of Biblical practice. If there were, then it might be justifiable to have something ‘peculiar’ going on. What happened in Acts 2 was considered peculiar to those observing. But that doesn’t mean that we purposely need to act ‘different’ when there is no reason to.

Your mention of demons in attempt to rationalize LC practices is getting to be a bit absurd. It’s not a good way to get any of us here to take your positions seriously.

The church services of the denominations do not encourage the Lord's presence or much zeal for the Lord, so when a person encounters it for the first time they may be taken aback. There can be a similar sort of reaction when people attend Pentecostal churches. The church services of one man speaking and everyone silent is a sign of their degradation.

Freedom · 11-12-2016, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The church services of the denominations do not encourage the Lord's presence or much zeal for the Lord, so when a person encounters it for the first time they may be taken aback. There can be a similar sort of reaction when people attend Pentecostal churches. The church services of one man speaking and everyone silent is a sign of their degradation.

I am curious as to what your basis is for making such a sweeping generalization about denominations. Personally, I wouldn't take 'zeal' encountered in a meeting to mean anything. But you are more than welcome to do so as it relates to which group you want to be involved with.

People often have criticized Pentecostal groups as 'fake' or 'superficial', because what it seen in those groups might indicate that. But people might come to the same conclusion about the LC too. Since your personal experience in the LC gives you the view that certain practices are completely genuine, I respect that you want to view the LC that way. At the same time, I ask why you feel that your personal experience gives you the grounds to discredit denominations as 'degraded'.

Evangelical · 11-12-2016, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

I am curious as to what your basis is for making such a sweeping generalization about denominations. Personally, I wouldn't take 'zeal' encountered in a meeting to mean anything. But you are more than welcome to do so as it relates to which group you want to be involved with.

People often have criticized Pentecostal groups as 'fake' or 'superficial', because what it seen in those groups might indicate that. But people might come to the same conclusion about the LC too. Since your personal experience in the LC gives you the view that certain practices are completely genuine, I respect that you want to view the LC that way. At the same time, I ask why you feel that your personal experience gives you the grounds to discredit denominations as 'degraded'.

Everyone functioning is the standard of a normal church according to the Bible. Christians that attend denominations normally only function when they leave the church service and exercise their spirituality in their daily life as individuals or families.

Ephesians 4:16 says, “All the Body, being joined together and being knit together through every joint of the rich supply and through the operation in the measure of each one part, causes the growth of the Body unto the building up of itself in love.”

Freedom · 11-13-2016, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Everyone functioning is the standard of a normal church according to the Bible. Christians that attend denominations normally only function when they leave the church service and exercise their spirituality in their daily life as individuals or families.

Ephesians 4:16 says, “All the Body, being joined together and being knit together through every joint of the rich supply and through the operation in the measure of each one part, causes the growth of the Body unto the building up of itself in love.”

Surely you would agree that there are different kinds of functioning. In the LC, there is only one kind that is emphasized, and that is prophesying. Just because there is a common practice of one type of 'functioning', that can't be taken as evidence of anything. Similarily, just because a denomination has a single speaker doesn't 'prove' that no one else functions.

DistantStar · 11-14-2016, 01:58 AM

Quote:

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 · 11-14-2016, 10:27 AM

Quote:

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.

Evangelical · 11-14-2016, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

Surely you would agree that there are different kinds of functioning. In the LC, there is only one kind that is emphasized, and that is prophesying. Just because there is a common practice of one type of 'functioning', that can't be taken as evidence of anything. Similarily, just because a denomination has a single speaker doesn't 'prove' that no one else functions.

The one(or two or three) speakers for an hour or so long service, certainly proves that no one else functions in that hour, because no one else speaks. If anyone speaks it is to read a short verse or two from the bible. No one else except the pastor(s) is given the opportunity to speak for a couple of minutes on matters of spiritual importance, because they are seen as unqualified. If people speak it is normally to talk about the church programs or activities and not teaching the Bible.

Prophesy is emphasized because it was the one thing that Paul emphasized, which no one outside of the Lord's Recovery really does or talks about. Paul desired people to prophesy, there is little desire in most churches outside of the LC. In the LC the functioning also includes service (e.g. setting up the chairs), prayer, playing music, singing hymns, praise, etc.

Freedom · 11-14-2016, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The one(or two or three) speakers for an hour or so long service, certainly proves that no one else functions in that hour, because no one else speaks. If anyone speaks it is to read a short verse or two from the bible. No one else except the pastor(s) is given the opportunity to speak for a couple of minutes on matters of spiritual importance, because they are seen as unqualified. If people speak it is normally to talk about the church programs or activities and not teaching the Bible.

Paul taught that 2-3 should speak (1 Cor 14:29), and the practical reasons for such an arrangement are self-evident. It a large meeting it's just not feasible to allow everyone to speak given time constraints.

What is more troublesome is that you automatically equate speaking with functioning. The two can be synonymous, but a lack of speaking doesn't indicate a lack of functioning. Paul distinguishes between different functions including teaching and/or prophesying. He says that not all have the same function. So it's safe to say that an environment where few (or just one) speak, does not indicate that it's an environment where no one is functioning. And since not all function in the same way, then it is safe to say that in an environment where everyone is asked to perform the same function, that some would be acting outside of whatever function that they do have.

Just as an example, the LC likes to help everyone to be able to speak in meetings, and quite often not all are so inclined to do so, because a lot of people don't like speaking in public. Unless a person truly just needs 'practice' at learning to speak, such aversion to speaking could be evidence that it is not their function.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, there are people out there who want a personal platform. They want to be noticed and they want to be visible. It is quite possible what they have to say is not beneficial for the church to hear. Notwithstanding, the LC provides them a fulfillment for that kind of attention that they crave. I've seen more than a few of such types.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Prophesy is emphasized because it was the one thing that Paul emphasized, which no one outside of the Lord's Recovery really does or talks about. Paul desired people to prophesy, there is little desire in most churches outside of the LC. In the LC the functioning also includes service (e.g. setting up the chairs), prayer, playing music, singing hymns, praise, etc.

Paul desired that all would prophecy, but that doesn't mean such an environment exists (or even can exist). And I would also argue that a lot of what is seen in the LC is not prophesying. It's called parroting what WL said in the HWFMR. If an LC outline of Exodus has a phrase "the science of drinking," members will parrot and declare it without any clue what it means. It's completely absurd. This is why no one takes seriously the practice seen in the LC. I'm not saying that there isn't genuine prophesying that takes place in the LC. But please don't try claiming that no one else outside the LC functions. I don't consider mindlessly repeating something that Lee said to be 'functioning'.

OBW · 11-14-2016, 05:04 PM

Quote:

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.

Evangelical · 11-15-2016, 05:42 AM

We are not just saying anyone's name or saying empty words. We are saying the name of Jesus which if you recall has power in it.

It is also possible to pray the Lord's prayer, ask God for stuff and to do things, and then continue on with daily life, without much interaction. There is interaction resulting when we call on the Lord's name. We call on the Lord's name and pray the Lord's prayer in the way you described.

Many times when we call on the Lord's name, there is provision, problems are solved, just by invoking His presence.

Evangelical · 11-15-2016, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

Paul taught that 2-3 should speak (1 Cor 14:29), and the practical reasons for such an arrangement are self-evident. It a large meeting it's just not feasible to allow everyone to speak given time constraints...

The prophesying in the meetings may not be ideal but consider, the denominational system shuts the people's mouths and our system does not. In the denominational system there is no room for anyone to prophesy or teach spiritual things, only the qualified person can do that. The church member of the denominations are restricted to speaking about personal testimonies, or non-spiritual church activities such as fund raising events and social events. In many cases during a 1 hour service there is not even any room for someone to speak about a personal testimony.

Freedom · 11-15-2016, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The prophesying in the meetings may not be ideal but consider, the denominational system shuts the people's mouths and our system does not. In the denominational system there is no room for anyone to prophesy or teach spiritual things, only the qualified person can do that. The church member of the denominations are restricted to speaking about personal testimonies, or non-spiritual church activities such as fund raising events and social events. In many cases during a 1 hour service there is not even any room for someone to speak about a personal testimony.

These are two different extremes. Notice that I'm not claiming that one is better than the other. But I do point to the shortcomings of the LC practice, as you also do for what is practiced in the denominations. If nothing else, the practice of having one person speak is just a matter of practicality for large gatherings. You can't have 200+ people in a room and let it be a free for all without risking getting a lot of people frustrated. Sure it satisfies those who wish the opportunity to speak, but what about the rest? One thing that really bugged me about LC meetings was the constant flipping back and forth between different subjects as different people stood up to share. There are valid reasons why most churches don't embrace this kind of model. Is the LC wrong to want to allow everyone to speak? I don't think so. It just doesn't work the way they think in real life.

Ohio · 11-15-2016, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

These are two different extremes. Notice that I'm not claiming that one is better than the other. But I do point to the shortcomings of the LC practice, as you also do for what is practiced in the denominations. If nothing else, the practice of having one person speak is just a matter of practicality for large gatherings. You can't have 200+ people in a room and let it be a free for all without risking getting a lot of people frustrated. Sure it satisfies those who wish the opportunity to speak, but what about the rest? One thing that really bugged me about LC meetings was the constant flipping back and forth between different subjects as different people stood up to share. There are valid reasons why most churches don't embrace this kind of model. Is the LC wrong to want to allow everyone to speak? I don't think so. It just doesn't work the way they think in real life.

There was a time when the Spirit of God was so alive in th LC meetings, at least the 3 LC's I was apart of. It was our practice to give testimonies after the message was given, and those times were so invigorating, refreshing, and enlightening. Perhaps not every testimony, but there is no way to compare the current so-called "prophecying" practice of repeating Lee's messages to that time.

I can't tell you how many times I heard an opening line starting with, "BruLeesaid," or another in Ohio, "Ti'said" for "Titus said." That's what happens when you ask the congregation to study their messages and repeat them. That must have sounded so weird to guests. Fortunately, or really unfortunately, we never had many guests. Actually we used to have many guests until we were instructed by outsiders what our meetings must look like.

OBW · 11-15-2016, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We are not just saying anyone's name or saying empty words. We are saying the name of Jesus which if you recall has power in it.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It is also possible to pray the Lord's prayer, ask God for stuff and to do things, and then continue on with daily life, without much interaction. There is interaction resulting when we call on the Lord's name. We call on the Lord's name and pray the Lord's prayer in the way you described.

Many times when we call on the Lord's name, there is provision, problems are solved, just by invoking His presence.

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.

Ohio · 11-15-2016, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

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.

OBW, so well said! You have a way with words. Worthwhile for others to read them again.

You are so right. Their "calling" was like a magical chant, at best merely a pick-me-up in the midst of very dark actions. Like a 7th inning stretch at a boring baseball game.

Evangelical · 11-15-2016, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

These are two different extremes. Notice that I'm not claiming that one is better than the other. But I do point to the shortcomings of the LC practice, as you also do for what is practiced in the denominations. If nothing else, the practice of having one person speak is just a matter of practicality for large gatherings. You can't have 200+ people in a room and let it be a free for all without risking getting a lot of people frustrated. Sure it satisfies those who wish the opportunity to speak, but what about the rest? One thing that really bugged me about LC meetings was the constant flipping back and forth between different subjects as different people stood up to share. There are valid reasons why most churches don't embrace this kind of model. Is the LC wrong to want to allow everyone to speak? I don't think so. It just doesn't work the way they think in real life.

Can't? The LC regularly have more than 200+ prophesying every Sunday.
Different subjects? Everyone speaks about the same topic - we have the weekly morning revival.

Evangelical · 11-15-2016, 01:21 PM

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.

Freedom · 11-15-2016, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Can't? The LC regularly have more than 200+ prophesying every Sunday.
Different subjects? Everyone speaks about the same topic - we have the weekly morning revival.

200+ people speaking in a meeting would mean a meager 36 seconds apiece if the meeting were to finish in 2 hours (assuming that's all the meeting consisted of).

The HWFMR doesn't necessarily stick to the same topic, and even then, the same topic doesn't necessarily mean that those speaking will stay on topic. But all that is beside the point. I was questioning as to whether letting that many people speak in a meeting just might have the unintended side effect of wearing down the audience. I am one of those people with a short attention span, and some LC meetings were an absolute drag.

Evangelical · 11-15-2016, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

200+ people speaking in a meeting would mean a meager 36 seconds apiece if the meeting were to finish in 2 hours (assuming that's all the meeting consisted of).

The HWFMR doesn't necessarily stick to the same topic, and even then, the same topic doesn't necessarily mean that those speaking will stay on topic. But all that is beside the point. I was questioning as to whether letting that many people speak in a meeting just might have the unintended side effect of wearing down the audience. I am one of those people with a short attention span, and some LC meetings were an absolute drag.

In a large group, we can set time limits, sometimes 1 minute, or, we can give everyone a chance to speak by splitting into smaller groups. Even 30 seconds, is plenty of time to say a few words. Sometimes the best words are the shortest. Not everyone has to speak in meeting, as many as possible is good, but for those who don't get the opportunity they get a chance next time.

By audience, I think you mean congregation. When you go to church you are not going to a stage show or the movies to be entertained, you are going to participate. Anyway, no one is forcing you to stay, if you are bored you can always leave early or go outside for a moment.

OBW · 11-16-2016, 04:33 PM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · 11-16-2016, 06:55 PM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · 11-16-2016, 09:29 PM

Quote:

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:

Quote:

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 · 11-16-2016, 09:46 PM

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 · 11-17-2016, 05:01 PM

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 · 11-19-2016, 02:56 PM

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.

micah6v8 · 11-20-2016, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

Paul taught that 2-3 should speak (1 Cor 14:29), ...

Hi all,

what do you make of 1 Cor 14:29? To me, it means that in each meeting, just 2-3 should prophesy. Not 30 people.

Ohio · 11-20-2016, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by micah6v8

Hi all, what do you make of 1 Cor 14:29? To me, it means that in each meeting, just 2-3 should prophesy. Not 30 people.

And interestingly, the rest of the attendants should evaluate or weigh carefully what the 2 or 3 just prophecied.

None of us should consider for one minute that real prophecying is merely repeating Lee's messages.

Freedom · 11-20-2016, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

And interestingly, the rest of the attendants should evaluate or weigh carefully what the 2 or 3 just prophecied. None of us should consider for one minute that real prophecying is merely repeating Lee's messages.

Unfortunately, some people seem to want to insist that the LC is the only group that has a practice of prophecying. It is ironic then that what is practiced in the LC is the mere repetition of the words of one man. And as I have tried to explain to Evangelical, this repetition is often done without even having any understanding of what Lee was talking about.

Evangelical · 11-21-2016, 04:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

Unfortunately, some people seem to want to insist that the LC is the only group that has a practice of prophecying. It is ironic then that what is practiced in the LC is the mere repetition of the words of one man. And as I have tried to explain to Evangelical, this repetition is often done without even having any understanding of what Lee was talking about.

Which groups practice prophesying then? Which denominations? Of the small percentage that believe prophesying and prophets still exist today, these ones would not give any time in the meetings or church service for prophesying. It's almost 100% or 99% of Christian that does not prophesy.

Evangelical · 11-21-2016, 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

And interestingly, the rest of the attendants should evaluate or weigh carefully what the 2 or 3 just prophecied. None of us should consider for one minute that real prophecying is merely repeating Lee's messages.

The local churches also believe that real prophesying is not merely repeating Lee's messages. Everyone is encouraged to compose a prophesy which is an inspired message from the Lord.

Evangelical · 11-21-2016, 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by micah6v8

Hi all, what do you make of 1 Cor 14:29? To me, it means that in each meeting, just 2-3 should prophesy. Not 30 people.

A church is supposedly 2-3, according to some here, so if that's the case, it's really saying that the whole church should prophesy.

See: Matt 18:20 "For where two or three gather together as my followers, I am there among them."

Ohio · 11-21-2016, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The local churches also believe that real prophesying is not merely repeating Lee's messages. Everyone is encouraged to compose a prophesy which is an inspired message from the Lord.

"Inspired" message from a tape recorder?

micah6v8 · 11-21-2016, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

A church is supposedly 2-3, according to some here, so if that's the case, it's really saying that the whole church should prophesy.

See: Matt 18:20 "For where two or three gather together as my followers, I am there among them."

1 Cor 14 v 29 And as to prophets, two or three should speak, and the others discern.

Reading this verse, one can tell that Paul is not talking about a three-people church here.

There are at least four people in this verse:-
(1) Two speakers. (Room is given for a third speaker) (Paul does not give room for a fourth or fifth speaker).
(2) The others who are discerning:- The word is "others" so this means at least two people are discerning, possibly more.

It's hard to see how one can reach the conclusion that all should speak in a meeting.

Ohio · 11-21-2016, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by micah6v8

1 Cor 14 v 29 And as to prophets, two or three should speak, and the others discern.

Reading this verse, one can tell that Paul is not talking about a three-people church here.

There are at least four people in this verse:-
(1) Two speakers. (Room is given for a third speaker) (Paul does not give room for a fourth or fifth speaker).
(2) The others who are discerning:- The word is "others" so this means at least two people are discerning, possibly more.

It's hard to see how one can reach the conclusion that all should speak in a meeting.

Good points here.

The subsequent instruction to this verse is 14.31, "For you can all prophesy one by one." This refers to all the prophets, who are instructed to take turns speaking, yet limit themselves to two or three, obviously per meeting, and giving time to discernment 14.29, and for that matter time to those with a revelation, with a psalm, with a teaching, and a tongue (with interpretation 14.27, of course), as Paul instructs in 14.26.

LSMers love this verse 14.31, but take it out of context. Here Paul is not speaking to every church member, but to all the prophets. This is proven by 12.29, "Are all apostles, are all prophets, are all teachers ..." The obvious answer to Paul's rhetorical is "no."

For LSM LCs to be faithful to Paul's word here, as they boast that they alone are, they would not encourage every member to prophesy, rather they would provide time for the discernment of the prophecies, they would encourage tongues with interpretations, and they would encourage local brothers to bring revelations and teachings to the meetings, something they strongly prohibit.

Freedom · 11-21-2016, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Which groups practice prophesying then? Which denominations? Of the small percentage that believe prophesying and prophets still exist today, these ones would not give any time in the meetings or church service for prophesying. It's almost 100% or 99% of Christian that does not prophesy.

You claim that 99%-100% of Christians don't prophesy, yet that kind of blanket statement neglects the fact that many (or even possibly the majority) don't have the gift to do so. In all fairness, I don't know what percentage of Christians have that gift, however, I don't think there is any reason to assume that most do.

The way that prophesying is evidenced is very simple. Whenever a prophet speaks, then prophesying is being practiced. I think people need to move away from this idea that prophesying is evidenced by the number of people speaking. Unless you know who all possess that gift, then how can you claim that people should be practicing it but aren't? That is the problem with what Lee taught. When you claim these outrageous numbers, saying that 99% of Christians do not prophesy, that is based on the false assumption that 99% have the gift of prophecy and aren't using it.

I do acknowledge your concern that some who should be functioning in that way aren't. It's a legitimate concern, and perhaps Christian leaders do need to make sure there is more opportunity for people to speak. But consider the flip side to this. I can say with absolute confidence that in the LC, people are pressured to function outside of their individual gifts. To me, that is a far more severe problem than a simple 'idleness' when it comes to functioning. People refuse to function are mainly hurting themselves. But in the LC sometimes you see people speaking who shouldn't be or saying things that aren't of benefit to everyone. That is a more pressing problem because it effects everyone in the group.

Freedom · 11-21-2016, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The local churches also believe that real prophesying is not merely repeating Lee's messages. Everyone is encouraged to compose a prophesy which is an inspired message from the Lord.

As Ohio says, the speaking is mostly inspired out of something from Lee's ministry. Sure, people can put what he said in their own words, but unless they truly have something new to say that is somehow related to something WL said, then it is nothing more than repetition. I can't tell you how many times I heard the elders encourage everyone in the prophesying meeting to just "follow the outline" and share directly from booklet.

OBW · 11-21-2016, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by micah6v8

Hi all,

what do you make of 1 Cor 14:29? To me, it means that in each meeting, just 2-3 should prophesy. Not 30 people.

Been trying to make this statement for some time.

In addition, the phrase "all can prophesy" that comes later is in the context of a definition of who can prophesy (the 2 or 3), not the overturning of the statement that 2 or 3 should be designated.

Evangelical · 11-21-2016, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by micah6v8

1 Cor 14 v 29 And as to prophets, two or three should speak, and the others discern.

Reading this verse, one can tell that Paul is not talking about a three-people church here.

There are at least four people in this verse:-
(1) Two speakers. (Room is given for a third speaker) (Paul does not give room for a fourth or fifth speaker).
(2) The others who are discerning:- The word is "others" so this means at least two people are discerning, possibly more.

It's hard to see how one can reach the conclusion that all should speak in a meeting.

Agree that it is at least 4. Sort of rules out 2-3 person churches doesn't it?

Back on topic - 1 Corinthians 14:31 says everyone in the church can prophesy, one by one. The more prophesying, the more edification. That is why everyone is encouraged to speak in the meeting.

Evangelical · 11-21-2016, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

You claim that 99%-100% of Christians don't prophesy, yet that kind of blanket statement neglects the fact that many (or even possibly the majority) don't have the gift to do so. In all fairness, I don't know what percentage of Christians have that gift, however, I don't think there is any reason to assume that most do.

The way that prophesying is evidenced is very simple. Whenever a prophet speaks, then prophesying is being practiced. I think people need to move away from this idea that prophesying is evidenced by the number of people speaking. Unless you know who all possess that gift, then how can you claim that people should be practicing it but aren't? That is the problem with what Lee taught. When you claim these outrageous numbers, saying that 99% of Christians do not prophesy, that is based on the false assumption that 99% have the gift of prophecy and aren't using it.

I do acknowledge your concern that some who should be functioning in that way aren't. It's a legitimate concern, and perhaps Christian leaders do need to make sure there is more opportunity for people to speak. But consider the flip side to this. I can say with absolute confidence that in the LC, people are pressured to function outside of their individual gifts. To me, that is a far more severe problem than a simple 'idleness' when it comes to functioning. People refuse to function are mainly hurting themselves. But in the LC sometimes you see people speaking who shouldn't be or saying things that aren't of benefit to everyone. That is a more pressing problem because it effects everyone in the group.

We don't need a gift of prophesy to prophesy, just like we don't need a gift of evangelism to evangelize.
1 Corinthians 14:31 says we may all prophesy one by one, for edification. This does not mean everyone has a gift of prophesy.

Evangelical · 11-21-2016, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

As Ohio says, the speaking is mostly inspired out of something from Lee's ministry. Sure, people can put what he said in their own words, but unless they truly have something new to say that is somehow related to something WL said, then it is nothing more than repetition. I can't tell you how many times I heard the elders encourage everyone in the prophesying meeting to just "follow the outline" and share directly from booklet.

Sometimes God can inspire us to speak what Lee said. Many relate it to their own experiences or insights.

Ohio · 11-21-2016, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Sometimes God can inspire us to speak what Lee said. Many relate it to their own experiences or insights.

Of course that sometimes happens, but that is not how LC members are constantly instructed.

Ohio · 11-21-2016, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We don't need a gift of prophesy to prophesy, just like we don't need a gift of evangelism to evangelize.
1 Corinthians 14:31 says we may all prophesy one by one, for edification. This does not mean everyone has a gift of prophesy.

You have neither read the Bible nor my post.

This word is not to all members but to "all the prophets."

But you cannot interpret this properly because Lee did not, and you take Lee's interpretation over the plain reading of the scriptures.

Evangelical · 11-22-2016, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

You have neither read the Bible nor my post.
This word is not to all members but to "all the prophets."
But you cannot interpret this properly because Lee did not, and you take Lee's interpretation over the plain reading of the scriptures.

So who is "my brothers" in this verse, it is not just the 2-3 prophets:
1 Cor 14:39 So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy.

Paul is telling everyone to desire to prophesy.

It seems that prophesy is beneficial to the church, so the more the better.

And if you want the "plain reading of the scriptures", I hope you take note of this verse:

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 1 Cor 14:34

You cannot insist on only 2-3 prophets and yet ignore Paul's command about women speaking in church. That would be hypocritical to say the least. If you want to say that women speaking in church was for cultural reasons (or some other excuse), maybe I can use that argument also for the 2-3 prophets, and say it was restricted to 2-3 because of the problems. As a general rule everyone should prophesy.

Evangelical · 11-22-2016, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Of course that sometimes happens, but that is not how LC members are constantly instructed.

My observation has been that LC members (including myself) are instructed to fellowship with the Lord, use our spirit to contact the Lord, then write down our inspiration. We are never told to repeat Lee's messages. Maybe that's how it was in the 70's/80's. In fact, if anything, I've noticed people try to out do Witness Lee in their spiritual revelation and insight. That is, to merely repeat Lee's messages is seen as a less spiritual thing to do than to be able to compose your own inspired message. Anyone who merely repeats Lees messages is seen to be a less spiritually mature Christian. I think this all points to the fact that on this matter of LC members being taught to simply repeat Lee's messages, is quite wrong. If they are just starting to learn to speak in a meeting, then speaking Lee's messages might be the first thing they are encouraged to do, but they are expected to move on from that and compose and deliver their own prophesies.

Freedom · 11-25-2016, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We don't need a gift of prophesy to prophesy, just like we don't need a gift of evangelism to evangelize.
1 Corinthians 14:31 says we may all prophesy one by one, for edification. This does not mean everyone has a gift of prophesy.

1 Cor 14:1 Follow the way of love and eagerly desire gifts of the Spirit, especially prophecy.

1 Cor 14:37 If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command.

The first verse of chapter 14 implies that we can realize gifts we don't have or don't think we have, especially if we desire for that gift. Towards the end of the chapter, notice the phrase "If anyone thinks they are a prophet..." What Paul said here seems to indicate that his word about prophesying is directed at those who view themselves as having that gift.

So I still think there is a prerequisite to having that gift in order to use it. I remember an LC brother saying he had been a Pentecostal, and he had to practice tongue-speaking out of pressure. So in essence, whatever group he had been with was forcing people to practice tongue-speaking whether or not they had the gift. This is the same kind of criticism that I am directing at the practice of prophesying.

I think that people who feel they have the gift of prophecy should feel free to use it. But by the same token, having a specific meeting called a "prophesying meeting," naturally excludes those who don't have the gift or don't feel it their place to function in that way. Remember that Paul says that meetings should be conducted in a fitting and orderly way. That implies some kind of oversight over what is spoken and who is speaking.

Evangelical · 11-26-2016, 02:14 AM

It may be correct that Paul was speaking to those who felt they had the gift. However just because a person does not have a gift does not mean they are excused from doing it, or cannot do it if they want to. For example, it is commonly believed that everyone is called to evangelize but not everyone has a gift of evangelism. Evangelism is seen as a responsibility of everyone. Similarly, I do not see why it is any different with prophesy. Everyone is called to prophesy but not everyone has a gift of prophesy. Actually, everyone is called to edify, and edification is the result of prophesy. The two main functions of the church are edification and evangelism.

micah6v8 · 11-26-2016, 09:36 AM

This is all quite interesting and I would love to hear more from everyone. Iron sharpens iron.

I am reminded of Eph 4 v 11 to 13

11 So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, ¹²to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up ¹³until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

We all have our calling in our lives based on God's providence for the world:- some are doctors (God's way of taking care of his created beings' health), some are farmers (God's way of providing our daily bread), some are police-men (God's way of providing for our safety), some are full-time Christian ministry (God's way of helping us grow in our understanding).

My view is that verse 11, the various groups of people mentioned are full-time Christian ministers (who have God's calling to do these without having secular jobs).

I agree that the majority of Christians (who have secular callings) are also in some sense:
(i) apostles: We are not the 12 apostles. But if "apostles" means "sent out", we all are sent out by God
(ii) prophets:- In Old Testament, not everyone was a prophet. Seems like only those who were specially set aside by God:- eg Jeremiah, Elijah. Today, I don't know if it is correct to say that there are any prophets today. (The modern equivalent of Jeremiah/Elijah who are specifically set aside for the community. If so, these would then be in full-time Christian ministry). But if prophesying means speaking for God, we can to some extent all speak forth for God, based on what we have learnt from reading the bible (which is God's word).
(iii) evangelists:- Some are better at evangelising, but we all surely have a reason why we believe in Christ
(iv) pastors:- Shepherds should be taking care of the sheep. But a sheep can at least warn a fellow sheep that there is a wolf nearby
(v) teachers:- we can teach what we do know. In a school, teachers are the main ones responsible for teaching, but a student who understands the material can also help teach his classmate.

Freedom · 11-26-2016, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It may be correct that Paul was speaking to those who felt they had the gift. However just because a person does not have a gift does not mean they are excused from doing it, or cannot do it if they want to. For example, it is commonly believed that everyone is called to evangelize but not everyone has a gift of evangelism. Evangelism is seen as a responsibility of everyone. Similarly, I do not see why it is any different with prophesy. Everyone is called to prophesy but not everyone has a gift of prophesy. Actually, everyone is called to edify, and edification is the result of prophesy. The two main functions of the church are edification and evangelism.

I agree in principle that a lack of a gift does not prevent someone from doing something they otherwise wouldn't do, but again I would say that it doesn't mean that they have to do it.

1 Cor 14:29-31 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge. But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged.

Notice what Paul says about prophesying. If someone is speaking and another receives revelation, then the first should remain silent. That gives a precedence to those who have something to say that is inspired.

In the LC, the meeting format is such that I don't think it would allow someone truly possessing the gift of prophecy to completely function in that capacity. Why do I say this? There are a few reasons:

1. Time constraints - To squeeze everyone in, there is often a pressing limit on what people can say. This eliminates any inspired speaking that doesn't meet the confines of the LC meeting format. Also, when they limit time to "30s each" or "one sentence", the whole thing becomes a joke. There is not any opportunity for anyone to say anything of substance.

2. The material being used - As I have mentioned already, the basis for the HWFMR is the basis of the speaking. That is a limitation on the content of what is spoken. There can be pressure to speak what everyone else is speaking, so once again, it serves as a limitation on inspired speaking.

3. Cookie-cutter functioning - Paul said that 2-3 should prophesy with other discerning. This was his word on having order in church meetings. By pressuring everyone to prophesy, the LC has created an environment where the true prophets are overshadowed. I couldn't tell you who in the LC has that gift, because the environment does not allow for gifts to be very apparent. Think of it this way. If someone who has no skill at piano is asked to play piano in a meeting for the sake of getting them to 'function', the side effects of doing that would be two-fold. It would obviously have a detrimental effect on the meeting itself, but it would also negate any functioning on the part of the person who does have that gift. This is my argument about prophesying. By allowing everyone to speak, the LC has opened the door to speaking that is of little benefit, but it has also de-emphasized those who have that gift.

Ohio · 11-26-2016, 12:57 PM

Quote:

1. Time constraints - To squeeze everyone in, there is often a pressing limit on what people can say. This eliminates any inspired speaking that doesn't meet the confines of the LC meeting format. Also, when they limit time to "30s each" or "one sentence", the whole thing becomes a joke. There is not any opportunity for anyone to say anything of substance.

2. The material being used - As I have mentioned already, the basis for the HWFMR is the basis of the speaking. That is a limitation on the content of what is spoken. There can be pressure to speak what everyone else is speaking, so once again, it serves as a limitation on inspired speaking.

3. Cookie-cutter functioning

And they call this the organic functioning of the body of Christ, and then go on to condemn all others for not doing the same.

Evangelical · 11-26-2016, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

I agree in principle that a lack of a gift does not prevent someone from doing something they otherwise wouldn't do, but again I would say that it doesn't mean that they have to do it.

1 Cor 14:29-31 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge. But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged.

Notice what Paul says about prophesying. If someone is speaking and another receives revelation, then the first should remain silent. That gives a precedence to those who have something to say that is inspired.

In the LC, the meeting format is such that I don't think it would allow someone truly possessing the gift of prophecy to completely function in that capacity. Why do I say this? There are a few reasons:

1. Time constraints - To squeeze everyone in, there is often a pressing limit on what people can say. This eliminates any inspired speaking that doesn't meet the confines of the LC meeting format. Also, when they limit time to "30s each" or "one sentence", the whole thing becomes a joke. There is not any opportunity for anyone to say anything of substance.

2. The material being used - As I have mentioned already, the basis for the HWFMR is the basis of the speaking. That is a limitation on the content of what is spoken. There can be pressure to speak what everyone else is speaking, so once again, it serves as a limitation on inspired speaking.

3. Cookie-cutter functioning - Paul said that 2-3 should prophesy with other discerning. This was his word on having order in church meetings. By pressuring everyone to prophesy, the LC has created an environment where the true prophets are overshadowed. I couldn't tell you who in the LC has that gift, because the environment does not allow for gifts to be very apparent. Think of it this way. If someone who has no skill at piano is asked to play piano in a meeting for the sake of getting them to 'function', the side effects of doing that would be two-fold. It would obviously have a detrimental effect on the meeting itself, but it would also negate any functioning on the part of the person who does have that gift. This is my argument about prophesying. By allowing everyone to speak, the LC has opened the door to speaking that is of little benefit, but it has also de-emphasized those who have that gift.

The true apostles, true prophets, true evangelists, etc, where are any of these in fact? Could you tell which is which and how? Would you say the true apostle is the one who gives a gifted and uplifting sermon on a Sunday and draws crowds of people to altar calls? Witness Lee did that, thousands of people saved through his ministry. Based upon his gifting and his effectiveness, we could say he was a true apostle. That is hard to deny. On the other hand, an apostle may also be a relatively unknown figure, languishing in some prison in a foreign land, and suffering for Christ. Paul was such an apostle.

On the other hand, it is not necessarily so that a person that does a poor job at something has a detrimental effect. In that case the church should hire professional musicians and hire professionals to do all the work. What you say touches on the view in the local churches that you can minister Christ even if you are not naturally gifted. A person who is good at something may b asked to do something else so their dependency is on Christ and not their natural abilities. I see no indication in the Bible that church should be performance-based. Rather it is about participation and mutual edification in the Spirit and Christ.

aron · 12-07-2016, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by micah6v8

what do you make of 1 Cor 14:29? To me, it means that in each meeting, just 2-3 should prophesy. Not 30 people.

I think context is important here. Paul was writing to a church where bedlam reigned in the meetings. Everyone was trying to out-shout each other. Like it was the day of Pentecost every day. Everyone trying to get into the tongues of angels.

Paul said, "If people come into this meeting, who will get saved?" (1 Cor 14:23) He was trying to restore a sense of order, and decorum. Witness Lee distorted it. Instead of the "You can all prophesy, one by one" Lee made it "You can ALL prophesy, one by one".

And anyone who went off (Lee's) message and gave a private revelation didn't get much of an amen. You'd do better to bust a vein, screaming an outline bullet point or a footnote phrase. Then you'd get the "ayyeemennn", the broad smiles and fist pumps.

TLFisher · 02-12-2017, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

When I read that calling must happen 'loudly' or that it must be an "strenuous exercise", that raises a red flag. I've seen firsthand such things taken to an extreme in this way. And this is what is being taught in the LC. There is no way to question it in that environment or to put safety measures in place so that it doesn't get taken the wrong way. They just teach something and let people run with it. If it gets taken too far, they just point fingers.

Too often, the matter of calling on the Lord loudly is for show. To draw attention to one's self. One can easily call on the Lord quietly or silently. Difference is when you call on the Lord loudly it's for others to see. When you do it quietly or silently, it's between you and the Father.

TLFisher · 02-12-2017, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

I agree in principle that a lack of a gift does not prevent someone from doing something they otherwise wouldn't do, but again I would say that it doesn't mean that they have to do it.

1 Cor 14:29-31 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge. But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged.

Notice what Paul says about prophesying. If someone is speaking and another receives revelation, then the first should remain silent. That gives a precedence to those who have something to say that is inspired.

In the LC, the meeting format is such that I don't think it would allow someone truly possessing the gift of prophecy to completely function in that capacity. Why do I say this? There are a few reasons:

1. Time constraints - To squeeze everyone in, there is often a pressing limit on what people can say. This eliminates any inspired speaking that doesn't meet the confines of the LC meeting format. Also, when they limit time to "30s each" or "one sentence", the whole thing becomes a joke. There is not any opportunity for anyone to say anything of substance.

2. The material being used - As I have mentioned already, the basis for the HWFMR is the basis of the speaking. That is a limitation on the content of what is spoken. There can be pressure to speak what everyone else is speaking, so once again, it serves as a limitation on inspired speaking.

3. Cookie-cutter functioning - Paul said that 2-3 should prophesy with other discerning. This was his word on having order in church meetings. By pressuring everyone to prophesy, the LC has created an environment where the true prophets are overshadowed. I couldn't tell you who in the LC has that gift, because the environment does not allow for gifts to be very apparent. Think of it this way. If someone who has no skill at piano is asked to play piano in a meeting for the sake of getting them to 'function', the side effects of doing that would be two-fold. It would obviously have a detrimental effect on the meeting itself, but it would also negate any functioning on the part of the person who does have that gift. This is my argument about prophesying. By allowing everyone to speak, the LC has opened the door to speaking that is of little benefit, but it has also de-emphasized those who have that gift.

Something I've said privately and publicly the matter of prophesying if you will, that is using the prophesying meeting as a soapbox to put down all non-LSM Christianity. It's not something limited to one locality. Heard it in Washington as I have in California. How is that edifying to the meeting? What if you're a Christian visiting relatives who happen to meet with a particular locality?
Time constraints. I could see time constraint of two minutes or less. To reduce the time constraint, it reduces ability to speak anything of substance.
Material being used. Most meeting know better to restrict their speaking to HWFMR unless a qualifying word is given accepting other LSM publications to speak from. However if one was to restrict their speaking from the Bible, that may draw the ire of the local responsible ones.
Personally, I found the practice of testimonies more beneficial than prophesying. Real life Christian daily experiences are more weighty than re-speaking someone else's words.

Ohio · 02-12-2017, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

Too often, the matter of calling on the Lord loudly is for show. To draw attention to one's self. One can easily call on the Lord quietly or silently. Difference is when you call on the Lord loudly it's for others to see. When you do it quietly or silently, it's between you and the Father.

Amen!

When the Pharisees prayed in public for show, then Jesus instructed us to pray in our closets.

When the Blendeds call on the Lord in public for show (like at Whistler), then Jesus instructs us to call on His name in our closets.

Ohio · 02-12-2017, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

Something I've said privately and publicly the matter of prophesying if you will, that is using the prophesying meeting as a soapbox to put down all non-LSM Christianity. It's not something limited to one locality. Heard it in Washington as I have in California. How is that edifying to the meeting? What if you're a Christian visiting relatives who happen to meet with a particular locality?
Time constraints. I could see time constraint of two minutes or less. To reduce the time constraint, it reduces ability to speak anything of substance.
Material being used. Most meeting know better to restrict their speaking to HWFMR unless a qualifying word is given accepting other LSM publications to speak from. However if one was to restrict their speaking from the Bible, that may draw the ire of the local responsible ones.

Personally, I found the practice of testimonies more beneficial than prophesying. Real life Christian daily experiences are more weighty than re-speaking someone else's words.

Amen to this.

Real life testimonies are far superior than phony prophecies based on second hand teachings.

Evangelical · 02-13-2017, 04:17 AM

It depends. Personal testimonies are often too personal to be of any value. It is nice to know that God did this and God did that for you in the last week. But that only tells me what God did for you, not what I should do for God. Prophesying is better because it can tell me what I need to do for the next week, not just what God did for you in the last. Testimony is about us, but prophesying is about Christ. We should reject all personal matters when we prophesy and focus on Christ.

When I was in Pentecostal churches I sat through a lot of testimonies about how God had given material blessings and claims of unverified healing. I do not consider these personal testimonies superior to second hand teachings about particular biblical insights if they are about Christ.

99% of the time, a person in the denominations will give their testimony regarding physical, material things and what God did for them. Few, if any, will give what Lee called a testimony regarding their experience in life. I can imagine it would be a struggle for most Christians in denominations to be able to speak for 2 minutes about anything of value. Firstly, speaking in meeting, or service, is not encouraged, period, and secondly, their minds would be too focused on matters of the flesh or the world to be able to give a spiritual message.

By the way, you are speaking as if prophesying and personal testimonies are separate things. Prophesying can include real life testimony as well. Normally people will relate the content of the HWFMR to their own personal insight and life experience. Because it is related to something of Christ, it is superior to the so-called "testimonies" of those in denominations.

Freedom · 02-13-2017, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

Too often, the matter of calling on the Lord loudly is for show. To draw attention to one's self. One can easily call on the Lord quietly or silently. Difference is when you call on the Lord loudly it's for others to see. When you do it quietly or silently, it's between you and the Father.

I remember a setting where an ex-LC member attend a LC meeting for purposes of visiting family. During the meeting he prayed and called on the Lord in the 'strong' way that they like. Enough so that it impressed all the elders and they were wondering what they could do to get this person to start meeting again.

I already happened to know that this person had no interest in meeting with the LC regularly, so I was a big intrigued that just by a simple performance that everyone would be so easily fooled into thinking that this person was 'positive' towards the LC. But a performance is exactly what people were looking for and using to judge people by.

So in this context, I do not accept the claim others have made that practices like calling on the Lord are anything important. When it's mainly used as some sort of litmus test to see how much with the program someone is, then that calls into question its actual value.

OBW · 02-13-2017, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It depends. Personal testimonies are often too personal to be of any value. It is nice to know that God did this and God did that for you in the last week. But that only tells me what God did for you, not what I should do for God. Prophesying is better because it can tell me what I need to do for the next week, not just what God did for you in the last. Testimony is about us, but prophesying is about Christ. We should reject all personal matters when we prophesy and focus on Christ.

When I was in Pentecostal churches I sat through a lot of testimonies about how God had given material blessings and claims of unverified healing. I do not consider these personal testimonies superior to second hand teachings about particular biblical insights if they are about Christ.

99% of the time, a person in the denominations will give their testimony regarding physical, material things and what God did for them. Few, if any, will give what Lee called a testimony regarding their experience in life. I can imagine it would be a struggle for most Christians in denominations to be able to speak for 2 minutes about anything of value. Firstly, speaking in meeting, or service, is not encouraged, period, and secondly, their minds would be too focused on matters of the flesh or the world to be able to give a spiritual message.

By the way, you are speaking as if prophesying and personal testimonies are separate things. Prophesying can include real life testimony as well. Normally people will relate the content of the HWFMR to their own personal insight and life experience. Because it is related to something of Christ, it is superior to the so-called "testimonies" of those in denominations.

The biggest problem I find in this kind of analysis is that it is according to Lee's definition of "their experience of life."

For Lee, it is evident that real life, calamities, interactions with people and with God are of no value. It is only those things that relate uniquely to the church, the kingdom, the next age, etc., that have anything to do with the "experience of life." Ascribing to God the finding of a new job, or the caring for a medical malady, each of which may also be attributed to natural or human efforts is too low. Neither is about the so-called "high gospel" or the kingdom (according to Lee). To Lee, the kingdom is only high things. It is not righteousness in small things that are not, in themselves, spiritual. It is not about ascribing to God the glory for things that are not in themselves "high" things.

Now I would agree that what Paul called prophesying in 1 Cor 14 was not about personal testimonies. But neither was it about getting everyone involved in providing the meat of the day's "preaching." And I would agree that a meeting of the church is generally not the place for such a testimony. But that testimony is exactly what should be spoken in the fellowship outside that meeting. It is the meat of the full life of God's image-bearers.

Freedom · 02-13-2017, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It depends. Personal testimonies are often too personal to be of any value. It is nice to know that God did this and God did that for you in the last week. But that only tells me what God did for you, not what I should do for God. Prophesying is better because it can tell me what I need to do for the next week, not just what God did for you in the last. Testimony is about us, but prophesying is about Christ. We should reject all personal matters when we prophesy and focus on Christ.

I think you have mischaracterized the issue. It is important to realize that before 'prophesying' was ever a standard practice in the LC, WL had already long been a proponent of having a portion of meetings set aside for testimonies. As I have been told, this mostly turned into a platform for the more boisterous members to tell their "sea stories." So it's no surprise then that this kind of practice produced a less-than-desirable outcome. The die-hard LC fanatics would argue that the issue was the content of people's speaking, thus necessitating the practice of 'prophesying' in order to provide 'focus' to the speaking.

From an objective standpoint, however, WL's move to prophesying was just a band-aid on the problem. This is the point which I've tried to make again and again. The LC meeting format just doesn't work in the way that it's intended to. It's not that there's anything wrong with wanting to allow everyone an opportunity to speak, it's just that there's a time and place for that. Even then, just because someone is allowed the freedom to speak doesn't mean they should speak. In the LC, I saw too many examples of people speaking who shouldn't. Even when 'focused' on the same subject (aka HWFMR), unless the speaking is more than mere repetition, all you have is one sermon re-spoken 100 different ways.

So when you talk about the things spoke in other groups that allow 'testimonies', it's easy for you to characterize it as being less-than-desirable, but I find it ironic that you refuse to make the same characterization about the LC.

Cal · 02-13-2017, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We should reject all personal matters when we prophesy and focus on Christ.

This is an example of an LCM mantra which on the surface sounds profound but is really just false, at least the first part about rejecting all personal matters.

It's not that we should reject all personal matters when prophesying. It's that we should focus on Christ and what he is leading us to say. If he leads us to talk about a personal matter then we should.

Everyone knows when a speaker is self-indulging by talking about himself. They also know when God uses a personal account to instruct and inspire.

Let's try to keep things straight.

Evangelical · 02-13-2017, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

I think you have mischaracterized the issue. It is important to realize that before 'prophesying' was ever a standard practice in the LC, WL had already long been a proponent of having a portion of meetings set aside for testimonies. As I have been told, this mostly turned into a platform for the more boisterous members to tell their "sea stories." So it's no surprise then that this kind of practice produced a less-than-desirable outcome. The die-hard LC fanatics would argue that the issue was the content of people's speaking, thus necessitating the practice of 'prophesying' in order to provide 'focus' to the speaking.

From an objective standpoint, however, WL's move to prophesying was just a band-aid on the problem. This is the point which I've tried to make again and again. The LC meeting format just doesn't work in the way that it's intended to. It's not that there's anything wrong with wanting to allow everyone an opportunity to speak, it's just that there's a time and place for that. Even then, just because someone is allowed the freedom to speak doesn't mean they should speak. In the LC, I saw too many examples of people speaking who shouldn't. Even when 'focused' on the same subject (aka HWFMR), unless the speaking is more than mere repetition, all you have is one sermon re-spoken 100 different ways.

So when you talk about the things spoke in other groups that allow 'testimonies', it's easy for you to characterize it as being less-than-desirable, but I find it ironic that you refuse to make the same characterization about the LC.

How is it not an issue with the content? If everyone spoke in the proper way and the proper content why would this not fix the problem?

Let's accept the reality - if we give 100 people the opportunity to speak, a proportion of them will not speak in the right way. The format will not change that.

I see it as a choice between a format which does not let members speak, only the pastor/priest can speak and what they say may be wrong, and a format which lets everyone speak, where a proportion may say the wrong thing.

100 people speaking is not one sermon re-spoken 100 different ways. Normally it is 100 different portions from different aspects of the one sermon. Yes there is overlap on certain topics. But there is also great variety.

OBW · 02-13-2017, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

So when you talk about the things spoke in other groups that allow 'testimonies', it's easy for you to characterize it as being less-than-desirable, but I find it ironic that you refuse to make the same characterization about the LC.

And in the other places, the so-called testimony meeting is typically an occasional event, not the normal situation for all meetings. In those cases, hearing of the "sea stories" is not necessarily a bad thing. We do need to hear how God is working outside of the gospel efforts that are regularly highlighted in so many churches. Even if it means we hear from those with less than perfect filters, speaking ability, and even understanding of what is really needed or wanted.

Evangelical · 02-13-2017, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

The biggest problem I find in this kind of analysis is that it is according to Lee's definition of "their experience of life."

For Lee, it is evident that real life, calamities, interactions with people and with God are of no value. It is only those things that relate uniquely to the church, the kingdom, the next age, etc., that have anything to do with the "experience of life." Ascribing to God the finding of a new job, or the caring for a medical malady, each of which may also be attributed to natural or human efforts is too low. Neither is about the so-called "high gospel" or the kingdom (according to Lee). To Lee, the kingdom is only high things. It is not righteousness in small things that are not, in themselves, spiritual. It is not about ascribing to God the glory for things that are not in themselves "high" things.

Now I would agree that what Paul called prophesying in 1 Cor 14 was not about personal testimonies. But neither was it about getting everyone involved in providing the meat of the day's "preaching." And I would agree that a meeting of the church is generally not the place for such a testimony. But that testimony is exactly what should be spoken in the fellowship outside that meeting. It is the meat of the full life of God's image-bearers.

Keeping church for the high things fits with my idea of what church should be about. Personally I find it helpful to come to the meeting and forget my "low" problems for a while and I don't really come to church to hear about the "low" problems of others. First and foremost it is a time to remember and fellowship with the Lord. We should respect that the church meeting is not a family get together or social occasion, but for a particular purpose to build the kingdom of God through fellowship with the Lord.

If the high things are not spoken in church I doubt they will be spoken elsewhere. The low things can be spoken outside of the church , in the after fellowship or during the week at family dinners.

The problem with personal testimonies about the low things is that people are not normally comfortable telling 100 people, a proportion of whom will be strangers, personal details. That is only opening the door for gossip. Once it is in the public arena, it will become gossip, whether it is about a job, car, family, health etc.

OBW · 02-13-2017, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Keeping church for the high things fits with my idea of what church should be about. Personally I find it helpful to come to the meeting and forget my "low" problems for a while and I don't really come to church to hear about the "low" problems of others. First and foremost it is a time to remember and fellowship with the Lord. We should respect that the church meeting is not a family get together or social occasion, but for a particular purpose to build the kingdom of God through fellowship with the Lord.

If the high things are not spoken in church I doubt they will be spoken elsewhere. The low things can be spoken outside of the church , in the after fellowship or during the week at family dinners.

The problem with personal testimonies about the low things is that people are not normally comfortable telling 100 people, a proportion of whom will be strangers, personal details. That is only opening the door for gossip. Once it is in the public arena, it will become gossip, whether it is about a job, car, family, health etc.

First, you did notice that I agreed with the idea that the meeting is not generally the place for your average "testimony meeting," especially on a regular basis.

But your idea of what is a viable "high" thing to be included is so skewed. It absolutely should include our recognition and repentance for sin. A real "Lord have mercy" kind of experience. (And for everybody, not just the newcomer or convert.) And I would never presume that praying for the "low things" is beneath the meeting since those are the things that Christ taught us to pray.

We used to sing a song with many verses that started "Lord teach us how to pray, not as the nations do in vain . . . ." That much was real. But that was almost all (from what I can remember of it). It acknowledges that "we cannot but e'er fail you." But rather than bringing us to repentance, it becomes joyous because the "seed of life within us will break through."

Without repentance, it probably won't.

Evangelical · 02-14-2017, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

First, you did notice that I agreed with the idea that the meeting is not generally the place for your average "testimony meeting," especially on a regular basis.

But your idea of what is a viable "high" thing to be included is so skewed. It absolutely should include our recognition and repentance for sin. A real "Lord have mercy" kind of experience. (And for everybody, not just the newcomer or convert.) And I would never presume that praying for the "low things" is beneath the meeting since those are the things that Christ taught us to pray.

We used to sing a song with many verses that started "Lord teach us how to pray, not as the nations do in vain . . . ." That much was real. But that was almost all (from what I can remember of it). It acknowledges that "we cannot but e'er fail you." But rather than bringing us to repentance, it becomes joyous because the "seed of life within us will break through."

Without repentance, it probably won't.

Yes I did so please consider my post as expounding on yours, not in opposition to it. I am used to doing that because of the prophesying meetings where we might build upon something that someone has already said.

Corporate repentance might be good occasionally but I think the time and place for repentance is a personal one and occurs during the "examine yourself" stage before the Lord's Table.

Arminianism and those who believe we can lose salvation typically focus on repentance for blessing. They typically see repentance as a cause of blessing.

Generally speaking, Christian groups with Calvinistic tendencies such as the LR often see repentance as an outcome of blessing not as a cause. They are careful to ensure that repentance is a "gift" and does not become a "work" - it is something that God does in us. So I think it is OK if there is no repentance because blessing and acceptance comes before repentance (like the prodigal son).

OBW · 02-14-2017, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Corporate repentance might be good occasionally but I think the time and place for repentance is a personal one and occurs during the "examine yourself" stage before the Lord's Table.

Yes, one could do this. But the whole emphasis on confession is then left to, at most, a brief comment before the Table meeting, if at all. The idea of making confession a more pronounced part of regular worship is quite relevant when you realize that even without a Table meeting, we are supposedly coming to worship God yet seldom see that we are ourselves in the way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Arminianism and those who believe we can lose salvation typically focus on repentance for blessing. They typically see repentance as a cause of blessing.

I have no idea about that. Oddly, my early years were with an Arminian group yet we never had any kind of corporate repentance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Generally speaking, Christian groups with Calvinistic tendencies such as the LR often see repentance as an outcome of blessing not as a cause. They are careful to ensure that repentance is a "gift" and does not become a "work" - it is something that God does in us. So I think it is OK if there is no repentance because blessing and acceptance comes before repentance (like the prodigal son).

And it is here that I have found that the scripture is significantly at odds with the LRC theology. The gift of eternal life has been given. After that we do work. Grace remains a component, but it is not simply giving us gifts, but teaching us to obey (see Titus, I believe it is). Lee's "economy" teaching is that everything remains on a grace basis, meaning we do nothing until we have the gift/grace/dispensing to just do it. I find that to be backward when compared to what Christ himself said in the gospels.

For example, we want to abide (understood as wait on something) until we have what it takes to act. But Jesus said that those who obey will get the Father and the Son to abide with them. And the metaphor of vine and branches is never one of waiting on anything. It is one of constant action because there is connection. If you are connected, you act.

I agree that there is a tendency for many Calvinistic groups to turn everything into a "no works zone" and expect that it will fall on them because they cannot do works.

But when does one repent to a spouse for something? Do you expect that you will have some special time together and from that will come a blessing and then you will have what it takes to repent/apologize? If so, then I would expect very few times when there was anything actually special. More like a lot of "leave me alone," "just go away," etc.

And this is why I so often refer back to the experiences I had and observed in the LRC as false. We worked ourselves into faux spiritual highs, but nothing truly spiritual came out of it. No righteousness. No repentance. No corporate confession. That is because if you think that you had a spiritually high time prior to your repentance, you were deluded. That was a lot of bootstrapping and cheerleading to get the emotions raised.

And since I cannot recall any true confession in the LRC, I doubt that the experiences were very real. More likely worked-up.

And we talked about "no works." What a joke.

Evangelical · 02-14-2017, 06:46 PM

Repentance before blessing/grace is backwards in my view.

Proof: God sent His Son while we were still sinners, without repentance. Also, Romans 2:4 says so. God's kindness comes before repentance.

In relationships, grace often comes before repentance. Suppose a husband and wife argue, they don't talk to each other. They might remember their love for each other and commitment, come together, and then they are in a position to say sorry to each other. Repenting immediately after the sin is often not genuine. It takes time for grace to work to lead a person to repentance.

leastofthese · 02-14-2017, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

99% of the time, a person in the denominations will give their testimony regarding physical, material things and what God did for them. Few, if any, will give what Lee called a testimony regarding their experience in life. I can imagine it would be a struggle for most Christians in denominations to be able to speak for 2 minutes about anything of value.

This has not been my experience in "denominations". In fact, I found "prophesy" or testimony in the LSM denomination to be a much more flat, robotic, parroting of the LSM reading of the day. This was very troubling to me to feel these things and have these judgements in my own heart. It is not my job to judge their testimony and I pray that God removes any untruth from my heart.

Evangelical - I take personal offense to your statements and hope that God may reveal His truth to you.

Evangelical · 02-14-2017, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leastofthese

This has not been my experience in "denominations". In fact, I found "prophesy" or testimony in the LSM denomination to be a much more flat, robotic, parroting of the LSM reading of the day. This was very troubling to me to feel these things and have these judgements in my own heart. It is not my job to judge their testimony and I pray that God removes any untruth from my heart.

Evangelical - I take personal offense to your statements and hope that God may reveal His truth to you.

Well, please tell us what denomination you speak of? Because none of the majors I know of give any opportunity for people to speak during the service. Unless they have a particular role to play such as read a bible verse or read the announcements.

TLFisher · 02-15-2017, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leastofthese

This has not been my experience in "denominations". In fact, I found "prophesy" or testimony in the LSM denomination to be a much more flat, robotic, parroting of the LSM reading of the day. This was very troubling to me to feel these things and have these judgements in my own heart. It is not my job to judge their testimony and I pray that God removes any untruth from my heart.

Evangelical - I take personal offense to your statements and hope that God may reveal His truth to you.

Just observing and from past experience in the local churches, the use of word "denominations" in LC circles essentially means denominational churches (Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc) and non-denominational churches (Bible churches, community churches, etc) are lumped together as "denominations".

Evangelical · 02-15-2017, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

Just observing and from past experience in the local churches, the use of word "denominations" in LC circles essentially means denominational churches (Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc) and non-denominational churches (Bible churches, community churches, etc) are lumped together as "denominations".

That's right and thanks for clarifying for leastofthese. The bible churches, community churches and other non-denominational we might call independent churches or "free groups". Normally there are more opportunities for speaking genuine testimonies in these churches.

TLFisher · 02-16-2017, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

I have no idea about that. Oddly, my early years were with an Arminian group yet we never had any kind of corporate repentance.

But when does one repent to a spouse for something? Do you expect that you will have some special time together and from that will come a blessing and then you will have what it takes to repent/apologize?

And this is why I so often refer back to the experiences I had and observed in the LRC as false. We worked ourselves into faux spiritual highs, but nothing truly spiritual came out of it. No righteousness. No repentance. No corporate confession. That is because if you think that you had a spiritually high time prior to your repentance, you were deluded. That was a lot of bootstrapping and cheerleading to get the emotions raised.

In the LSM/LC you won't find any corporate repentance. By nature it would be politically incorrect. As one of the items to corporately repent of would be quarantines, lifting up a man and his ministry, etc.

OBW, there's been many occasions during my 20+ years of marriage that my spouse and I have taken the time to repent and apologize.

I agree with you somewhat regarding LC experiences. Often I've observed following a bi-annual training there's a short-lived spiritual high that last a week or so until it's business as usual the local church.
Just as you said, no righteousness, no repentance within the body and no confession corporately while there likely is repentance and confession individually between a believer and God.
Part of the reason why there is no righteousness is largely in part due to practice of deputy authority. While aspects may be scriptural, if there's no checks and balances to prevent unrighteous spiritual abuse. Just as Ohio has said produces bullies out of good brothers.

TLFisher · 02-17-2017, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

Part of the reason why there is no righteousness is largely in part due to practice of deputy authority. While aspects may be scriptural, if there's no checks and balances to prevent unrighteous spiritual abuse. Just as Ohio has said produces bullies out of good brothers.

Part of it is elders, co-workers, etc do not feel they need to be accountable towards any brothers or sisters in which the normal thing to do is repent and apologize.
Remember Mario Sandoval and Samuel Liu in Hear the Cases regarding the Church in Ontario.
Or Steve Isitt and Ron Kangas over what Ron spoke in Ambato, Ecuador in 2007. Steve tried by phone and by mail to fellowship with Ron over what Ron spoke. No response. Right or wrong, it should never take a brother to initiate a lawsuit to get the other party to respond.
This is the attitude some, but not all responsible ones have exhibited. They can do or say something to offend another brother or another sister, but don't have to respond and certain don't have to apologize for anything.

Lisbon · 02-17-2017, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It may be correct that Paul was speaking to those who felt they had the gift. However just because a person does not have a gift does not mean they are excused from doing it, or cannot do it if they want to. For example, it is commonly believed that everyone is called to evangelize but not everyone has a gift of evangelism. Evangelism is seen as a responsibility of everyone. Similarly, I do not see why it is any different with prophesy. Everyone is called to prophesy but not everyone has a gift of prophesy. Actually, everyone is called to edify, and edification is the result of prophesy. The two main functions of the church are edification and evangelism.

After a soul searching speaking on love in 1 Cor 13, Paul says pursue love and seak spiritual gifts especially that you may prophecy. I'm an old man and fully know that loving is of God. Yet Paul says to pursue. He also says seak to prophecy. So my conclusion is that all or most of the average Sunday morning propheciers in the LCs is so much hot air. To read page 11 second paragraph does not have anythi to do with prophecying. No seeking, no inspiration, no praying, just talk and you know it. This thing of picking a few words from the holy Writ and making a doctrine is so poor. Some time when sober read the whole contect of "all can prophecy." Also read 1 Cor 15 :45 and what the Lord said on the day of His resurection in Luke. I'm not saying Jesus didn't agree with Paul but I would say as Stephen Kaung advised WL, be careful about making that one of your major verses for separation. This picking and choosing is really sickening. Read the context of the all inclusive doctrine in 1 Tim 1 on economy. In my 40 years in LC I never once heard the two verses quoted which is very very bad.

HERn · 02-17-2017, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That's right and thanks for clarifying for leastofthese. The bible churches, community churches and other non-denominational we might call independent churches or "free groups". Normally there are more opportunities for speaking genuine testimonies in these churches.

I wonder how you know this? By personal experience? Information from WN or WL? Divine revelation? How many years have you been in the Recovery and what kinds of experience do you have with other groups?

Ohio · 02-17-2017, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That's right and thanks for clarifying for leastofthese. The bible churches, community churches and other non-denominational we might call independent churches or "free groups". Normally there are more opportunities for speaking genuine testimonies in these churches.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HERn

I wonder how you know this? By personal experience? Information from WN or WL? Divine revelation? How many years have you been in the Recovery and what kinds of experience do you have with other groups?

HERn, I too have asked these same questions, and there is only one conclusion:

Evangelical just knows, he knows everything, he is a know-it-all. He knows the actual spiritual condition of every Christian on the planet, and has nothing good to say about any of them.

Evangelical · 02-17-2017, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HERn

I wonder how you know this? By personal experience? Information from WN or WL? Divine revelation? How many years have you been in the Recovery and what kinds of experience do you have with other groups?

How do you know that they do? What's your experience? I have many years in traditional denominations, most of which follow some sort of liturgy in which I know there is no opportunity for congregational story telling, prophesying, testimonies or otherwise, and about 10 years in the Recovery.

Evangelical · 02-17-2017, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

HERn, I too have asked these same questions, and there is only one conclusion:

Evangelical just knows, he knows everything, he is a know-it-all. He knows the actual spiritual condition of every Christian on the planet, and has nothing good to say about any of them.

I have stated my denominational affiliations a number of times on this forum, while you must have been trimming your nose hairs or something.

Evangelical · 02-17-2017, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lisbon

After a soul searching speaking on love in 1 Cor 13, Paul says pursue love and seak spiritual gifts especially that you may prophecy. I'm an old man and fully know that loving is of God. Yet Paul says to pursue. He also says seak to prophecy. So my conclusion is that all or most of the average Sunday morning propheciers in the LCs is so much hot air. To read page 11 second paragraph does not have anythi to do with prophecying. No seeking, no inspiration, no praying, just talk and you know it. This thing of picking a few words from the holy Writ and making a doctrine is so poor. Some time when sober read the whole contect of "all can prophecy." Also read 1 Cor 15 :45 and what the Lord said on the day of His resurection in Luke. I'm not saying Jesus didn't agree with Paul but I would say as Stephen Kaung advised WL, be careful about making that one of your major verses for separation. This picking and choosing is really sickening. Read the context of the all inclusive doctrine in 1 Tim 1 on economy. In my 40 years in LC I never once heard the two verses quoted which is very very bad.

To prophesy is to love:

1 Cor 14:3 But the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort.

strengthening, encouraging and comfort by prophesying is a loving thing to do.

leastofthese · 02-18-2017, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Well, please tell us what denomination you speak of? Because none of the majors I know of give any opportunity for people to speak during the service. Unless they have a particular role to play such as read a bible verse or read the announcements.

Thanks for the clarification Terry - When I used "denomination" I was referring to any church meeting outside of the LSM denom.

Asking which denomination I was speaking about points to the flaw in your thinking - you've been trained to think this way - This thinking does allow you to divide God's children and place them into a box that you have predetermined as ________. This makes things simple, tribal almost.... I see that you made light of Ohio's comments "He knows the actual spiritual condition of every Christian on the planet, and has nothing good to say about any of them." My friend, based on many of your comments, I would have to agree with Ohio. I picture you as an older man, but spiritually immature, childish almost... I do not personally consider myself to be a great theologian or spiritual guru, I would actually say that I too am spiritually immature - but I also don't claim the same authority that you do. The leader of the LSM denom has "recovered" XYZ, my leader is the great I AM.

During my time in the "LC", countless Lord's day, table, home, trainings, etc I found an undercurrent of LSM good vs. Christianity bad in essentially 100% of my interactions. This was NOT usually the case when I met with brothers individually - which I find interesting. How much corporate worship, brotherly encouragement, joyful celebrations, scripture, can be shared outside of the 60-90 minutes allotted on a Sunday morning?

TLFisher · 02-18-2017, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

To prophesy is to love:

1 Cor 14:3 But the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort.

strengthening, encouraging and comfort by prophesying is a loving thing to do.

I agree, but one should not use the prophesying meeting as a platform to put down Christians who aren't within the LSM fellowship. Hardly edifying speaking.

TLFisher · 02-18-2017, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leastofthese

During my time in the "LC", countless Lord's day, table, home, trainings, etc I found an undercurrent of LSM good vs. Christianity bad in essentially 100% of my interactions. This was NOT usually the case when I met with brothers individually - which I find interesting. How much corporate worship, brotherly encouragement, joyful celebrations, scripture, can be shared outside of the 60-90 minutes allotted on a Sunday morning?

Even in home meetings, drop the ministry and just pray for one another is exceedingly more beneficial in building up of the body than taking turns reading a sentence or two from a text.
I understand what you mean by the undercurrent. It exists and still exists. One locality I met with has a Presbyterian church for a neighbor. The attitude was to respect them, but that doesn't mean we're on par with each other. I place much of the undercurrent with the elders and deacons. Whether they want the responsibility or not, they've accepted the role as "responsible ones". Whether they're aware of it or not, their speaking and their attitude is reflected upon the locality as a whole. I have always been told "we don't have opinions in the church". That means you don't go up to an elder after a meeting and tell him, he's attitude is off. You will begin to stick out like a sore thumb.
However individually when I'm in personal fellowship with brothers I served with in the bookroom, there is not the same undercurrent elders and deacons express. There's more opportunity for honesty and transparency.

HERn · 02-18-2017, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

How do you know that they do? What's your experience? I have many years in traditional denominations, most of which follow some sort of liturgy in which I know there is no opportunity for congregational story telling, prophesying, testimonies or otherwise, and about 10 years in the Recovery.

OK, that's cool, you have experience with a major denomination. How do you know anything about the non-denomination groups? it's OK if you have learned that information from others. Were you saved in the traditional denomination you attended, or were you saved in the Recovery?

Ohio · 02-18-2017, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I have stated my denominational affiliations a number of times on this forum, while you must have been trimming your nose hairs or something.

What is it with you and nose hairs?

HERn · 02-18-2017, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

HERn, I too have asked these same questions, and there is only one conclusion:

Evangelical just knows, he knows everything, he is a know-it-all. He knows the actual spiritual condition of every Christian on the planet, and has nothing good to say about any of them.

I heard RK say that he can scan people, I guess E has that gift as well.

HERn · 02-18-2017, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

What is it with you and nose hairs?

I do trim my nose hairs, but my trimmer is about to die.

Nell · 02-18-2017, 10:15 PM

From The Thread of Gold by Jane Carole Anderson, Chapter 24:

"10 About Calling on the Lord and Pray Reading (p. 377)
Witness Lee taught us that there were two ways to participate in God's economy: calling on the Lord and pray-reading the Word. He told us that this was how we would receive the processed Triune God and how God would complete His purpose.

10a Calling on the Lord
One of the ways to be mingled with God, or receive divine dispensing, was to call on the Lord (Lee, Christ Versus Religion, 118-119) He also taught us that to call on the Lord was to repeat out loud, "O Lord Jesus," usually numerous times in a row. I no longer believe these things and I have come to realize the diversity of meaning involved in truly calling on the name of the Lord.

There is much more meaning to the phrases, "calling on the Lord," and "calling on the name of the Lord" than the simple definition Witness Lee gave us. The most important words in these phrases in the New Testament are "the Lord" and "the name of the Lord." Witness Lee, however, majored on the "calling" part of the phrases. He explained that the root word of the Greek word for calling is kaleo (Strong, G2564), which means "to call out loud." So according to (Lee), to call on the Lord was to call out, "O Lord Jesus."
...
As I revisited each verse in the New Testament in which I could find the word epikaleomai, I realized that each one was easily and sometimes better understood with the meanings of the words entitle, invoke, or appeal, instead of the meaning "to call out loud." I also noted that none of these verses indicate that calling on the Lord causes divine dispensing to occur, or that the motivation for calling on the Lord should be to receive divine dispensing. "

Jane then cites Acts 7:59: And they stoned Stephen as he was calling on God and saying, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." She notes that Stephen's appeal was clear "receive my spirit."

"There is no indication that he was calling to receive more of the processed Triune God or divine dispensing" as though he wanted to get as much dispensing as possible at the last minute before he died.

Again, from Jane:

"Nowhere in the Bible do I see the concept of saying, 'O Lord Jesus,' repetitively and continuously, something we were constantly admonished to do. ... Witness Lee focused on the calling part of the phrase. The focus should be on the One being called. "
...
"In our practice in the Local Church, we placed so much importance on the supposed result of our calling (receiving divine dispensing) that we ended up focused on ourselves---our breathing, our eating, our drinking, our receiving."
...
"The truth has set me free to invoke, appeal to, and call upon Him for whatever I need and to entitle Him as my Lord. I have purposed never again to use the Lord's name in a vague, empty, meaningless, and repetitive way (Matt. 6:7)"

Jane begins a deconstruct of many of Witness Lee's major teachings in Chapter 24. This section on calling and pray-reading is more comprehensive than I have quoted here.

Nell

Evangelical · 02-18-2017, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Thanks for the clarification Terry - When I used "denomination" I was referring to any church meeting outside of the LSM denom.

Asking which denomination I was speaking about points to the flaw in your thinking - you've been trained to think this way - This thinking does allow you to divide God's children and place them into a box that you have predetermined as ________. This makes things simple, tribal almost.... I see that you made light of Ohio's comments "He knows the actual spiritual condition of every Christian on the planet, and has nothing good to say about any of them." My friend, based on many of your comments, I would have to agree with Ohio. I picture you as an older man, but spiritually immature, childish almost... I do not personally consider myself to be a great theologian or spiritual guru, I would actually say that I too am spiritually immature - but I also don't claim the same authority that you do. The leader of the LSM denom has "recovered" XYZ, my leader is the great I AM.

During my time in the "LC", countless Lord's day, table, home, trainings, etc I found an undercurrent of LSM good vs. Christianity bad in essentially 100% of my interactions. This was NOT usually the case when I met with brothers individually - which I find interesting. How much corporate worship, brotherly encouragement, joyful celebrations, scripture, can be shared outside of the 60-90 minutes allotted on a Sunday morning?

Those "any church meetings" outside of the LR span from Roman Catholic to house churches. Vastly different styles of church service/meeting, vastly different opportunities for testimonies/prophesying.

Unfortunately because of the 1000 or so" boxes" (
If you want to see boxes please count the number of church buildings , i.e. "boxes" on a street each with a different denominational name) I must ask you which "box" you are referring to.

If Roman Catholic, I would be surprised if they can give much testimony about their relationship with Christ, if a house church, I am not surprised if they have time for open testimony.

What authority have I claimed. I will give you some time to quote me where I claimed authority.

Evangelical · 02-18-2017, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HERn

OK, that's cool, you have experience with a major denomination. How do you know anything about the non-denomination groups? it's OK if you have learned that information from others. Were you saved in the traditional denomination you attended, or were you saved in the Recovery?

I was saved when I was born, like Jesus or John the Baptist, so not in either denomination or the Recovery. In my work I have been closely affiliated with the Seventh Day Adventist churches, they are not non-denominational but close to one. I don't know much about non-denominational groups, other than a few community churches I have attended. I imagine them to be more free to share testimonies based upon the meetings I attended. 90% of "Sunday church goers" in liturgical churches are hopeless at giving testimonies. Most are scared of speaking in general and sit at the back. One or two people speaking and many in silence is the norm in these churches.

Nell · 02-18-2017, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I was saved when I was born, like Jesus or John the Baptist,

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

When were you born again?

Nell

Evangelical · 02-18-2017, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

When were you born again?

Nell

That applied to Nicodemus. I don't see it applying to everyone. When were Jesus and John the Baptist "born again"? When was Peter, James or John born again? The bible does not record any of the 12 disciples having a born again experience. Was it when Jesus called them to drop their nets and they started to "follow Christ"? Was it after Peter said "you are the Christ"?, was it when Peter said "go away Lord I am sinful", was it at Pentecost? Who knows.

You know if a baby dies it goes straight to the kingdom of God, to heaven, right? Babies don't need to be born again, only when they reach the "age of accountability" if they are not already believers. I was already a believer by the age of accountability, so I was saved from birth. I doubt it was "in the womb" as Christ or John the Baptist, it could have been during my infant baptism. But it makes no sense to say I was saved at 4 weeks old.

Nell · 02-19-2017, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That applied to Nicodemus. I don't see it applying to everyone. When were Jesus and John the Baptist "born again"? When was Peter, James or John born again? The bible does not record any of the 12 disciples having a born again experience. Was it when Jesus called them to drop their nets and they started to "follow Christ"? Was it after Peter said "you are the Christ"?, was it at Pentecost? Who knows.

You know if a baby dies it goes straight to the kingdom of God, to heaven, right? Babies don't need to be born again, only when they reach the "age of accountability" if they are not already believers. I was already a believer by the age of accountability, so I was saved from birth. I doubt it was "in the womb" as Christ or John the Baptist, it could have been during my infant baptism.

No...it was spoken to Nicodemus. It applies to everyone. Anyhow...most assuredly Jesus did not equivocate.

3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

Further, Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

It's not about the babies; not about the 12; not about Jesus or John...they're good. It's about the gospel of Jesus Christ and its simplicity. This statement worries me: "I was already a believer by the age of accountability, so I was saved from birth."

Infant baptism is not Scriptural...it's a ritual of men with no spiritual significance.

Nell

Evangelical · 02-19-2017, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

No...it was spoken to Nicodemus. It applies to everyone. Anyhow...most assuredly Jesus did not equivocate.

3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

Further, Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

It's not about the babies; not about the 12; not about Jesus or John...they're good. It's about the gospel of Jesus Christ and its simplicity. This statement worries me: "I was already a believer by the age of accountability, so I was saved from birth."

Infant baptism is not Scriptural...it's a ritual of men with no spiritual significance.

Nell

Don't let the words "born again" make you think that it must occur after birth. John the Baptist was born again before birth.

To be born again is a work of God not a work of man, so it can happen whenever God chooses to do it:

Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:13)

Being born again means spiritual birth. It is possible for there to be a very short span of time between the physical birth and the spiritual birth. For example, John the Baptist was "born again" in the womb, as he was filled with the Spirit from birth. Unlike Christ, John was a sinner like you or I, that needed to be "born again" just like Nicodemus did. The thing is, unlike Nicodemus, John the baptist was born again as a baby, not as an adult.

If you think that the born again experience must occur at a certain age in a person's life, what you are doing is overlaying a human concept onto Jesus's words to Nicodemus. Jesus simply said "you must be born again". He did not condition that on a person's age, or condition etc. It occurs whenever the Spirit of God chooses to regenerate a person's inward man. It is up to God not man.

It is possible for a child to be born again before the age of accountability. John the Baptist also shows that to be born again does not require an "age of being able to make decisions". John had no choice in the matter of being filled with the Spirit from birth or not.

I believe infant baptism is not scriptural, nor is it genuine baptism. However, I would not say it has no spiritual significance. Prayers to God are offered, the congregation prays and asks God to do certain things in the child's life. I believe God honours those prayers, particularly if they are offered in a genuine way, and are not just a mere ritual. I see in the life of people who were only infant baptised, that they are genuine followers of Christ just as much as people who were baptised as an adult. This indicates they have been born again.

What some people may not understand, is that for a child infant baptized and raised in a Christian home, it is quite common for them to already be believers by the time they reach the age of accountability and exhibit faith in Christ such as prayer, bible reading and church attendance. For that reason it is unnecessary, even silly, to try and demand that they have a "born again experience", an experience which has already occurred in their heart because of God's work.

Ohio · 02-19-2017, 03:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HERn

I heard RK say that he can scan people, I guess E has that gift as well.

And they used to call RG in Texas, "X-Ray," because Ray could take one look at the brothers and just know when they were in the spirit or in the flesh. Truly amazing skill!

Quote:

Originally Posted by HERn

I do trim my nose hairs, but my trimmer is about to die.

You need one of those charging cables that plugs right into your computer. That way you could use your trimmer every time you write to Evangelical.

Ohio · 02-19-2017, 03:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I was saved when I was born, like Jesus or John the Baptist,
so not in either denomination or the Recovery. In my work I have been closely affiliated with the Seventh Day Adventist churches, they are not non-denominational but close to one. I don't know much about non-denominational groups, other than a few community churches I have attended. I imagine them to be more free to share testimonies based upon the meetings I attended. 90% of "Sunday church goers" in liturgical churches are hopeless at giving testimonies. Most are scared of speaking in general and sit at the back. One or two people speaking and many in silence is the norm in these churches.

This explains a lot.

I'm thinking at this time that ole Drake might even reconsider his allegiances.

Ohio · 02-19-2017, 03:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Don't let the words "born again" make you think that it must occur after birth. John the Baptist was born again before birth.

To be born again is a work of God not a work of man, so it can happen whenever God chooses to do it:

Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:13)

Being born again means spiritual birth. It is possible for there to be a very short span of time between the physical birth and the spiritual birth. For example, John the Baptist was "born again" in the womb, as he was filled with the Spirit from birth. Unlike Christ, John was a sinner like you or I, that needed to be "born again" just like Nicodemus did. The thing is, unlike Nicodemus, John the baptist was born again as a baby, not as an adult.

If you think that the born again experience must occur at a certain age in a person's life, what you are doing is overlaying a human concept onto Jesus's words to Nicodemus. Jesus simply said "you must be born again". He did not condition that on a person's age, or condition etc. It occurs whenever the Spirit of God chooses to regenerate a person's inward man. It is up to God not man.

It is possible for a child to be born again before the age of accountability. John the Baptist also shows that to be born again does not require an "age of being able to make decisions". John had no choice in the matter of being filled with the Spirit from birth or not.

I believe infant baptism is not scriptural, nor is it genuine baptism. However, I would not say it has no spiritual significance. Prayers to God are offered, the congregation prays and asks God to do certain things in the child's life. I believe God honours those prayers, particularly if they are offered in a genuine way, and are not just a mere ritual. I see in the life of people who were only infant baptised, that they are genuine followers of Christ just as much as people who were baptised as an adult. This indicates they have been born again.

I'm thinking at this time that ole Evangelical might need a new name.

Perhaps "EvenJelly."

And, btw, your spellings are not American English, which probably explains why you have displayed such a spiteful attitude towards our country in some of your posts.

Koinonia · 02-19-2017, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That applied to Nicodemus. I don't see it applying to everyone. When were Jesus and John the Baptist "born again"? When was Peter, James or John born again? The bible does not record any of the 12 disciples having a born again experience. Was it when Jesus called them to drop their nets and they started to "follow Christ"? Was it after Peter said "you are the Christ"?, was it when Peter said "go away Lord I am sinful", was it at Pentecost? Who knows.

You know if a baby dies it goes straight to the kingdom of God, to heaven, right? Babies don't need to be born again, only when they reach the "age of accountability" if they are not already believers. I was already a believer by the age of accountability, so I was saved from birth. I doubt it was "in the womb" as Christ or John the Baptist, it could have been during my infant baptism. But it makes no sense to say I was saved at 4 weeks old.

Is this some kind of joke?

Nell · 02-19-2017, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Don't let the words "born again" make you think that it must occur after birth. John the Baptist was born again before birth.

To be born again is a work of God not a work of man, so it can happen whenever God chooses to do it:

Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:13)

Being born again means spiritual birth. It is possible for there to be a very short span of time between the physical birth and the spiritual birth. For example, John the Baptist was "born again" in the womb, as he was filled with the Spirit from birth. Unlike Christ, John was a sinner like you or I, that needed to be "born again" just like Nicodemus did. The thing is, unlike Nicodemus, John the baptist was born again as a baby, not as an adult.

If you think that the born again experience must occur at a certain age in a person's life, what you are doing is overlaying a human concept onto Jesus's words to Nicodemus. Jesus simply said "you must be born again". He did not condition that on a person's age, or condition etc. It occurs whenever the Spirit of God chooses to regenerate a person's inward man. It is up to God not man.

It is possible for a child to be born again before the age of accountability. John the Baptist also shows that to be born again does not require an "age of being able to make decisions". John had no choice in the matter of being filled with the Spirit from birth or not.

I believe infant baptism is not scriptural, nor is it genuine baptism. However, I would not say it has no spiritual significance. Prayers to God are offered, the congregation prays and asks God to do certain things in the child's life. I believe God honours those prayers, particularly if they are offered in a genuine way, and are not just a mere ritual. I see in the life of people who were only infant baptised, that they are genuine followers of Christ just as much as people who were baptised as an adult. This indicates they have been born again.

What some people may not understand, is that for a child infant baptized and raised in a Christian home, it is quite common for them to already be believers by the time they reach the age of accountability and exhibit faith in Christ such as prayer, bible reading and church attendance. For that reason it is unnecessary, even silly, to try and demand that they have a "born again experience", an experience which has already occurred in their heart because of God's work.

So the simple answer to the question "when were you saved" is "I don't know." But that's not unusual. Yet most people who don't know simply testify something like "I don't know when I was saved, but I have the assurance that Jesus is my Savior, that He died for me, and that He lives in my heart." Not you.

As is your way, you attempt to put words in my mouth, you launch into a strawman argument (*which you believe is "part and parcel" of this sort discussion setting), and wildly deflect from the topic. In this case, again, you don't know what you're talking about.

But Ohio is sooooo right. This post explains a lot. You do need a new name. To be "evangelical" you need to be able to share the gospel in a clear and accurate way and actually lead someone to the Lord. There are red flags all over your post.

Nell

Since you admit your fondness for the strawman argument, can we ever trust that you sincerely want to discuss the topics presented on this forum, or are you just another troll...out baiting your traps?

*

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

... Straw-man's are part and parcel of this sort of discussion - grow up and get over it. I'm not asking for respect, ...

leastofthese · 02-19-2017, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

Since you admit your fondness for the strawman argument, can we ever trust that you sincerely want to discuss the topics presented on this forum, or are you just another troll...out baiting your traps?
*

I'm sorry Evangelical, I'm not going to take your bait, its not worth my time. If you are not trolling this forum, I feel even more sorry for you.

God bless.

Evangelical · 02-19-2017, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

So the simple answer to the question "when were you saved" is "I don't know." But that's not unusual. Yet most people who don't know simply testify something like "I don't know when I was saved, but I have the assurance that Jesus is my Savior, that He died for me, and that He lives in my heart." Not you.

As is your way, you attempt to put words in my mouth, you launch into a strawman argument (*which you believe is "part and parcel" of this sort discussion setting), and wildly deflect from the topic. In this case, again, you don't know what you're talking about.

But Ohio is sooooo right. This post explains a lot. You do need a new name. To be "evangelical" you need to be able to share the gospel in a clear and accurate way and actually lead someone to the Lord. There are red flags all over your post.

Nell

Since you admit your fondness for the strawman argument, can we ever trust that you sincerely want to discuss the topics presented on this forum, or are you just another troll...out baiting your traps?

*

Nell, now you are more or less blaming me for not responding according to your religious and manmade concepts about how I should respond to the question. Shame on you. How can you preach the gospel if you expect people's responses to conform to your template?

I did not say "I don't know" because I do know and I just told you before.
I told you I was saved before or by the age of accountability, age 0 to 5. I know when I was saved, I just told you that.

I believe I was saved around age 5, but I know I would have gone to heaven if I died before that. So I was saved from birth.
If I am wrong, then can you please tell me at what age between 0 and 5 I was unsaved i.e. going to hell if I died. <-- that's not a strawman argument, that's to make you think how you sound by not taking me at my word that I was saved by the age of accountability.

Evangelical · 02-19-2017, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm thinking at this time that ole Evangelical might need a new name.

Perhaps "EvenJelly."

And, btw, your spellings are not American English, which probably explains why you have displayed such a spiteful attitude towards our country in some of your posts.

You just said I have a spiteful attitude towards America because I did not use the American spelling. That is hilarious. Your comment only makes you look like silly. I have moved around and picked up different spelling habits from here and there (England/ US).

Ohio · 02-19-2017, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You just said I have a spiteful attitude towards America because I did not use the American spelling. Your comment only makes you look like silly. I have moved around and picked up different spelling habits from here and there (England/ US).

No, I did not say that. Not exactly.

Your poor attitude towards the US has been evident in dozens of your posts. (Remember you said that the US is now Sodom.)

I only commented that your spelling indicates you are probably not an American, which helps to explain your animosity.

All that being said, I do think your attitude towards God's children, outside of the LC movement, is worse than your attitude towards the US.

But, hey, we all understand, too much Lee will do that to you.

Evangelical · 02-19-2017, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

No, I did not say that. Not exactly.

Your poor attitude towards the US has been evident in dozens of your posts. (Remember you said that the US is now Sodom.)

I only commented that your spelling indicates you are probably not an American, which helps to explain your animosity.

All that being said, I do think your attitude towards God's children, outside of the LC movement, is worse than your attitude towards the US.

But, hey, we all understand, too much Lee will do that to you.

That is not animosity towards America, that is "animosity" towards countries which have gay marriage. In my previous posts I also said countries in Europe were Sodom. So did Lee. I believe England is Sodom as well, and much of Europe. That was all in my posts, but you only heard "Evangelical hates America". I don't hate or love any country. I only disagree with their unbiblical laws and beliefs, and equate that to the prophetic cities in the bible such as Sodom or Tyre. America is also Tyre by the way, as any country built on mammon is. America is also a kind of "promised land", or "new Jerusalem".

Ohio · 02-19-2017, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Don't let the words "born again" make you think that it must occur after birth. John the Baptist was born again before birth.

To be born again is a work of God not a work of man, so it can happen whenever God chooses to do it:

Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:13)

Being born again means spiritual birth. It is possible for there to be a very short span of time between the physical birth and the spiritual birth. For example, John the Baptist was "born again" in the womb, as he was filled with the Spirit from birth. Unlike Christ, John was a sinner like you or I, that needed to be "born again" just like Nicodemus did. The thing is, unlike Nicodemus, John the baptist was born again as a baby, not as an adult.

Then why did Jesus say that "he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than John?"

Why don't you checkout what Lee said in the footnote? (Mt 11.11; Lk 7.28)

Perhaps you missed the HWFMR review for those verses because you were here trashing Christianity and the US.

Just sayin.

Evangelical · 02-19-2017, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Then why did Jesus say that "he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than John?"

Why don't you checkout what Lee said in the footnote? (Mt 11.11; Lk 7.28)

Perhaps you missed the HWFMR review for those verses because you were here trashing Christianity and the US.

Just sayin.

"he did not have the resurrected Christ indwelling him" - neither did Nicodemus or Peter, James and John. Does not mean they were not born again. They all entered into the kingdom of God, even before Christ died on the cross. Luke 17:21 -You won't be able to say, 'Here it is!' or 'It's over there!' For the Kingdom of God is already among you." .

Jesus did not say "the kingdom of God will come after I die on the cross and resurrect".

The footnote is referring to the resurrected Christ. It is about all the powerful things believers can do once they receive the Spirit, the resurrected Christ, at Pentecost. The "greater works" one shall do, and the great intimacy with Christ. If we think that being born again means to be indwelt with the resurrected Christ (post-resurrection), then technically the thief on the cross was not "born again" either. That is not the meaning of being born again. People could be "born again" before Jesus died on the cross - a person is born again and sealed by the Holy Spirit at the moment of faith. God prospectively applied the death of Christ to people before Christ had even died. That's how all the old testament saints "got saved". That's how the 12 disciples "got saved" while they were following Christ up until His crucifixion (possibly not Judas Iscariot).

Nicodemus lived at the same time as John. Jesus told Nicodemus he had to be born again, as an adult. Nell has used Jesus's words as a kind of universal "simple gospel" principle. But if this is the case, why did John the Baptist not need to be born again as an adult?

Answer:
Because he was already filled with the Spirit from birth.

Luke 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

I understand this to mean that the death of Christ was prospectively applied to John the Baptist. He was already in the kingdom of God since his birth.

Nell · 02-19-2017, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Nell, now you are more or less blaming me for not responding according to your religious and manmade concepts about how I should respond to the question. Shame on you.

I did not say "I don't know" because I do know and I just told you before.
I told you I was saved before or by the age of accountability, age 0 to 5. I know when I was saved, I just told you that.

I believe I was saved around age 5, but I know I would have gone to heaven if I died before that. So I was saved from birth.
If I am wrong, then can you please tell me at what age between 0 and 5 I was unsaved i.e. going to hell if I died. <-- that's not a strawman argument, that's to make you think how you sound by not taking me at my word that I was saved by the age of accountability.

Good to know you are confident of your salvation. That's really what we wanted to know. Straight answers are not your strong suit. I don't need your assistance identifying a strawman, but thanks.

Nell

HERn · 02-19-2017, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I was saved when I was born, like Jesus or John the Baptist, so not in either denomination or the Recovery. In my work I have been closely affiliated with the Seventh Day Adventist churches, they are not non-denominational but close to one. I don't know much about non-denominational groups, other than a few community churches I have attended. I imagine them to be more free to share testimonies based upon the meetings I attended. 90% of "Sunday church goers" in liturgical churches are hopeless at giving testimonies. Most are scared of speaking in general and sit at the back. One or two people speaking and many in silence is the norm in these churches.

OK. You are a very interesting person. I need to think through the "saved when I was born" comment. I have never heard that before. Do you have the permission of the blended brothers or elders to participate here, or are you functioning independently?

HERn · 02-19-2017, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

And they used to call RG in Texas, "X-Ray," because Ray could take one look at the brothers and just know when they were in the spirit or in the flesh. Truly amazing skill!

You need one of those charging cables that plugs right into your computer. That way you could use your trimmer every time you write to Evangelical.

OK. I'll bite. Is there really such a thing that can run off USB? I'll buy it.

Evangelical · 02-19-2017, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HERn

OK. You are a very interesting person. I need to think through the "saved when I was born" comment. I have never heard that before. Do you have the permission of the blended brothers or elders to participate here, or are you functioning independently?

There are a few testimonies like that floating around on the internet. Maybe I was unsaved at age 2 months or 3 months, I don't know, but I believe babies go to heaven.

I do not have the permission of the blended brothers or elders to participate here and I think you know the reason why.

Ohio · 02-19-2017, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

"he did not have the resurrected Christ indwelling him" - neither did Nicodemus or Peter, James and John. Does not mean they were not born again. They all entered into the kingdom of God, even before Christ died on the cross. Luke 17:21 -You won't be able to say, 'Here it is!' or 'It's over there!' For the Kingdom of God is already among you." .

Jesus did not say "the kingdom of God will come after I die on the cross and resurrect".

The footnote is referring to the resurrected Christ. It is about all the powerful things believers can do once they receive the Spirit, the resurrected Christ, at Pentecost. The "greater works" one shall do, and the great intimacy with Christ. If we think that being born again means to be indwelt with the resurrected Christ (post-resurrection), then technically the thief on the cross was not "born again" either. That is not the meaning of being born again. People could be "born again" before Jesus died on the cross - a person is born again and sealed by the Holy Spirit at the moment of faith. God prospectively applied the death of Christ to people before Christ had even died. That's how all the old testament saints "got saved". That's how the 12 disciples "got saved" while they were following Christ up until His crucifixion (possibly not Judas Iscariot).

Nicodemus lived at the same time as John. Jesus told Nicodemus he had to be born again, as an adult. Nell has used Jesus's words as a kind of universal "simple gospel" principle. But if this is the case, why did John the Baptist not need to be born again as an adult?

Answer:
Because he was already filled with the Spirit from birth.

Luke 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

I understand this to mean that the death of Christ was prospectively applied to John the Baptist. He was already in the kingdom of God since his birth.

Evangelical, John the Baptist may have been filled with the Holy Spirit from even before his birth, but that does not mean he was born again, born of God, born of the Holy Spirit.

Bezalel, Micah, Zacharias, and Elizabeth were also filled with the Holy Spirit. (Ex 31.3, Mic 3.8, Lk 1.41, 67) Does that mean that they also were born again? According to your crazy definition, the first man in the entire Bible to be born again was an unknown jeweler, a goldsmith in the wilderness. Who knew?

Did you read Lee's footnote on this subject like I told you too? You better not include this stuff in your prophecy time, otherwise you might get quarantined by brother Drake. (Don't you know that Nigel Tomes and Titus Chu got quarantined for less.)

Evangelical · 02-19-2017, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Evangelical, John the Baptist may have been filled with the Holy Spirit from even before his birth, but that does not mean he was born again, born of God, born of the Holy Spirit.

Bezalel, Micah, Zacharias, and Elizabeth were also filled with the Holy Spirit. (Ex 31.3, Mic 3.8, Lk 1.41, 67) Does that mean that they also were born again? According to your crazy definition, the first man in the entire Bible to be born again was an unknown jeweler, a goldsmith in the wilderness. Who knew?

Did you read Lee's footnote on this subject like I told you too? You better not include this stuff in your prophecy time, otherwise you might get quarantined by brother Drake. (Don't you know that Nigel Tomes and Titus Chu got quarantined for less.)

Regeneration, or being "born again" is in the old testament.

In the OT people were given “a new heart” by God - 1 Sam 10:9.

Nell · 02-20-2017, 05:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Regeneration, or being "born again" is in the old testament.

Where?

Nell

Ohio · 02-20-2017, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Regeneration, or being "born again" is in the old testament.

In the OT people were given “a new heart” by God - 1 Sam 10:9.

This is where your strange teaching leads you -- now you are telling us that King Saul was born again.

Evangelical · 02-20-2017, 03:33 PM

What some have called "strange teaching" shows their lack of education on these matters. A number on here seem to not know about regeneration in the Old Testament, so I will post a few things to help clarify.

For further reading you may see this website:

https://bible.org/question/how-did-h...ives-ot-saints

The website says:
The point is that the Holy Spirit worked in the hearts of people to enlighten, convict, and lead people to believe the content of the message as it existed in Old Testament times. The Holy Spirit obviously had to regenerate people and He led them, but it was not from the indwelling presence as it is today.

To be regenerated, or born again is a spiritual transformation, a change of heart. That is for a purpose, namely, to do God's will and obey Him.

The old testament reveals that people's hearts were changed by the Holy Spirit by faith, this is how they could obey God and do His will, this is how they could please God.

As God's people, the Holy Spirit abided with the Israelites. This is what made them unique and different from the Gentiles :

Exodus 29:45 Then I will dwell among the Israelites and be their God.

In the OT we find a number of commands for people to have a change of heart:

Deuteronomy 30:6
The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live.

Jeremiah 4:4
"Circumcise yourselves to the LORD And remove the foreskins of your heart, Men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, Or else My wrath will go forth like fire And burn with none to quench it, Because of the evil of your deeds."

David prayed to be regenerated:

Psalm 51:10 Create in me a clean heart, O God, And renew a steadfast spirit within me.

God's way of regeneration has been known since the old testament times:

Jer 24:7 I will give them a heart to know Me, for I am the LORD; and they will be My people, and I will be their God, for they will return to Me with their whole heart.

Ezekiel 18:31
"Cast away from you all your transgressions which you have committed and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! For why will you die, O house of Israel?

We can find a number of examples of God changing people's hearts to do His will. Saul is one example. Here is another verse:

The hand of God was also on Judah to give them one heart to do what the king and the princes commanded by the word of the LORD." (Chronicles 30:11-12)

Old testament saints were regenerated by God but did not experience the indwelling as much as New testament saints do.

So, regeneration in the old testament, is not so strange after all.

Koinonia · 02-20-2017, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What some have called "strange teaching" shows their lack of education on these matters. A number on here seem to not know about regeneration in the Old Testament, so I will post a few things to help clarify.

Evangelical, I don't know if you realize it, but LC leaders would never agree with your teaching here or with your commentary on "being saved from birth."

Evangelical · 02-20-2017, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Evangelical, I don't know if you realize it, but LC leaders would never agree with your teaching here or with your commentary on "being saved from birth."

Are you sure? I think they would believe in the prospective or universal application of Christ's death on the cross to Old Testament believers. That's what Nee taught. That's what I'm saying here.

When I mentioned the prospective application of Christ's death on the cross to Old Testament saints, I was actually thinking of this work:

Collected Works of Watchman Nee, The (Set 1) Vol. 06: The Christian (4) "HOW WERE MEN SAVED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT?"

It talks about the timelessness of the cross.

It says "As men in the Old Testament looked to a coming Savior and were saved, in the same way we look to a past Savior and are saved."

"Those who offered the sacrifices in the Old Testament, consciously or unconsciously, believed in a coming crucified Savior. All their sacrifices were to turn them to the coming Savior. "

If they were saved, they were regenerated, if they were regenerated, they were "born again".

Only born again/regenerated/saved people enter the kingdom of God. So Old Testament saints must be born again.

About saved from birth, maybe they wouldn't. So I'm wondering if they believe that babies go to hell? I don't recall this ever being taught in the LR. Do you know what they believe?

Koinonia · 02-20-2017, 05:45 PM

Evangelical, even if LC leaders would not explicitly disagree with you on any point, they would take issue with your expressing things in any way differently from Witness Lee.

Koinonia · 02-20-2017, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I do not have the permission of the blended brothers or elders to participate here and I think you know the reason why.

What do you think is the reason?

Evangelical · 02-20-2017, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Evangelical, even if LC leaders would not explicitly disagree with you on any point, they would take issue with your expressing things in any way differently from Witness Lee.

It depends on who the leader is, but in my experience I don't have any problems.

Ohio · 02-20-2017, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What some have called "strange teaching" shows their lack of education on these matters. A number on here seem to not know about regeneration in the Old Testament, so I will post a few things to help clarify.

Deuteronomy 30:6 The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live.

Jeremiah 4:4 "Circumcise yourselves to the LORD And remove the foreskins of your heart, Men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, Or else My wrath will go forth like fire And burn with none to quench it, Because of the evil of your deeds."

Evangelical, first you said that to be "born again" is to be "filled with the spirit." This was your proof that John the Baptist was "born again" in his mother's womb, and you were "born again" from your own birth.

Now you change again. Now you say we can be "born again" whenever people's hearts were changed, even likening this to the O.T. command of circumcision.

Nicodemus was a teacher of the law, and when Jesus told him he must be born again, Nicodemus knew that this teaching never existed in the scripture.

You should learn from Nicodemus, or perhaps Drake. It seems he has abandoned you because of your strange teachings.

HERn · 02-20-2017, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There are a few testimonies like that floating around on the internet. Maybe I was unsaved at age 2 months or 3 months, I don't know, but I believe babies go to heaven.

I do not have the permission of the blended brothers or elders to participate here and I think you know the reason why.

I don't know the reason why. Is it because commenting here gives legitimacy to the forum? Do the blended brothers or elders know that you participate here? Sometimes I think you may be a provocateur? What do you hope to accomplish by participating here?

Nell · 02-20-2017, 09:42 PM

The Word of God is specific. Jesus told Nicodemus "you must be born again" for a reason. He spoke to the woman at the well to fit her specific situation and meet her need...which was different from Nicodemus. He spoke to Mary, Martha and Lazarus according to their specific situation to meet their needs. Jesus came to save His people from their sins, each according to their needs, to meet them in their specific life situation, to draw them to Himself.

The Lord meets me where I am and tells me what I need to hear, not a bunch of babble.

Obviously, Jesus didn't interact with John the Baptist the same way he interacted with Nicodemus...for a reason. If "born again" was the same as "filled with the Spirit", would Jesus have used two different terms? I don't think so.

I found a Latin phrase that describes the "non-gospel of Evangelical": reductio ad absurdum. This topic has been "Reduced to absurdity."

Nell

Evangelical · 02-20-2017, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

The Word of God is specific. Jesus told Nicodemus "you must be born again" for a reason. He spoke to the woman at the well to fit her specific situation and meet her need...which was different from Nicodemus. He spoke to Mary, Martha and Lazarus according to their specific situation to meet their needs. Jesus came to save His people from their sins, each according to their needs, to meet them in their specific life situation, to draw them to Himself.

The Lord meets me where I am and tells me what I need to hear, not a bunch of babble.

Obviously, Jesus didn't interact with John the Baptist the same way he interacted with Nicodemus...for a reason. If "born again" was the same as "filled with the Spirit", would Jesus have used two different terms? I don't think so.

I found a Latin phrase that describes the "non-gospel of Evangelical": reductio ad absurdum. This topic has been "Reduced to absurdity."

Nell

Of course being born again is different to being filled with the Spirit. But surely you understand that a person who is filled with the Spirit cannot be, unless they are first born again. How can an unregenerate or unsaved be filled with the Spirit?

If being born again is a requirement to enter the kingdom of God, then how does John the Baptist enter the kingdom without being born again? Every person whether old testament or new testament cannot enter the kingdom without being born of the spirit.

Evangelical · 02-21-2017, 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Evangelical, even if LC leaders would not explicitly disagree with you on any point, they would take issue with your expressing things in any way differently from Witness Lee.

I could not find any thing from Lee about how old testament people "got saved". Only Nee.

Ohio · 02-21-2017, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Evangelical, even if LC leaders would not explicitly disagree with you on any point, they would take issue with your expressing things in any way differently from Witness Lee.

Sounds like an unholy alliance -- Evangelical teaching what Lee would never approve of, and Evangelical following leaders in the U.S. which he calls Sodom.

Ohio · 02-21-2017, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Of course being born again is different to being filled with the Spirit. But surely you understand that a person who is filled with the Spirit cannot be, unless they are first born again. How can an unregenerate or unsaved be filled with the Spirit?

If being born again is a requirement to enter the kingdom of God, then how does John the Baptist enter the kingdom without being born again? Every person whether old testament or new testament cannot enter the kingdom without being born of the spirit.

The Bible does not directly address these questions, so your statements are pure speculation.

The Bible does say, however, that Jesus did preach the gospel following His crucifixion. He announced salvation to all those awaiting the hope of the promised Messiah.

TLFisher · 02-22-2017, 01:54 PM

On the practice of calling on the name of the Lord, why call three times? Usually in personal interaction, you just need to say a person's name once to get a response.

Ohio · 02-22-2017, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

On the practice of calling on the name of the Lord, why call three times? Usually in personal interaction, you just need to say a person's name once to get a response.

Calling the Lord's name is also worshiping Him.

If we call from our lips only, one time is too much.

If we call on His name from our hearts, there is no such thing as too much or too often.

Evangelical · 02-22-2017, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

On the practice of calling on the name of the Lord, why call three times? Usually in personal interaction, you just need to say a person's name once to get a response.

The answer is found in 2 Kings 13:14-19. If we are willing to pray only once, we don't understand prayer.

OBW · 02-22-2017, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Calling the Lord's name is also worshiping Him.

If we call from our lips only, one time is too much.

If we call on His name from our hearts, there is no such thing as too much or too often.

I understand you. Yes, from our hearts. Not from a directive that it is time to say those words.

But too many of those "let's call on the Lord" challenges somehow come across to me like crank calls. You pick up the phone, someone says your name, and hangs up. Then does it again.

And again.

And again.

Never says anything else. Never talks about the day, or asks a question.

And if we just keep doing it and never really interact with the God at the other end, it eventually is not much of a prayer. I can't constantly claim that it is the Spirit praying what I don't know what to pray. I must never know what to pray.

And if the goal is to get "refreshed," is it much different from some kind of chant? Getting a feeling from saying words over and over? I know Lee declared that this was not like that.

But if your goal is your (meaning my) improved condition, then I am not sure that we are calling on the Lord as much as saying words that we expect will improve our condition.

And I am all for praying that God will work with us on our demeanor and state of mind. But is a chant with no words really doing that? Is it possible that despite the "correctness" of the words spoken that we too often are expecting something like (though not as extreme as) the prosperity gospel presumes to provide? That we can just repeat this phrase and God has to fix our state of being.

All we need is Joel Osteen and we have the prosperity gospel. Or Benny Hinn and we have a faith-healing meeting. (Someone referred to Kathryn Kuhlman somewhere else in the last day. She was one of those "knock you down in the Spirit" preachers.)

Are we yanking on God's chain by just saying three little words over and over and expecting a response? Do we think that we always get a response? I am not certain that this is a reasonable assumption (that we do). And if that is correct, then when we always feel better, then what was it?

Ohio · 02-22-2017, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Are we yanking on God's chain by just saying three little words over and over and expecting a response? Do we think that we always get a response? I am not certain that this is a reasonable assumption (that we do). And if that is correct, then when we always feel better, then what was it?

OBW, have you never sung that song,

Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Sweetest name on earth,
How can I, a sinner, Come to know thy worth?

God's children have been worshiping His Beloved Son for decades with that song, and you would take that away from them?

I just can't believe you would do such a cruel thing like that!

OBW · 02-23-2017, 05:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

OBW, have you never sung that song,

Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Sweetest name on earth,
How can I, a sinner, Come to know thy worth?

God's children have been worshiping His Beloved Son for decades with that song, and you would take that away from them?

I just can't believe you would do such a cruel thing like that!

First, when I am speaking of worship, I am talking about corporate worship. A person's private worship is not the same as the corporate worship. But in all honesty, based on the two lines, it is not a song that I am familiar with. But also based on those two lines, I would not have a problem with it as part of worship.

But with or without commenting on your song, it is clear that you didn't read all of my post, did you? Almost seems as if you found a word or a phrase and quit reading. Sort of like Lee did when reading 1 Cor. 15:45.

Don't just bristle at the comparison. I don't use it to make you like Lee, but to point to an analogy that we all understand.

I did not say absolutely no "me" in worship. But a lot less. What I see so many places is that even what is about God is tied to "me" and what he's done for me is the most important part. Like we are looking the wrong direction. Sort of a "look at all the stuff Santa brought me this year." God is in it but when you take it as a whole, it's really about me.

Those songs are fine as something to listen to and sing along with on the radio. But they have little place in the corporate worship. (Not absolutely no place, but little place.)

And I specifically referred to songs like the one you are crying about. It is referring to Jesus. The "I" is observer desiring to know more of God.

Again, not saying there should be none of that. But there needs to be a reduction in me and an increase in Him. I must decrease . . . .

Ohio · 02-23-2017, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Again, not saying there should be none of that. But there needs to be a reduction in me and an increase in Him. I must decrease . . . .

I agree with the part about you decreasing. And me too!

This thread is about "Calling On The Name of The Lord, Pray-Reading and Prophesying," three prominent practices in the LC's. Because the GLA had some more spiritual men, we attempted to practice these spiritually. In other words, we struggled to keep these real, in the Spirit, and not deteriorate into robotic forms.

The Bible speaks of Calling On The Name of The Lord, Praying the Word of God, and Prophesying in meetings, so we should not entirely discard these practices just because they were morphed into something totally unrecognizable to scripture. Personally I would not participate in public "Oh Lord Jesus" chants at trainings, like I witnessed in that Whistler Kangaroo Court video. That was vain babbling at best.

Too much of LSM sponsored activities are man-pleasing "showmanships." They are merely public performances no different than the Pharisees displayed to the Lord Jesus.

TLFisher · 02-23-2017, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

This thread is about "Calling On The Name of The Lord, Pray-Reading and Prophesying," three prominent practices in the LC's. Because the GLA had some more spiritual men, we attempted to practice these spiritually. In other words, we struggled to keep these real, in the Spirit, and not deteriorate into robotic forms.

Practices becomes too automated. Just doing it without thinking. Just as when someone asks how you're doing, the automated response is fine without considering the question.
Those practices becomes more reflex than it is spiritual.

Ohio · 02-23-2017, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

Practices becomes too automated. Just doing it without thinking. Just as when someone asks how you're doing, the automated response is fine without considering the question.
Those practices becomes more reflex than it is spiritual.

All practices can become automated, but that's not bad in itself. So can reading 3 chapters a day from the bible. So can praying from a prayer list. So can getting on your knees first thing in the morning.

What's far worse is turning some practice into a mechanized public display.

01-25-2009, 09:38 AM	#1
countmeworthy Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: in Spirit & in Truth Posts: 1,376	Teaching on Calling on the Name of the Lord One good meaningful teaching and memory I have from my days in the LC..from my church in San Diego was a weekend series of messages on 'Calling on the Name of the Lord'. We former and current LCrs know all too well that was our 'mantra' if you will. Truth be told...it IS biblical and sound. The scriptures we 'pray-read' are still grafted in me.,,and they are more living to me..that is they truly speak to me more today than back in the day. With this intro.. I have a Praise Report to the Glory of God I'd like to share. For years and years, I have been troubled by how disrespectful the Name of our LORD and SAVIOUR ---JESUS is tossed around....mainly non-believers and carnal Christians (some of whom are probably not believers..but think they are).. Everytime I hear someone disrespect His SACRED Name, my spirit grieves..for it is the Holy Spirit grieving in me. When I hear His Name trashed around, I quietly call on Him with a grieving heart "Lord Jesus." Nothing LOUD..nothing emotional...but with reverence and a grieving heart. *Around my carnal friends* who I am ministering to..I scold them if they slip and disrespect the Name of Jesus. I tell them "HEY!! Pay ATTENTION how you use His Name! BE respectful of Him...He is GOD!" The Name of JESUS is HOLY..and SACRED!!! Sometimes I 'lecture' them...and other times..just a stern reminder. It gets their undivided attention and I think they are much more mindful next time around. So...this past week, a childhood friend of mine asked me to come over and hold a 'bible study' for her, and her parents who are in their 80s. I've known the entire family since I was 6 yrs old...My friend and I are in our YOUNG 50's.. and I was told yesterday I looked like I was in my 40's. (Praise You Lord Jesus! ) I knew it was the perfect opportunity to 'teach' them on Power and Holiness of the Name of Jesus...oh..and not because I was told I looked good and in my 40's. LOL! For 85 yr old Mr. A... I wrote out the scriptures on BIG index cards. We all had bibles and we opened up with prayer for the Lord to anoint our time together and enlighten us all. Including me, there were 5 present..they were all saved already but are not delivered. This is the family who some of you might remember..that lost a son, a brother to suicide earlier this year. He was only 38. The scriptures I used were many of the scriptures we/I learned in the LC.. John 10:10 John 14:6 Acts 4:12 Romans 10:9-11 and 13 John 6:35 I began by telling them how HOLY and Sacred His Name is and people need to call on Him out of Respect for He is our Saviour..and our very present Help in time of need. We turned to the scriptures..and most of the time together, out loud, we read the scriptures from the Bible. Sometimes individually, I would have them re-read them. I'd expound on each scripture one by one and then turned that scripture into prayer and had them pray that scripture. For example John 10:10b.. I (Jesus) came that you would have Life and have it more abundantly..until it overflows.I explained how Jesus came that we would have LIFE..and not only ETERNAL LIFE..but Life in our every day living....I had them pray something like: "Thank YOU LORD JESUS..You came that I would have Life and have it more abundantly. Praise You Lord Jesus." I went through each scripture, giving a short teaching and prayer with it. The bible study probably lasted 20-25 minutes and they all said it was AWESOME. *To GOD be the GLORY!* Mr A asked if he could keep the index cards. I chuckled and hugged him and told him I wrote them specifically just for him. ......I share this praise report because giving credit where credit is due, I, personally, learned to call on the Name of the Lord...learned all the scriptures on the Lord Jesus..and 'Life' in the LC. Sooo...that is one reason I am grateful to the LORD for my time there. I'm just as grateful I am no longer there too. *.....................................Thanks everone for reading my postl! I pray it blessed you , encouraged you & lifted your spirit* __________________ Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be *accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass,* and to stand before the Son of man. (Luke 21:36) Last edited by countmeworthy; 01-25-2009 at 10:17 AM.

01-25-2009, 11:26 AM	#2
Hope Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Durham, North Carolina Posts: 313	Re: Mutual encouragement Dear Countmeworthy, Your post has been read. I am very encouraged and refreshed. Thank you for sharing and for having the love of God for these dear ones to help them to know more of the living Christ. It is so wonderful that you are able to help some who perhaps know little of Christ. This morning in our meeting here in Durham we had four gospel friends with us. We read together the story of the woman at the well. Several of us shared the joy of the living water and of knowing the Savior. One of the four confessed faith in Jesus a few weeks ago. Her sister in law is very open and asked if we would get her a bible. The other two said they were very interested in learning more about Jesus. One of the later two had his 33rd birthday today. Unbeknowst to him one of the sisters made him a birthday cake and gave it to him this morning at the meeting. He was smiling from ear to ear. He spoke of how he has been touched to consider Christ due to the kindnesses that have been shown to him. Last night we had a couple who have been married 25 years renew their vows. They have three young adult children. The three children and their sister in law and cousins worked out all the arrangements and along with their dad gave the mom a wonderful surprise. About 20 relatives came in and we had a big celebration of natural family and church family all together. This family has had some very big challenges and trials. The wife declared it was due to Christ and the care they had received in the church that they had been able to stay together. We all are so thankful to the Lord for His never failing love and mercy. In Christ Jesus, Hope, Don Rutledge

01-25-2009, 05:02 PM	#5
countmeworthy Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: in Spirit & in Truth Posts: 1,376	Re: Mutual encouragement Of course Don! We, true believers don't mind 'spreading the wealth' around with our beloved brethren in Christ. __________________ Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be *accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass,* and to stand before the Son of man. (Luke 21:36) Last edited by countmeworthy; 01-25-2009 at 07:14 PM.

11-06-2016, 01:24 AM	#8
Evangelical Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 3,965	Calling On The Name of The Lord and Pray-Reading 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" ?

11-07-2016, 09:44 PM	#12
Evangelical Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 3,965	Calling On The Name of The Lord and Pray-Reading 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.

11-09-2016, 01:32 PM	#19
Ohio Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Greater Ohio Posts: 13,693	Re: Calling On The Name of The Lord and Pray-Reading Years ago Ray Graver compiled an account of those who prayed the scriptures, calling Lord .. Thou said. The book was a spiritual account from many men of God. They practiced "Pray-Reading" the scriptures. The booklet was well written and well received. Compare that to the LC practice of Pray-Reading, which is mere repetition of parts of verses, and PSRP what their robotic practice has morphed into. It is merely a mechanical exercise, and not at all spiritual. It could easily become part of a political campaign rally. "Now repeat after me ..." The Bible says to "test all things, hold on to the good." We should always ask, is my heart engaged now? Or am I just going along with the crowd? Does this require an active exercise of faith? Or am I just doing a thing to please others? Am I worshiping God our Father in spirit? Or am I just honoring God with my lips? __________________ Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

11-09-2016, 03:12 PM	#22
Freedom Member Join Date: Mar 2014 Posts: 1,636	Re: Calling On The Name of The Lord and Pray-Reading I'm not talking about sincerity here. I'm talking about initiative. If the point of a practice is what you call an "invocation of His presence," then I don't think being nudged to do it counts. Singing, prayer and worship can all be done passively, and I'm not judging that. I know that I've done it myself. What I'm saying is that if "calling on the name of the Lord" refers to a direct interaction with God, then it can't be a passive practice done according to some formula. __________________ Isaiah 43:10 “You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.

11-09-2016, 06:48 PM	#27
Evangelical Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 3,965	Re: Calling On The Name of The Lord and Pray-Reading To give an example, suppose someone knows the verse about nothing being impossible for God. They then pray the verse in the context of asking God for a million dollars for their own selfish pursuits. They are praying the Bible but they ask amiss according to God. According to you, since they pray the bible they are praying right. Suppose someone pray reads a message from Lee about nothing being impossible for God in the context of God changing our sinful hearts. According to you, to pray such a prayer would be wrong, because it uses Lee's message. But according to God the prayer itself is right. We are not discussing reinventing the wheel. I believe in the Canon. So did Witness Lee. My point is that we have received the (written) Word of God through men. Yet you seem to believe that we need an instruction from the Bible to do anything. We need an instruction from the Bible to pray-read messages. Yet you know as well as I that following instructions from the Bible is not how the Bible itself was constructed. If that were true, then the Old Testament should define the New Testament. But men had to figure it out, pray about it, put two and two together, and give us the New Testament Canon. I believe that God still speaks today and did not stop speaking when the Bible was written. I believe there is no difference between pray-reading a (biblical) message from Lee, and you pray -reading a bible verse which has gone through umpteen different translations. I believe that prayer from our own misguided hearts can potentially be worse than pray-reading a message from Lee if that message is on target. I believe that pray-reading a bible verse that we may understand out of context to be no better than pray-reading a message of Lee that is "in context".

11-09-2016, 07:08 PM	#29
Evangelical Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 3,965	Re: Calling On The Name of The Lord and Pray-Reading The "calling on God in prayer and worship" you refer to is mostly to do with supplication. In the denominations they do not teach about or practice calling on the name of the Lord, (which is Jesus, many denominations do not even use the name of Jesus), for the purpose of invoking the Lord in the public assembly. It is for this reason that the author of this article thinks it to be a "peculiar teaching" - Some of the notes are good and helpful, but many promote some of the peculiar teachings of The Local Church. These include what seems to be a modalistic understanding of the Triune God, “calling on the name of the Lord”, the mingling of the divine with human in believers, and an eschatology which, while pre-millennial, includes several unusual particulars. The author himself fails to admit that many practices and teachings in Christianity today would be peculiar to the early church - such as Christmas, Easter, mandatory tithing, ritualistic mass or communion services, clown shows, smoke machines etc because of their pagan or worldly origins. The sincere calling on the name of the Lord and the teaching by Lee to do so is most definitely not peculiar but what Watchman Nee might call "normal".

11-09-2016, 07:18 PM	#31
Evangelical Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 3,965	Re: Calling On The Name of The Lord and Pray-Reading My post is not really addressing "praying according to the Bible" but what we can and cannot pray-read. My point is that it is not whether we pray-read the Bible or not that really matters but whether what we pray is truthful or not. It is possible to pray read a Lee message and pray according to the Bible. It is possible to pray-read the Bible and not pray according to the Bible (ask amiss, or have the wrong understanding of the verse). It is also possible to pray-read a Less message and ask amiss. What matters is where our hearts are at when we pray - the key thing about pray-reading is not just simply "praying verses back to God" but to pray our (Spirit-given) inspiration from the verses back to God. This is another key difference between pray-reading in the Recovery and merely repeating verses back to God in prayer as practiced in denominations - the Recovery emphasizes the subjective aspects whereas denominations make it an objective religious practice.

11-09-2016, 08:46 PM	#33
Evangelical Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 3,965	Re: Calling On The Name of The Lord and Pray-Reading I take your point. You are saying it has become formulaic just like reciting the Lord's prayer has become formulaic in Christianity. But if we consider the teaching of it, the various purposes of calling on the Lord can be found here: http://www.callingonthelord.org/ That is the teaching of it. I cannot think why a person would think teaching about calling on the Lord to be peculiar (not referring to you, but the author of the site that said it was a peculiar teaching), unless they had a love of religion but an aversion to the Lord's presence, like the Pharisees.

11-15-2016, 05:42 AM	#48
Evangelical Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 3,965	Re: Calling On The Name of The Lord and Pray-Reading We are not just saying anyone's name or saying empty words. We are saying the name of Jesus which if you recall has power in it. It is also possible to pray the Lord's prayer, ask God for stuff and to do things, and then continue on with daily life, without much interaction. There is interaction resulting when we call on the Lord's name. We call on the Lord's name and pray the Lord's prayer in the way you described. Many times when we call on the Lord's name, there is provision, problems are solved, just by invoking His presence.

11-16-2016, 09:46 PM	#61
Evangelical Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 3,965	Re: Calling On The Name of The Lord, Pray-Reading and Prophesying 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.

11-17-2016, 05:01 PM	#62
Freedom Member Join Date: Mar 2014 Posts: 1,636	Re: Calling On The Name of The Lord, Pray-Reading and Prophesying 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. __________________ Isaiah 43:10 “You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.

11-19-2016, 02:56 PM	#63
Evangelical Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 3,965	Re: Calling On The Name of The Lord, Pray-Reading and Prophesying 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.

11-26-2016, 02:14 AM	#84
Evangelical Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 3,965	Re: Calling On The Name of The Lord and Pray-Reading It may be correct that Paul was speaking to those who felt they had the gift. However just because a person does not have a gift does not mean they are excused from doing it, or cannot do it if they want to. For example, it is commonly believed that everyone is called to evangelize but not everyone has a gift of evangelism. Evangelism is seen as a responsibility of everyone. Similarly, I do not see why it is any different with prophesy. Everyone is called to prophesy but not everyone has a gift of prophesy. Actually, everyone is called to edify, and edification is the result of prophesy. The two main functions of the church are edification and evangelism.

11-26-2016, 09:36 AM	#85
micah6v8 Member Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 90	Re: Calling On The Name of The Lord, Pray-Reading and Prophesying This is all quite interesting and I would love to hear more from everyone. Iron sharpens iron. I am reminded of Eph 4 v 11 to 13 11 So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, ¹²to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up ¹³until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. We all have our calling in our lives based on God's providence for the world:- some are doctors (God's way of taking care of his created beings' health), some are farmers (God's way of providing our daily bread), some are police-men (God's way of providing for our safety), some are full-time Christian ministry (God's way of helping us grow in our understanding). My view is that verse 11, the various groups of people mentioned are full-time Christian ministers (who have God's calling to do these without having secular jobs). I agree that the majority of Christians (who have secular callings) are also in some sense: (i) apostles: We are not the 12 apostles. But if "apostles" means "sent out", we all are sent out by God (ii) prophets:- In Old Testament, not everyone was a prophet. Seems like only those who were specially set aside by God:- eg Jeremiah, Elijah. Today, I don't know if it is correct to say that there are any prophets today. (The modern equivalent of Jeremiah/Elijah who are specifically set aside for the community. If so, these would then be in full-time Christian ministry). But if prophesying means speaking for God, we can to some extent all speak forth for God, based on what we have learnt from reading the bible (which is God's word). (iii) evangelists:- Some are better at evangelising, but we all surely have a reason why we believe in Christ (iv) pastors:- Shepherds should be taking care of the sheep. But a sheep can at least warn a fellow sheep that there is a wolf nearby (v) teachers:- we can teach what we do know. In a school, teachers are the main ones responsible for teaching, but a student who understands the material can also help teach his classmate.

02-13-2017, 04:17 AM	#94
Evangelical Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 3,965	Re: Calling On The Name of The Lord and Pray-Reading It depends. Personal testimonies are often too personal to be of any value. It is nice to know that God did this and God did that for you in the last week. But that only tells me what God did for you, not what I should do for God. Prophesying is better because it can tell me what I need to do for the next week, not just what God did for you in the last. Testimony is about us, but prophesying is about Christ. We should reject all personal matters when we prophesy and focus on Christ. When I was in Pentecostal churches I sat through a lot of testimonies about how God had given material blessings and claims of unverified healing. I do not consider these personal testimonies superior to second hand teachings about particular biblical insights if they are about Christ. 99% of the time, a person in the denominations will give their testimony regarding physical, material things and what God did for them. Few, if any, will give what Lee called a testimony regarding their experience in life. I can imagine it would be a struggle for most Christians in denominations to be able to speak for 2 minutes about anything of value. Firstly, speaking in meeting, or service, is not encouraged, period, and secondly, their minds would be too focused on matters of the flesh or the world to be able to give a spiritual message. By the way, you are speaking as if prophesying and personal testimonies are separate things. Prophesying can include real life testimony as well. Normally people will relate the content of the HWFMR to their own personal insight and life experience. Because it is related to something of Christ, it is superior to the so-called "testimonies" of those in denominations.

02-14-2017, 06:46 PM	#105
Evangelical Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 3,965	Re: Calling On The Name of The Lord and Pray-Reading Repentance before blessing/grace is backwards in my view. Proof: God sent His Son while we were still sinners, without repentance. Also, Romans 2:4 says so. God's kindness comes before repentance. In relationships, grace often comes before repentance. Suppose a husband and wife argue, they don't talk to each other. They might remember their love for each other and commitment, come together, and then they are in a position to say sorry to each other. Repenting immediately after the sin is often not genuine. It takes time for grace to work to lead a person to repentance.

02-18-2017, 10:15 PM	#125
Nell Admin/Moderator Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Texas Posts: 2,100	Re: Calling On The Name of The Lord, Pray-Reading and Prophesying From The Thread of Gold by Jane Carole Anderson, Chapter 24: "10 About Calling on the Lord and Pray Reading (p. 377) Witness Lee taught us that there were two ways to participate in God's economy: calling on the Lord and pray-reading the Word. He told us that this was how we would receive the processed Triune God and how God would complete His purpose. 10a Calling on the Lord One of the ways to be mingled with God, or receive divine dispensing, was to call on the Lord (Lee, Christ Versus Religion, 118-119) He also taught us that to call on the Lord was to repeat out loud, "O Lord Jesus," usually numerous times in a row. I no longer believe these things and I have come to realize the diversity of meaning involved in truly calling on the name of the Lord. There is much more meaning to the phrases, "calling on the Lord," and "calling on the name of the Lord" than the simple definition Witness Lee gave us. The most important words in these phrases in the New Testament are "the Lord" and "the name of the Lord." Witness Lee, however, majored on the "calling" part of the phrases. He explained that the root word of the Greek word for calling is kaleo (Strong, G2564), which means "to call out loud." So according to (Lee), to call on the Lord was to call out, "O Lord Jesus." ... As I revisited each verse in the New Testament in which I could find the word epikaleomai, I realized that each one was easily and sometimes better understood with the meanings of the words entitle, invoke, or appeal, instead of the meaning "to call out loud." I also noted that none of these verses indicate that calling on the Lord causes divine dispensing to occur, or that the motivation for calling on the Lord should be to receive divine dispensing. " Jane then cites Acts 7:59: And they stoned Stephen as he was calling on God and saying, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." She notes that Stephen's appeal was clear "receive my spirit." "There is no indication that he was calling to receive more of the processed Triune God or divine dispensing" as though he wanted to get as much dispensing as possible at the last minute before he died. Again, from Jane: "Nowhere in the Bible do I see the concept of saying, 'O Lord Jesus,' repetitively and continuously, something we were constantly admonished to do. ... Witness Lee focused on the calling part of the phrase. The focus should be on the One being called. " ... "In our practice in the Local Church, we placed so much importance on the supposed result of our calling (receiving divine dispensing) that we ended up focused on ourselves---our breathing, our eating, our drinking, our receiving." ... "The truth has set me free to invoke, appeal to, and call upon Him for whatever I need and to entitle Him as my Lord. I have purposed never again to use the Lord's name in a vague, empty, meaningless, and repetitive way (Matt. 6:7)" Jane begins a deconstruct of many of Witness Lee's major teachings in Chapter 24. This section on calling and pray-reading is more comprehensive than I have quoted here. Nell

02-20-2017, 03:33 PM	#152
Evangelical Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 3,965	Regeneration in the Old Testament What some have called "strange teaching" shows their lack of education on these matters. A number on here seem to not know about regeneration in the Old Testament, so I will post a few things to help clarify. For further reading you may see this website: https://bible.org/question/how-did-h...ives-ot-saints The website says: The point is that the Holy Spirit worked in the hearts of people to enlighten, convict, and lead people to believe the content of the message as it existed in Old Testament times. The Holy Spirit obviously had to regenerate people and He led them, but it was not from the indwelling presence as it is today. To be regenerated, or born again is a spiritual transformation, a change of heart. That is for a purpose, namely, to do God's will and obey Him. The old testament reveals that people's hearts were changed by the Holy Spirit by faith, this is how they could obey God and do His will, this is how they could please God. As God's people, the Holy Spirit abided with the Israelites. This is what made them unique and different from the Gentiles : Exodus 29:45 Then I will dwell among the Israelites and be their God. In the OT we find a number of commands for people to have a change of heart: Deuteronomy 30:6 The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live. Jeremiah 4:4 "Circumcise yourselves to the LORD And remove the foreskins of your heart, Men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, Or else My wrath will go forth like fire And burn with none to quench it, Because of the evil of your deeds." David prayed to be regenerated: Psalm 51:10 Create in me a clean heart, O God, And renew a steadfast spirit within me. God's way of regeneration has been known since the old testament times: Jer 24:7 I will give them a heart to know Me, for I am the LORD; and they will be My people, and I will be their God, for they will return to Me with their whole heart. Ezekiel 18:31 "Cast away from you all your transgressions which you have committed and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! For why will you die, O house of Israel? We can find a number of examples of God changing people's hearts to do His will. Saul is one example. Here is another verse: The hand of God was also on Judah to give them one heart to do what the king and the princes commanded by the word of the LORD." (Chronicles 30:11-12) Old testament saints were regenerated by God but did not experience the indwelling as much as New testament saints do. So, regeneration in the old testament, is not so strange after all.

02-20-2017, 05:45 PM	#155
Koinonia Member Join Date: Mar 2016 Posts: 524	Re: Regeneration in the Old Testament Evangelical, even if LC leaders would not explicitly disagree with you on any point, they would take issue with your expressing things in any way differently from Witness Lee.

02-20-2017, 09:42 PM	#160
Nell Admin/Moderator Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Texas Posts: 2,100	Re: Regeneration in the Old Testament The Word of God is specific. Jesus told Nicodemus "you must be born again" for a reason. He spoke to the woman at the well to fit her specific situation and meet her need...which was different from Nicodemus. He spoke to Mary, Martha and Lazarus according to their specific situation to meet their needs. Jesus came to save His people from their sins, each according to their needs, to meet them in their specific life situation, to draw them to Himself. The Lord meets me where I am and tells me what I need to hear, not a bunch of babble. Obviously, Jesus didn't interact with John the Baptist the same way he interacted with Nicodemus...for a reason. If "born again" was the same as "filled with the Spirit", would Jesus have used two different terms? I don't think so. I found a Latin phrase that describes the "non-gospel of Evangelical": reductio ad absurdum. This topic has been "Reduced to absurdity." Nell Last edited by Nell; 02-20-2017 at 10:30 PM.

02-22-2017, 01:54 PM	#165
TLFisher Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Renton, Washington Posts: 3,545	Re: Calling On The Name of The Lord, Pray-Reading and Prophesying On the practice of calling on the name of the Lord, why call three times? Usually in personal interaction, you just need to say a person's name once to get a response. __________________ The Church in Los Angeles 1971-1972 Phoenix 1972-1973 Albuquerque 1973-1975 Anaheim 1976-1979 San Bernardino 1979-1986 Bellevue 1993-2000 Renton 2009-2011

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode