Can a Christian be a Freemason???

[Rev Wayne]

I must admit you confuse me. On the one hand you state that Freemasonry is in aligned WITH Scripture regarding "purity" as a necessity or requirement for salvation via its Apron Lecture.

You now have suddenly declared that it (purity) occurs AFTER coming to Christ

Nothing “suddenly” about it. Allow me to un-confuse you, by showing with specific highlights what you missed when you quoted my comments:

And the statement clearly says simply that by the lambskin apron the Mason is “reminded” of that purity which is so essentially necessary. We’re talking about symbols, remember? It just so happens that every time I hear or speak or write about the lambskin apron, I too am “reminded” of that purity, and I am “reminded” also that yes, purity IS biblically necessary, and yes, I am also “reminded” that the symbolism is of Christ.

Don’t know how you missed the fact I was expressing my OWN opinion on the matter. But even so, in the only other part of the piece that I made any reference that was not intended as personal opinion, I clearly stated that the SYMBOLISM is of Christ. So even though there is no overt proclamation that "the purity mentioned comes after coming to Christ," the SYMBOLISM does portray purity from the Christian perspective. And as you were already shown more than once, the lecture statement which you cite, is based directly on an early Christian baptismal liturgy. You seem to forget from one thread to the next, exactly what I have posted in the past, or you wouldn’t be repeating your errors. For instance, from Hardie’s New Freemason’s Monitor:

The lamb has, in all ages, been considered as an emblem of innocence and of peace. The Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of the world, will grant to those, who put their trust in him, his peace. He, therefore, who wears the lamb-skin as the badge of masonry, is thereby reminded of that purity of life and conversation, which it is absolutely necessary for those to observe, who expect to be admitted into the grand lodge above, where under the presidency of the Grand Master of Heaven and Earth, they will for ever enjoy those "pleasures, which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things, which God hath prepared for them that love him." 1 Corinthians, ii. 9.

And from Texas, “A Memorial Service Program”:

The white apron, representative of the lamb that taketh away the sin of the world; emblematical of the sweet peace of God's divine love, which passeth all human understanding and in the portrayal of the Resurrection of the body, the immortality of the soul and the life everlasting,

From Mackey’s History of Freemasonry:

The very spirit of all of our lectures proves conclusively that when they were formulated they were designed to teach pure trinitarian Christianity

And from Mackey’s Encyclopedia:

LAMB

In Ancient Craft Masonry the Lamb is the symbol of innocence; thus in the instructions of the First Degree: "In all ages the Lamb has been deemed an emblem of innocence." Hence it is required that a Freemason's Apron should be made of lambskin. In the advanced Degrees, and in the Degrees of chivalry, as in Christian iconography, or station, the lamb is a symbol of Jesus Christ. The introduction of this Christian symbolism of the lamb comes from the expression of Saint John the Baptist, who exclaimed, on seeing Jesus, "Behold the Lamb of God"; which was undoubtedly derived from the prophetic writers, who compare the Messiah suffering on the cross to a lamb under the knife of a butcher. In the vision of Saint John, in the Apocalypse, Christ is seen, under the form of a lamb, wounded in the throat, and opening the book with the seven seals. Hence, in one of the Degrees of the Scottish Rite, the Seventeenth, or Knight of the East and West, the lamb lying on the book with the seven seals is a part of the jewel.

LAMB, PASCHAL

The Paschal Lamb, sometimes called the Holy Lamb, was the lamb offered up by the Jews at the paschal feast, the Passover. This has been transferred to Christian symbolism, to Easter, and naturally to Chivalric Freemasonry; and hence we find it among the symbols of modern Templarism. The paschal lamb, as a Christian and Masonic symbol, called also the Agnw Dez, or Lamb of God, first appeared in Christian art after the sixth century.
This is depicted as a lamb standing on the ground, holding by the left forefoot a banner, on which a cross is inscribed. This paschal lamb, or Lamb of God, has been adopted as a symbol by the Knights Templar, being borne in one of the banners of the Order, and constituting, with the square which it surmounts, the jewel of the Generalissimo of a Commandery. The lamb is a symbol of Christ; the cross, of His passion; and the banner, of His victory over death and hell. Barrington states (Archaeologia ix, page 134) that in a Deed of the English Knights Templar, granting lands in Cambridgeshire. the seal is a Holy Land, and the arms of the Master of the Temple at London were argent, a cross gules, and on the nombril point thereof a Holy Lamb, that is, a Paschal or Holy Lamb on the center of a red cross in a white field.

From the dictionary and concordance, Heirloom Masonic Bible, Master Mason edition:

LAMB, a title given to the Lord Jesus Christ as the atoning sacrifice for the sins of His people. Its innocence and gentleness made the lamb an example of such qualities in the Saviour.

Besides all these, you are completely ignoring context and point of view, not to mention history and origins. You forget that the apron lecture stating the matter about purity being “essentially necessary,” is modeled upon a similar pronouncement made to Christians in the earliest days of the church, when presenting them with a white garment symbolizing purity.

Our Ahiman Rezon is very direct and very explicit in its description, the quote of the Christian pronouncement at the bestowal of the white garment, has been included in the lengthier lecture for quite a number of years, I imagine well over a century. The quote I supplied from the Christian history detailing the same thing, parallels the same pronouncement as it is stated in Masonry. I have no reason, therefore, to doubt the authenticity of the Masonic declaration that it is an early church baptismal liturgy.

But what you either missed or failed to grasp its implication, is that the Masonic apron lecture is directly formulated from it, and the wording, though direct, has the same elements: a white garment, a symbolic representation of purity, a statement indicating the symbolized purity is required for entry into heaven. So in essence, the language you are criticizing is the language of a Christian liturgy from early Christian baptismal practices. i.e., the Christian statement states that the white garment represents purity, and states to the recipient:

Receive this white and undefiled garment, and produce it unspotted before the tribunal of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you may obtain life eternal.

So as I already stated, the SYMBOLISM certainly presents Christ. Mackey says it does so by design.

Examine this for a moment from two distinct viewpoints:

First, objections are made that the Christian Mason should have a problem with the “purity” statement as found in the apron lecture, primarily because of its statement that purity is “essentially necessary.” To counter this claim, I have, at various and sundry times and places, provided the following:

(1) corroboration of the statement in the lectures that the early church had a similar ceremony and presentation;
(2) proof that the bestowal of the white garment is accompanied by an accompanying statement about the symbolism of the purity, and an accompanying statement declaring its essentiality (“that you may obtain…”);
(3) statements from Christianity of the same time frame as the development of the rituals of Masonry, showing “purity of life” as a well-worn and accepted Christian theological concept;
(4) quotes from John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, using the same phrase (“purity of life”), thus placing its use at a time antecedent to the use of the phrase in Masonry;
(5) a citation from the Holman Bible Dictionary on purity, which also refers to it as “essential”;
(6) a portion of the quote you provided from Methodism, showing the same thing I’ve been saying;
(7) several very direct citations from Scripture declaring purity to be required for entry into heaven;
(8) quotations from an earlier form of the apron lecture, showing that a line has been removed which very explicitly defines the Lamb of the cited portion of the lecture to be Christ;
(9) The above list of citations from quite a number of Masonic sources, indicating that the Lamb in Masonry (Lambskin lecture included) is symbolic of Jesus Christ, the "Lamb that taketh away the sin of the world."

And no telling how many other similar proofs, were I to make the unwarranted attempt to track them down to prove what has been proven umpteen times over, to your chorus of denials.

which I assume now that you mention it, is your, "much more to it than that." Am I correct?

No, you are not. I simply meant, “purity, though stated as a requirement, is NOT stated in such a way that it could by any means be construed so as to suggest that it is the ONLY requirement.” Hence, “there’s more to it than that.” Since we are both Christians, I shouldn’t have to tell you what that is.

 

[Rev Wayne]

If so, why didn't you mention it before, and how does this, "the statement clearly says simply that by the lambskin apron the Mason is “reminded” of that purity which is so essentially necessary" apply to those (like J4K) whose interpretation of its symbolism REJECT Jesus Christ?

How would I know? I'm a Christian. Why don't you ask him? The interpretation of Masonic symbols is subjective, not dogmatic, you really ought to be getting some small inkling of that by now. You've certainly been told enough times to be "getting it."

You deny the Christian interpretation when I explain to you what MY interpretation is; yet you ASSUME the Christian understanding when you raise your objections, because the challenge is always, “But what about Masons who are NOT Christians, to whom Masonry proclaims the same thing?”

That is a falsely-grounded question, because what you are doing is assuming on one hand that which you deny on the other, by pretending Masonry is "presenting the Christian interpretation to non-Christians." Or, you take the opposite tack, and try to portray Masonry as "presenting a non-Christian interpretation of the lecture to those who ARE Christians."

It is quite an easy thing to see, that you are simply adapting the accusation in amorphous fashion to have it take the shape you wish it to have at the time. It is also easy to see that you are trying to impose upon Masonry a dogmatic one-size-fits-all, this-is-the-interpretation-of-it-and-no-other, that is totally off the mark in regards to Masonry. Masonry’s apron lecture is not a direct proclamation of any salvific import, nor was it intended to be so.

But you have yet to show Freemasonry's position on imputed and imparted righteousness. NO WHERE IN the Apron Lecture, or anywhere else from Grand Lodge sources for that matter, does the Masonic Lodge teach the imputed righteousness that comes at justification by faith in Christ

Of course it doesn’t, Masonry is not a religion and naturally would not do that—nor would it teach an interpretation of purity by any other religion’s standards either. Masonry makes no proclamation on the matter either way. As for the things that I have said on the matter, I do so as a Christian.

By NOT including it, Freemasonry effectively says that "purity" comes from the individual Mason

That’s YOUR read, I don’t see any place Masonry implies that at all.

NO Christian should support such an organization through membership and monitary dues, which demonstrate tacit approval of such a non-biblical position.

Since Masonry nowhere demonstrates any such thing, this isn't even a relevant comment.

However, since you gave up the drugs, the use of alcohol, filthy lusts, smoking cigarettes, and the idea that life is not yours to control, are you suggesting that you no longer sin in any way, shape or form, in thought, word or action? In other words, are you saying that you have reached a sinless state in this life?

Where on earth have you seen me equate “purity of life” with any such thing? Nowhere, that’s where. You still have no concept of the Wesleyan model of “Christian perfection” at all. In fact, you will find, if you were to research it, that John Wesley vehemently resisted and objected to the designation “sinless perfection.” That is not an accepted understanding in Methodism at all. Within its framework, “purity of heart” is no more than the idea that one’s motives, which spring from the heart, are under divine control. It is by faith, and results in faithful actions. “Walk in the Spirit,” Paul says, “and you will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh.” But all of us are prone to slip in any moment of temptation, that’s easy to see. But part of the life of “walking in the Spirit” is, a greater sensibility to those moments. If one falls in those moments, then they should quickly recognize it, confess it, ask forgiveness, and repent of it.

As already stated, this is not a one-time-deal, confess-Jesus-once-and-you’re-good-to-go theology, which James equates to the faith of devils. It is a PROCESS, and part of that process of “growth in grace” is, an attitude that “I have not arrived yet.” John said “Little children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous One” (1 John 2:1). With that recognition, we are told “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9).

But another point for you to consider:

“We know that we have come to know Him if we obey His commands. The man who says ‘I know Him,’ but does not do what He commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (1 John 2:3).

Will you also call John a liar for presenting what you do not wish to hear? We’ve already found that purity, or a “pure heart,” is a requirement in the Christian system; now it appears that this faithful life to which we are called is a life which also carries with it a requirement of obedience to the commands of Christ. (Keep in mind, since you seem to keep somehow suggesting the Scriptures I quote are my own opinions, which is rather bizarre, that these are the words of John in his first epistle, chapter 2, verse 3.)

how do you reconcile the following, from a source you deem credible?

I never said anything about their credibility one way or the other. I cited from that source mainly because it is one which I have more than once seen cited by you and others associated with emfj. Therefore, I assumed it was a source YOU considered credible. Perhaps you have observed the pattern before? Or don’t you recall how, where possible, I cite from the Holman Bible Dictionary, from Matthew Henry, from Jamiesson-Faussett-Brown, from A.W. Tozer, from Charles Spurgeon—in other words, from sources that are more likely to cause you to sit up and take notice, rather than start throwing stones, as the case has been any time I cite Christian sources outside your accepted range. I’ve also observed the pattern from your camp as well—your right-hand buddy W.D. used to be fond of quoting Adam Clarke to me at every opportunity—I always assumed it was for the same reasons (Clarke was a Methodist).

I use Blue Letter Bible primarily when I can’t recall a specific Bible reference, or I need to do a quick Bible search for a particular word or phrase, they are very handy in that regard, with a searchable Strong’s. I was about to use them last night, for example, but left it unposted, when you raised objections to the term “blameless.” As I recall, I found it used 15 times in Scripture, particularly in reference to NT Christians—which made me wonder how you could object to things the Bible states.

But to answer your question, I don’t have to reconcile the article in question, because I have nothing I need to reconcile it to. I understand the theological framework from which the writer makes his remarks, and you and I have discussed this many times in the past already, as you well know. The author of that piece comes from a Calvinist standpoint, which as I understand it, has a basic definition of “sin” as “anything that falls short of the glory of God.” With that understanding, NO ONE could ever meet the standard. But the Wesleyan understanding of sin, particularly in regard to biblical references which tell us that “sin shall not have dominion over you,” or “I write to you so that you will not sin,” etc., locates the source of sin in the will.

It does not help matters when you consider that there are at least 6 NT Greek words which all get translated simply as “sin,” which have some distinctive nuances in the original that get lost in translation. Long story short, the Wesleyan definition generally is found stated as, “Sin is a willful transgression of a known law of God.” The foundation is biblical, in the NT at least, from 1 John 3:4, “Sin is the transgression of the law.” But to the biblical injunction are added the two words “willful” and “known.” The first I accept, because all injunctions NOT to sin are based on the presupposition that the will CAN be exercised in this regard, otherwise the exhortation would be in vain. But even so, I did not at first accept the premise of the second, which presupposes that for it to be sin, it must first be known. After all, Leviticus 4 specifies what anyone should do who commits a sin without knowing it. It is clear in stating, “If the sin becomes known. . .” But is that what it says? When I considered further, I think not. It states, “a known law of God, ” not “a known sin.” For the sin to be recognized, it most definitely would have to be in the class of “a known law of God,” it goes without saying. So back to square one: is there anything unacceptable in such a definition? Going back to the idea of “willful,” can it be maintained? Looking once again at Lev. 4, rather than reject the notion of “known,” it occurred to me that the notion of “willful” may be out of place. If the sin were done without the person realizing, only to become known later, then it apparently was not done by intent, that is, unwillfully.

But I accept the notion of “willful” in the NT sense, because there, with the aid of the indwelling Spirit, a person’s ability to recognize and abstain from sin, has been raised to a new plateau, because now “it is GOD who works IN you both to will and to do His good pleasure.” And when Paul exhorts, “Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid!” he is certainly basing it on an assumption that we are able to respond accordingly.

Now, what of the Calvinist definition: “anything that falls short of the glory of God?” I’m sure the “falling short” is a KJV reference to Romans 3:23, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” Some key definitions are in order. Does “come short” have the same thrust as “sinned?” And what exactly is intended by “the glory of God?” Also, would it be a reasonable expectation that we would ever be able to come anywhere NEAR “the glory of God?”

First, as to “sinned” and “come short.” It would be my contention that the verse speaks of two separate and distinct things, and that thus there is no intent to cast these in parallel. I say this mainly because of the verb tenses: “sinned” is in the Greek aorist, which is generally translated into English as simple past tense. But “come short” is in the Greek present tense, which is usually translated as continuous action, which in English takes the present participle. It would more accurately reflect the Greek by being translated as “are coming.” So all “have sinned” and all “are coming short” is the verb flow of the sentence. That suggests different connotations for the two phrases. I would suggest that “have sinned” refers more to our common starting point, and “come short of the glory of God,” as our common condition in the present. But I don’t equate the two, for I don’t feel that the biblical notion of “sin” was ever intended as “come short of the glory of God”; otherwise, we could hardly be expected to “put away sin,” for it would be an impossible task.

 

[Rev Wayne]

As I understand the sense of the biblical injunction to “go on unto perfection” (Hebrews 6:1), the “unto” denotes something at which we arrive, not something which we simply move “towards,” as some interpret it (Jerry Bridges, The Pursuit of Holiness, is one that comes to mind). I find that to be the case when considering relevant biblical passages. For example, take a look at Paul’s comments to the Philippians. After speaking of boasting and claiming a greater right than any of them to boast, he says:

“Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected. . . .
Therefore let us, as many as be perfect, have this mind; and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal even this to you.” (Phil. 3:12, 15)

The “perfect,” “perfected,” “perfecting,” and “perfection” are all formed from the same Greek word teleios, the idea of completing or finishing something. The definition of “perfection” as in Heb. 6:1, which as I stated, is something at which we arrive rather than something we pursue and never obtain, is:

1) perfection
a) the state of the more intelligent
b) moral and spiritual perfection

IMO, (b) seems to be the operative definition.

Some people interpret teleios and its derivations as “mature,” a definition I am not really satisfied with. The generally offered meaning is to “bring to an end” or “complete.” The problem is, we tend to think many times in absolutes, and that is particularly so with the word “perfect,” which has strengthened in meaning since the time the KJV used it as the main word for interpreting teleios. These days we tend to think of our moral/spiritual side as something that will not reach such a state until we have arrived at the other side, and enjoy the glorified state we will enjoy as one of the blessings of heaven. But it’s easy to see that was never a view held by the biblical writers, who all speak of this “perfection” as something obtainable, and something obtainable in this life.

The Wesleyan understanding of sin and our ability to put it away, seems to be the more viable. The Calvinist definition of “sin” simply does not allow for any consistent interpretation of the scriptural passages which establish this idea of purity as a requirement, or of holiness as obtainable.

I can see the reason for your rejecting ideas of “purity,” if they are based on a purity that must somehow match up with “the glory of God.” But I hold no such position, nor would I suggest in the least that either Christianity or Freemasonry hold to such an idea either. Hopefully, you can also see that from my own (Arminian) point of view, “purity” is defined in a totally different context, and is most certainly obtainable, as well as being God’s desire for us.

please help us understand how you achieved such a state of perfection whereby you no long need to confess your sins daily.

Please help us understand where you got this notion, for it certainly was not from me or anything I have posted.

The verb confess is in the present tense denoting continued, repeated, action. It can be literally translated, Keep on confession as a habit of life.

I think whoever wrote this has got the “if” misinterpreted. And because the writer doesn’t seem to understand the use of “if” in Greek, he has ignored a significant point of interpretation. There are two forms of “if” in Greek, ean and ei. With each of them, the interpretation depends upon what form follows it. What he states as “present active” is actually a present active subjunctive. When ean precedes a present active, it is interpreted as he says. But when ean precedes a subjunctive form, the emphasis is more on the conditional side, making the statement a hypothetical possibility, not the "highly probable" nature he describes.

But this is not the “if” we really need to be concerned with for our present discussion anyway. More significance rides on the “if” in 2:1, “If we sin, we have an Advocate with the Father.” There the ean is followed by the subjunctive as well, suggesting something which is hypothetically possible, rather than a strong probability. The usage strongly suggests that this “sinning” spoken of was not something that was considered an inevitability, but rather, something which is entirely conditional—which admits the possibility, at least, that the opposite condition is possible as well—which in this case, is a possibility of “not sinning.”

Again, I reject the absolutism of the Calvinist construct, and take the Wesleyan idea of sin to be the more accurate. Why? Because the only way that the possibility of sinning could be “conditional,” would be if it were something that were possible to refrain from doing. As already shown, it is not possible to cease “falling short of the glory of God.” But it WOULD be possible to cease from “willfully transgressing a known law of God.”

And that is not the only place in Scripture which allows of the possibility. Peter wrote of certain men who were given over to sin:

They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you. With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning (2 Pet. 2:13-14)

The fact that they are criticized for an inability to “stop sinning,” suggests that there is a reasonable expectation that they SHOULD be able to stop. That is hardly a possibility for someone of whom it is said that they “never stop falling short of the glory of God,” for clearly we all do. No, what is said of them is that “They never stop transgressing the laws of God.”

Though confession does not give us the power to overcome a particular sin it does remind us that the act we are confessing is sinful.

So where do the Blue Letter people get this notion? I find it a strange theology that suggests that confession is all about US. Confession is calling upon the power of God and the Spirit of God for forgiveness and cleansing.

Again, with your post of this additional citation, I think you point out the inherent flaws in the Calvinist definition of what constitutes “sin.” Such an absolute position puts the biblical injunctions to “be holy,” “be ye perfect,” “go on unto perfection,” and the like, completely out of reach. By doing so, its inconsistencies are made apparent by those exhortations, and unfortunately many of those who accept that particular theological framework, wind up rejecting the truths of Scripture in their effort to reconcile the Bible to their theological construct, rather than following the proper procedure of reconciling their theology to the clear truths of the Bible. They end up with a Bible in which God commands that which He knows we cannot produce; in which Christians wind up endlessly sinning and confessing, with no true deliverance from Christ—or even any knowledge that deliverance is AVAILABLE; in which Christians keep forever pursuing the holiness we are told to pursue—but with no hope of obtaining that which the Bible tells us we MUST obtain, and “without which no one will see the Lord”; which causes well-meaning Christians to falsely believe they have no hope of ever knowing any respite from a never-ending cycle of habitual sin; and one in which some Christians will be blind to the fact that such a position as this one is hardly likely to be much of a witness to those who have not yet accepted Christ, since they are not likely to consider a cycle of habitually sinning and confessing to be any better than their present condition.

No, I much prefer the Christianity of which Paul in Romans 7, “O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from this body of death?” And I prefer the solution which he offers immediately afterward:

“Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!”

He leaves no room for your “continually sinning and continually confessing” pattern:


Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live (Romans 8:12-13)

I don’t know how this could be any clearer than it plainly states. Someone who is “continually sinning and continually confessing” is someone who is still “controlled by the sinful nature,” because clearly they have not yet “put to death the misdeeds of the body.” And living “according to the sinful nature” brings death, while “putting to death the misdeeds of the body,” that is, getting the victory through Christ “by the Spirit,” brings life.

I much prefer the Arminian understanding, because I think it takes positions that are much more in line with Scripture, and which produce far more positive results. It’s hard to think that anyone who thinks they are an ugly duckling and will always remain an ugly duckling, will ever rise above being an ugly duckling; conversely, one who thinks they are an ugly duckling but have the potential (by growth in grace) to become an eagle, might someday find their expectations realized.

Yes, I know the old Calvinist formula that proclaims “we are bound to sin every day in word, thought, and deed.” Do this to find the error of that kind of thinking most aptly illustrated: substitute in every place you find “sin,” the Calvinist definition, “anything that falls short of the glory of God.” Let’s start with 1 John 3:4,

“Sin is the transgression of the law.”

By the Calvinist definition, then, “Falling short of the glory of God is the transgression of the law.” Well, in a word, no, it’s not. There is no law of God you can point to in Scripture which states, “Thou shalt not fall short of the glory of God.”

The Arminian position is much easier: “A willful transgression of a known law of God is the transgression of the law.”

Kinda redundant, but at least it’s a true statement.


So, “Will Anyone Get To The Place Where They Are Without Sin?”

To you—to the Calvinist—no, they will not, for to claim that they could do so would be to suggest that they have attained to “the glory of God.”

To me—to the Wesleyan (Arminian)—yes, for to claim that they could do so means only that they are walking in obedience to the known commands of God, to the best of their ability and to the extent of their knowledge. Or as one wise Christian once put it, “walking in all the light that they have received.”

 

[O.F.F.]

Wayne,

You could do all us readers a favor by keeping your posts short and to the point. Sorry but I, and I trust others too; don't have time to respond to you flexing your seminary education in your subtle condescending fashion and lengthy dissertations.

This thread is not about Calvinism, Arminianism, or Wesleyan theology. It's about the incompatibility of Freemasonry and Christianity. Most Christians who have weighed in on the many threads on this topic posted on this forum clearly see that the answer to the question, "Can or should a Christian be a Mason?" is a resounding NO.

Undoubtedly Freemasonry has become an idol to you, as evident from your relentless pursuit to justify your participation in it as one who claims to be a "Christian" pastor - a dreadfully pitiful sight to say the least. And, it is abundantly clear that YOU, the most obsessive defender of the Masonic faith I know, stubbornly refuses to cease from willfully transgressing the first commandment of God's law by your unrelenting participation in Freemasonry.

As an Ex-Mason for Jesus, I will continue to help discerning Christians see the deception of Masonic supporters like you, who have the audacity to attempt to convince them that Freemasonry is compatible with biblical Christianity. However, as long your posts exceed 3 or 4 paragraphs, I will cease from our current one-on-one debate.

 

[Rev Wayne]

However, as long your posts exceed 3 or 4 paragraphs, I will cease from our current one-on-one debate.

The fact is, Michael, you’ve been at this one on the lambskin and the purity objection for about five pages now. Both your objections and your posts were getting longer and more frequent, and were becoming extremely redundant. You didn’t take the hint when I posted links to places where you have ignored the refutation of your arguments in the past; so I figured the simplest way to bring it to a halt would be to post as thorough a reply as I could to show EXACTLY why the issues you raise are NOT valid objections. When all the statements about the symbolism of the lamb are compiled and placed side-by-side as above, I'm certain it provides a severe difficulty for you, because all you have, and all you have EVER had on this point, is the one quote sliced out of one lecture.

And the most pertinent point, one which I’ve never seen an antimason counter for, is the fact that it is modeled on an early Christian practice and its accompanying liturgy. That liturgy shows that the exact same things were first said in a Christian context, and then copied from it into Masonry. Kinda hard to raise a Christian objection to what has its foundation in an early Christian baptismal liturgy.

You could do all us readers a favor by keeping your posts short and to the point.

Ah, but the one thing you can say about the above posts, is that they ARE “to the point,” though admittedly not short. But what did you expect to happen, in response to a post in which you raise as many questions and make as many accusations as you did in your previous post?

This thread is not about Calvinism, Arminianism, or Wesleyan theology. It's about the incompatibility of Freemasonry and Christianity.

Thanks for the non-point with this non-information. But it needs to be pointed out, YOU are the one who opened the door for this one. It happened when you:

(1) Signalled a transition about halfway through your previous post, when you said, “Now, moving on to another comment you made. . .” And from that point you addressed nothing even remotely Masonic in nature.

(2) After the questions you posed, you posted the piece by this title:

“Will Anyone Get To The Place Where They Are Without Sin?”

(3) You followed it up with these comments:

However, if you have conquered ALL territory of sin in your life, yet the Apostle Paul acknowledged that he had not reached a sinless state in his life, please help us understand how you achieved such a state of perfection whereby you no long need to confess your sins daily (1 John 1:9).

And, if you think that is not a necessity, perhaps you need to think again:

(4) And then you followed THAT one up with another, by this title:

“What Happens When We Keep Repeating The Same Sin?”

So where is any “incompatibility of Freemasonry and Christianity” in any of what you posted after “Now, moving on to another comment you made?”

It’s not there in the least! The whole spiel and the articles cited, constitutes a challenge on theological points, to which I responded in kind. If you don’t want long responses, you might consider simply linking to the articles next time rather than posting them here in their entirety. It would serve the two-fold purpose of keeping your own posts shorter, plus reducing the amount of material to which I feel the need to reply with a direct response.

The fact is, when links are provided, and the material is thus not made a direct part of the reply, generally I will not respond unless some direct point is made by citing part of it. But any time someone posts an entire article, I consider the entire volume of material to be intended as part of the claim, or challenge; hence, it is all taken as fair game in reply. Anyone who posts that much material, coupled with the number of questions you raised, comes across as insincere when they start complaining about length. And anyone who goes off-topic with that much material, and then starts complaining about the response being off-topic, comes across as even more insincere.

If you don’t wish to answer, then fine by me. I have simply followed the thread in the direction you have taken it, and responded accordingly, directly, honestly, and thoroughly. The fact that you have no response to it is, as always, quite revealing in itself.

But since you have a problem with the number of paragraphs in my posts, I will strive to comply from this point forward, by refraining from putting paragraph breaks in my posts, thus ensuring you will not have more than one paragraph per post to deal with.

 

[Rev Wayne]

There never was a false god, nor was there ever really a false religion, unless you call a child a false man. - Max Müller

Quoted in Louisiana Masonic Monitor - Grand Lodge of Louisiana

You have provided no context for this quote. Does it appear in any authoritative section of the Monitor, or not? What was being said within the context where the quote appears?

More to the point: did you really get this from the Louisiana Masonic Monitor, or did you quote-mine it from one of the many places it appears on the internet? After all, anyone can find this quoted all over the place where accusers repeat it with cut & paste. But who has truly checked this out to see it in its context? Who has truly checked the Louisiana Masonic Monitor to see whether it appears there at all (I can't find it in my copy)?

Who has checked Max Muller on the matter to find out what he was saying within the context where this appears in his writing? I certainly have, and this is the full context of the letter that I found this line quoted from:

To the Rev. M.K. Schermerhopn. Oxford, March 6, 1883

“It is always a great satisfaction to see the budding germs of the seed which one has helped to sow. I wish you all success in your endeavours after a religion of humanity, but success, to be solid, must not be too rapid. The true religion of the future will be the fulfilment of all the religions of the past—the true religion of humanity, that which, in the struggle of history, remains as the indestructible portion of all the so-called false religions of mankind. There never was a false god, nor was there ever really a false religion, unless you call a child a false man. All religions, so far as I know them, had the same purpose; all were links in a chain which connects heaven and earth, and which is held, and was always held, by one and the same hand. All here on earth tends toward right, and truth, and perfection; nothing here on earth can ever be quite right, quite true, quite perfect, not even Christianity—or what is now called Christianity—so long as it excludes other religions, instead of embracing what is good in each. Nothing, to my mind, can be sadder than reading the sacred books of mankind—and yet nothing more encouraging. They are full of rubbish; but among that rubbish there are old stones which the builders of the true Temple of Humanity will not reject—must not reject, if their Temple is to hold all who worship God in spirit, in truth, and in life.” (The Life and Letters of the Right Honourable Friedrich Max Muller, p. 141)

That certainly puts a different face on the remark that you don't get when reading only the one quoted line bare-faced. While I would not necessarily agree with what he says, or perhaps with his way of saying it, I can see the general thrust of his remarks: mankind is progressing toward a "religion of humanity" and toward a time when all will know and worship God.

He speaks here of "embracing what is good in each," and finding "old stones among the rubbish." Masonry has suggested the same with its concept of "the religion in which all men may agree." One central part of that religion has been pointed out more than once here: the Golden Rule, stated in so many words but with equivalence of meaning, appears in many different religions, and is considered a central truth in other religions than Christianity. It is present in Zoroastrianism, in Confucianism, in Egyptian religion, in Buddhism, in Islam, in Judaism, in Christianity.

If a truth which is so central in Christian teaching is found in so many other sacred books, and in many of them long before its presence in the Christian Bible, then who can deny that there are quite likely many other common truths, if one is willing to investigate the matter more fully, and with a mind not closed to such a possibility? To admit of the existence of at least some common truths among religions, is not surrender of one's own faith in Christ. In fact, the Christian who would deny what is obviously fact and can be proved by a simple examination of the evidence, comes across as narrow-minded and in denial.

I certainly can see what Muller was saying with this remark, in its context, and I find much of it quite true: within all religions there is a germ of truth, and within the rise and fall of the many religions of history, there have been "stones" of truth that continue to be recognized as true, which men of understanding have removed from the "rubbish," and have recorded them as truths to be held as divine. And yes, he is correct that even Christianity has not been perfect, and there has been much to consider as not "quite right, or quite true." One need only look at the debacle of the Crusades, and the repercussions that echo from it even in our present time, to see that it cannot be denied.

But as a Christian, I would not agree that Christian teaching is to be grouped among all the other religions of the world, and relegated to the common passage of that which is transitory. I see the teachings of Christ as the intended culmination, and Christ Himself as that ultimate fulfillment. There was a time in Masonry when this was the common view also, and was much elaborated in Masonic descriptions. In stating this, I must note that the time I describe was even after the 1717 date commonly understood to be the beginning date of the modern lodge.

Since that time Freemasonry has gradually shifted from such overtly Christian references to the declared position of neutrality that was introduced by Anderson's Constitutions in 1723. That shift has unfortunately been viewed by Masonry's accusers as "anti"-Christian, when in actuality it would be better defined as "non"-Christian, or better yet, "neutral."

The response by critics when Masonry's neutrality has been pointed out to them, has been to micro-scrutinize anything they can find which can be spun, recast, and reframed so that it appears to back up the claims. But the arguments are basically the same as they were a hundred, even two hundred years ago.

The Max Muller quote is no different--no context is provided, its reference appears to be singular rather than representative in Masonry (I find no other source than the one Monitor referred to here), making it the same as so many other anti-Masonic objections: maximum attempt to defame, with minimum actual evidence for it.

 

[O.F.F.]

You have provided no context for this quote. Does it appear in any authoritative section of the Monitor, or not?

It comes from the Louisiana Grand Lodge; therefore the entire Monitor is authoritative, not just certain sections. Where on earth did you get the idea that only parts of Grand Lodge documentation are authoritative and other parts are not?

Who has checked Max Muller on the matter to find out what he was saying within the context where this appears in his writing? I certainly have, and this is the full context of the letter that I found this line quoted from: . . . That certainly puts a different face on the remark that you don't get when reading only the one quoted line bare-faced.

No, this does not change the point he made in the one line I quoted. He believed there is no such thing as a false god or false religion. The Grand Lodge of Louisiana supported this view by quoting it in their official monitor, and as far as I'm concerned, you and your Grand Lodge show tacit approval by your Masonic recognition of the Grand Lodge of Louisiana.

I can see the general thrust of his remarks: mankind is progressing toward a "religion of humanity" and toward a time when all will know and worship God.

He speaks here of "embracing what is good in each," and finding "old stones among the rubbish." Masonry has suggested the same with its concept of "the religion in which all men may agree."

This is the crux of the matter, like Freemasonry, what you quoted from Max Muller speaks to the "humanistic religion" of the Masonic faith.

But as a Christian, I would not agree that Christian teaching is to be grouped among all the other religions of the world, and relegated to the common passage of that which is transitory.

If you truly believe this should NOT be done, then why did you group Christian teaching among all the other religions of the world when you said:

One central part of that religion has been pointed out more than once here: the Golden Rule, stated in so many words but with equivalence of meaning, appears in many different religions, and is considered a central truth in other religions than Christianity. It is present in Zoroastrianism, in Confucianism, in Egyptian religion, in Buddhism, in Islam, in Judaism, in Christianity.

And you go on, as you have in the past, insisting the paradoxical suggestion that central truths found in false religions are divine truth, rather than only that which is found in the Bible.

I certainly can see what Muller was saying with this remark, in its context, and I find much of it quite true: within all religions there is a germ of truth, and within the rise and fall of the many religions of history, there have been "stones" of truth that continue to be recognized as true, which men of understanding have removed from the "rubbish," and have recorded them as truths to be held as divine.

Then you continue implying that it is justifiable for Christians to become Masons because the teachings of Freemasonry used to be more specifically Christian at its inception.

I see the teachings of Christ as the intended culmination, and Christ Himself as that ultimate fulfillment. There was a time in Masonry when this was the common view also, and was much elaborated in Masonic descriptions.

Yet you admit that this "Christian" view no longer exist in Freemasonry.

Since that time Freemasonry has gradually shifted from such overtly Christian references to the declared position of neutrality that was introduced by Anderson's Constitutions in 1723. That shift has unfortunately been viewed by Masonry's accusers as "anti"-Christian, when in actuality it would be better defined as "non"-Christian, or better yet, "neutral."

This, you claim, is the current position represented by Freemasonry as a whole. Therefore, your final comments regarding the Max Muller quote is contradictory.

The Max Muller quote is no different--no context is provided, its reference appears to be singular rather than representative in Masonry (I find no other source than the one Monitor referred to here), making it the same as so many other anti-Masonic objections: maximum attempt to defame, with minimum actual evidence for it.

Obviously it need not be found in other monitorial sources, since you've adequately provided, in this and many other posts, more than enough evidence that proves Muller's position on "a religion of humanity" is THE Masonic position. Moreover, you think it's okay for Christians to be neutral (or lukewarm) in matters of God in favor of this all inclusive humanistic religion taught by Freemasonry. Yet, according to the Bible there is no room in the kingdom of God for lukewarm Christians.

I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

Revelation 3:15-16​

 

[Rev Wayne]

It comes from the Louisiana Grand Lodge; therefore the entire Monitor is authoritative, not just certain sections. Where on earth did you get the idea that only parts of Grand Lodge documentation are authoritative and other parts are not?

Where did I get the idea? From the simple ability to read and comprehend what is there in the monitor for anyone to see. Some statements in the ritual section are declarative, some are not. Some sections in that area are listed as optional, while others are always to be included.

But I’m sure you know this already, and are simply trying to create fodder for your cannon. After all, the Common Gavel, which you have tried to make so much of in the past, is listed as “optional” in our Ahiman Rezon, while the section immediately following it begins with the line, “the second section of this lecture is of pre-eminent importance.” Likewise, the constitutions and code would be the main section of authority, being the by-laws under which our Grand Lodge is governed. So either you are not very observant, or you are intentionally deceptive in pretending differently, and neither course is admirable.

You might have had a better handle on this if you would simply read the prefatory material. In ours you will find Mackey stating:

The chapter giving an historical sketch of the progress of Masonry in this State, from the union of the two Grand Lodges, in 1817, to the present day (1852) which is entirely new, will, it is hoped, prove not altogether useless or uninteresting. (p. 9)

If the ENTIRETY of the book, as you claim, is considered “authoritative,” then how on earth could anyone conceive of it being “useless?”

He also notes a bit after that,

. . .in offering it to the Masonic public as an entirely new work, not the slightest innovation has been made in the essential portions of the book.

The “essential portions?” Does that not imply that there are “NON-essential” portions of the book, then? With that, I rest my case, although I could cite further illustrations that refute your claim, from throughout the rest of the book. I have no doubt it is no different in the Louisiana Monitor, or any other, for that matter.

No, this does not change the point he made in the one line I quoted.

It does if it was being stated in a "non-essential" portion, or in a section that a Mason could deem "useless," does it not?

He believed there is no such thing as a false god or false religion.

The operative word being, of course, "HE." Thank you for that kind acknowledgment of what HE, Max Muller, thought.

The Grand Lodge of Louisiana supported this view by quoting it in their official monitor, and as far as I'm concerned, you and your Grand Lodge show tacit approval by your Masonic recognition of the Grand Lodge of Louisiana.

Well, they MAY have supported it, but quite the contrary, they may NOT have, if it was in a "non-essential" portion of the book. You have not built a case for a "tacit" ANYthing.

Anyway, as far as YOU’RE concerned, Grand Lodge Monitors in their entirety are considered official, which I just proved to be incorrect. So as far as I’M concerned, this is useless bluster. You have not shown whether the Grand Lodge of Louisiana has cited this in an optional section, or in a non-essential section, or in a section where it might be considered “useless or uninteresting.” The evidence shows that there are certainly such sections in monitorial material, and that it does not necessarily contain only “authoritative” material.

This is the crux of the matter, like Freemasonry, what you quoted from Max Muller speaks to the "humanistic religion" of the Masonic faith.

The crux of the matter, since I was speaking of the “religion in which all may agree,” is that the main point I was referring to was the presence of the Golden Rule in so many religions. You may speak of the Golden Rule as “humanistic” if you wish; but if Jesus taught a humanistic faith, then that would be the one I’d have to go with. Either way, His proclamation of the Golden Rule as primary, is plenty good enough for me. I’m saddened by the fact that you apparently do not consider it to be very worthy of consideration.

And you go on, as you have in the past, insisting the paradoxical suggestion that central truths found in false religions are divine truth, rather than only that which is found in the Bible.

And therein lies your problem: the Golden Rule IS FOUND IN THE BIBLE!!

If it’s a paradox for you, then so be it. What you fail to realize, and seem to be incredibly blind to, is the fact that the appearance of the Golden Rule in other religions makes it no less divine truth than it is in the Christian faith. How can you ignore that? You seem to be saying, that since the Golden Rule appears in other religions, we can’t consider it to be a divine truth, but must cheapen it simply because it is found somewhere besides the Bible. Jesus wasn’t simply saying that “Because ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ is in the Bible, it is the greatest commandment.” He was designating it the greatest because of what it teaches.

Then you continue implying that it is justifiable for Christians to become Masons because the teachings of Freemasonry used to be more specifically Christian at its inception.

I never said anything about what was or was not “justifiable,” that’s you talking. Fremasonry is based on biblical principles, and those principles are not incompatible with Christianity, due to the simple fact that Christianity is not incompatible with the Bible.

W: I see the teachings of Christ as the intended culmination, and Christ Himself as that ultimate fulfillment. There was a time in Masonry when this was the common view also, and was much elaborated in Masonic descriptions.
M: Yet you admit that this "Christian" view no longer exist in Freemasonry.

Nope. That’s just you talking again. I said it used to be the common view and was much elaborated, not that it was non-existent at present. You need to brush up on your reading comprehension.

W: That shift has unfortunately been viewed by Masonry's accusers as "anti"-Christian, when in actuality it would be better defined as "non"-Christian, or better yet, "neutral."
M: This, you claim, is the current position represented by Freemasonry as a whole. Therefore, your final comments regarding the Max Muller quote is contradictory.

Maybe you need to brush up on your writing comprehension as well. I have no idea why you find what I said “contradictory,” nor do you tell us why.

Obviously it need not be found in other monitorial sources, since you've adequately provided, in this and many other posts, more than enough evidence that proves Muller's position on "a religion of humanity" is THE Masonic position.

Your claims about Masonry being a religion have floundered for quite some time now. And since I’ve now “adequately proved” that there are plenty enough places in monitorial materials that are not authoritative, I have also "adequately proved" my point that you need to provide a context if you truly wish to make any case that this typifies “Masonic teaching.”

As it currently stands, you give the appearance of simply being adept at quote-mining, and probably never saw the interior of a Louisiana Masonic Monitor. The bluster is just a cover to try to hide that fact, so that you can try to slide by without justifying your claim by providing the context in which it appears.

Bluster all you will, until you DO provide a context, and/or further evidence that this appears anywhere other than this one monitor (which I say is STILL in doubt, since I DO HAVE a copy, and it does NOT appear there), then you have shown nothing more than a reference to something Max Muller said, which may or may not be authoritative, in one Grand Lodge of Masonry out of all the Grand Lodges in the world--and which, even at that, apparently does not appear in every La. Monitor published.

I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

Be careful about your spitting. With the direction you’ve gone with this, you’re clearly spitting into the wind for sure. That has a way of coming right back in your face.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Whatever else may be said of Max Muller, he was before all else a Christian. Though he may have achieved a sort of notoriety as a liberal theologian, his views were actually more Christocentric than some of his evangelical contemporaries. For instance, he saw the Logos of John's first chapter as the culmination of the Greek concept of logos from which it derived:

This was the groundwork of the earliest Christian theology, as presupposed by the author of the Fourth Gospel, and likewise by many passages in the Synoptical Gospels, though fully elaborated for the first time by such men as St. Clement and Origen. If we want to be true and honest Christians we must go back to those earliest ante-Nicene authorities, the true Fathers of the Church. Thus only can we use the words, “In the Beginning was the Word and the Word became flesh”; not as thoughtless repeaters, but as honest thinkers and believers. The first sentence, “In the beginning was the Word”; requires thought and thought only; the second, “And the Logos became flesh”; requires faith, faith such as those who knew Jesus had in Jesus, and which we may accept, unless we have any reason for doubting their testimony.
There is nothing new in all this, it is only the earliest Christian theology restated, restored and revived. It gives us at the same time a truer conception of the history of the whole world, showing that there was a purpose in the ancient religions and philosophies of the world, and that Christianity was really from the beginning a synthesis of the best thoughts of the past, as they had been slowly elaborated by the two principal representatives of the human race, the Aryan and the Semitic.
On this ancient foundation, which was strangely neglected, if not purposely rejected, at the time of the Reformation, a true revival of the Christian religion and a reunion of all its divisions may become possible, and I have no doubt that your Congress of Religions of the World might do excellent work for the resuscitation of pure and primitive ante-Nicene Christianity.
Yours very truly,
F. MAX MULLER.
(From “Greek Philosophy and the Christian Religion,” in John Henry Barrows, The World’s Parliament of Religions, Vol. II, p. 935)

By centering his views in the idea of Christ as Logos, Muller avoids any idea that he sees the culmination of other religious systems in Christianity; rather, he centers that culmination in the Christ.

In the same work, we find this estimation of Muller by another contributor:

The worth of the Bible results in the next place from its containing, as a whole, the highest religious and ethical ideals known to man. There is in the Bible, taken as a whole, and without a forced interpretation, a coherent system of ethics and theology and an implied philosophy dazzling any other system known to any age of the world. Max Muller himself asserts that all other so-called sacred books taken together cannot for an instant compete with the Holy Scriptures. (Rev. Joseph Cook, “The Worth of the Bible, or Columnar Truths in Scripture,” in Barrows, Parliaments, p. 1072)

This is yet more evidence for why I say the Muller remark that reputedly appears in the Louisiana Monitor must be considered within its context, and not sliced-and-diced fashion. Muller was a philosopher, and as such he wrote like one, building and elaborating upon arguments in extensive fashion. A one-line snippet from Muller does as little to present his views, as do the often-quoted and repeated Albert Pike one-liners to present his views.

 

[O.F.F.]

Esteem Max Muller all you want. But like you're doing, and the teachings of Freemasonry do, Muller's comparative religion was criticized as subversive to the Christian faith. He hung out with the likes of Charles Godfrey Leland, Helena Blavatsky and other writers who were seeking to assert the merits of Paganism over Christianity.

You haven't PROVEN anything, all you expressed was your lame OPINION about what is "essential" or "non-essential," "useless" or "uninteresting" in Masonic monitorial material. But your opinion is immaterial. The fact remains, ALL Grand Lodge documentation is "authoritative," and what is said in them can be used against the Grand Lodge in a court of law. And, most certainly WILL be used against them in the Christian case against the teachings of Freemasonry. You're simply trying to establish yet another way to discount what's presented in them by your accusers so that you can slice-and-dice their material to glean from them what you want them to say, rather than accept what is said in their entirety.

This is just your way of dodging the truth. But it doesn't matter to me, because ALL Masonic material is USELESS to genuine Christians. Even if a stubborn pastor, who happens to be a Mason, thinks otherwise.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Muller's comparative religion was criticized as subversive to the Christian faith.

So were the opinions of Galileo.

He hung out with the likes of Charles Godfrey Leland, Helena Blavatsky and other writers who were seeking to assert the merits of Paganism over Christianity.

Jesus hung out with publicans and sinners, and was accused of being a glutton and a drunk.

"If they have called the Master of the house Beelzebul, how much more the members of His household?"

You haven't PROVEN anything, all you expressed was your lame OPINION about what is "essential" or "non-essential," "useless" or "uninteresting" in Masonic monitorial material. But your opinion is immaterial.

Thank goodness I did not present "opinion," providing instead contextual support cited DIRECTLY from GRAND LODGE MATERIAL.

The fact remains, ALL Grand Lodge documentation is "authoritative," and what is said in them can be used against the Grand Lodge in a court of law.

Even the judge there will probably see the wisdom, given the brief snippet quote and the past history of pretensions on the part of the one making the accusation, of asking for sufficient contextual support for whatever allegation is trying to be made with this.

So far, the "evidence" is:

ONE snippet quote from ONE Masonic Monitor;
The non-appearance of that quote in the Louisiana Monitor owned by the only person who has so far witnessed to actually OWNING a copy;
The quote as it appears in its original context, showing a different picture than the accusation led us to think;
The refusal on your part, as the one who first made the citation and accompanying accusation, to support your accusation with sufficient contextual evidence to show that the material was intended as authoritative and didactic as you claim it is.

One may only conclude that with your continued blustery refusals to substantiate what you claim by citing it in its context:

that you simply do not HAVE a context, and like all other accusers, who are a dime a dozen in any internet search of the quote, you simply are repeating what you have heard others say.

And to top it off, you have the unmitigated gall to do this while tossing around accusations about OPINION?????

Let's make it simple for you:

Did you get this from the Louisiana Monitor itself, and not from some citation of it from an internet source?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[Rev Wayne]

I’m not one of those who automatically discount Wikipedia as a source of information, in fact, I generally find them pretty accurate. But I would suggest a more thorough read, rather than a quick scan to find something to support what you’ve already made up your mind to believe. The first line of a paragraph on the lower part of the page immediately caught my eye:

Müller's comparative religion was criticized as subversive of the Christian faith.

Naturally, I figured that was your source the minute I saw it, and the remainder of the paragraph confirmed it:

By the 1880s Müller was being courted by Charles Godfrey Leland, Helena Blavatsky and other writers who were seeking to assert the merits of "Pagan" religious traditions over Christianity.

You see, it would be too coincidental to presume that you could have come up with the "subversive" remark AND a specific reference to Leland and Blavatsky, independent of the Wikipedia article containing the same comments within the same paragraph.

Apparently, you had seen enough at that point, and rushed to reply as quickly as you could, otherwise you would have seen “the rest of the story”:

Müller distanced himself from these developments, and remained within the Lutheran faith in which he had been brought up.

“Being courted by” does not in any way equal “hung out with,” which was your choice of description. And Müller does not appear to have ever “hung out with” these two at all. Most clearly of all, "distanced himself from" pretty well sums up his reaction to the situation. There is really nothing in what was said on that point, to even suggest that he ever even MET Leland or Blavatsky, much less "hung out" with them.

You might have done well also to read elsewhere at Wikipedia, to get Müller’s more directly stated opinions concerning Ms. Blavatsky, regarding some comments and claims she had made concerning the Book of Dzyan:

It should therefore come as no surprise that Max Müller and others have been skeptical. Max Müller is reported to have said that in this matter she was either a remarkable forger or that she has made the most valuable gift to archeological research in the Orient.

The only thing "subversive" in what you presented, is the substituting of YOUR OPINION for what the article actually said, thus effectively subverting the truth--once again.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Eight days later, and still no context for the Louisiana quote, Mike? I think we can probably rule out any idea that you actually own a copy of the Louisiana Monitor. And so far I haven't seen any corroborative evidence to suggest that the quote appears anywhere else in Masonry either, so we can rule it out as "Masonic" in nature. That leaves us wondering, why do you take that which is (allegedly) found in only one Masonic Monitor--and even that one appearance not directly corroborated by anyone yet--and make accusations here that are based solely on a quote that does not even appear to represent "Masonic opinion?"

While you're chewing on that one, I have another bone of contention, drawn from your recent comments:

ALL Masonic material is USELESS to genuine Christians. Even if a stubborn pastor, who happens to be a Mason, thinks otherwise.

In most Masonic jurisdictions whose materials I have come across, there is an opening prayer in the Lodge which has been in place for at least 150-200 years without alteration. That constancy, in and of itself, should therefore qualify its content as "Masonic material." It begins:

Most holy and glorious Lord God, the great Architect of the Universe, the giver of all good gifts and graces: Thou hast promised that, "'Where two or three are gathered together in thy name, thou wilt be in the midst of them, and bless them.'"

Since this prayer is undeniably "Masonic material," and since the Christian in the Lodge will easily recognize the author of the promise, I hardly doubt the Christian Mason will find this "useless." In fact, as a reassuring promise of His presence with us, I find it far more than "useful."

Surely as a former Mason, you KNEW this prayer was there, and you knew of its content, even as "Masonic material." How you can refer to the words of our Savior as "useless" is totally beyond me.

 

[O.F.F.]

Eight days later, and still no context for the Louisiana quote, Mike? I think we can probably rule out any idea that you actually own a copy of the Louisiana Monitor. And so far I haven't seen any corroborative evidence to suggest that the quote appears anywhere else in Masonry either, so we can rule it out as "Masonic" in nature. That leaves us wondering, why do you take that which is (allegedly) found in only one Masonic Monitor--and even that one appearance not directly corroborated by anyone yet--and make accusations here that are based solely on a quote that does not even appear to represent "Masonic opinion?"

You can conclude what you wish, my response or lack thereof is my choice. Having said that, readers can go back to the recent post where you provided the context of the quote from a letter written by Muller. You then provided a good explanation as to why it, in that context, is definitely "Masonic" in nature. Therefore, monitor or no monitor, I chose not to do what you, as a defender of "Masonic opinion," have already done for us.

As for your reference to an opening prayer in Masonic ritual, you and I both know that the god of Freemasonry is NOT the God of the Bible. The Masonic god applies to ALL Masons, even those who REJECT Jesus Christ, the God of the Bible. As one who claims to be a Christian pastor, why you refuse to see this fact is beyond me. Nevertheless, because Freemasonry doesn't acknowledge the exclusivity of the God of the Bible, the prayers rendered in the Lodge are useless, even if they borrow words from the Bible that they misapply to non-believers.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Nevertheless, because Freemasonry doesn't acknowledge the exclusivity of the God of the Bible, the prayers rendered in the Lodge are useless, even if they borrow words from the Bible that they misapply to non-believers.

A straw man. I never said one word about "prayers in the lodge" and whether they were useless or not. Nor did I address what non-Christian lodge members would draw from it. In fact, the way you made the statement, you yourself were not even referring to Masons at all. These are your exact words to which I responded in my previous post:

ALL Masonic material is USELESS to genuine Christians.

What you said was, that Masonic material is "useless" to "genuine" Christians. Since you have made it clear in the past that you do not consider Christians who belong to the Lodge to be "genuine" Christians, then your remarks naturally were in reference to Christians OUTSIDE the Lodge.

So your straw man return comment about what this has to do with non-Christian Masons was totally irrelevant to the point you had made previously.

The reason I posted what I did was not to make some point to you about the nature of Masonry, or of any "Masonic god" (a misconception), or any other straw man of your choosing.

The point I WAS making was, you are completely in error with the statement "ALL Masonic material is USELESS to genuine Christians." The example I gave cites the words of Jesus Himself. These are not words that "genuine" Christians find "useless." And therein the point still stands, your straw man retorts have not changed that in the least.

You can conclude what you wish, my response or lack thereof is my choice.

Say what you will, your "choice" exhibits a regular pattern of disappearance when you get in tight spots.

 

[wayseer]

... because Freemasonry doesn't acknowledge the exclusivity of the God of the Bible, the prayers rendered in the Lodge are useless ....

... and I'm wondering how you might know the mind of God.

It would seem from what I've read over at Eph 5/11 that there are many who call themselves Christians would benefit from some Masonic instruction.

 

[wayseer]

sorry - double post

 

[signals]

 

[Sphinx777]

You don't say...

 

[Linus]

I thought we were to spread the Good News openly instead of hiding "knowledge and truth" in masonic temples.