Can a Christian be a Freemason???

[O.F.F.]

...purity IS biblically necessary...

Yes, but it is NOT necessary to be saved!

Romans 10:9-11

9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame."

Where is the REQUIREMENT of ones own "purity" in this passage pastor?

...you yourself refuse the truth of Scripture requiring purity, pretending that the abundance of Scriptural supports for it do not exist.

I do not refuse or deny the fact that purity must be evident in the life of a Christian. But I do refuse the false notion you propose of it being a REQUIREMENT for Salvation, because such a requirement doesn't exist!

Ephesians 2:4-5

4But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

Where is the REQUIREMENT of ones own "purity" in this passage pastor?

As I preached just two days ago, “The just shall live by his faith.” I am well aware that we are commanded to “be holy, for He is holy,” (1 Pet. 1:15), that we are to serve God “in holiness and righteousness before Him all our days” (Luke 1:75), that we are to “live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age” (Titus 2:12), that the “salt spring cannot produce fresh water” (James 3:12), that “a good tree cannot bear bad fruit” (Matt. 7:18), that “everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice, is like a foolish man who built his house on sand” and it “fell with a great crash” (Matt. 7:26-27), that we are to “make every effort to add to your faith goodness, knowledge, self-control, perseverance, godliness, brotherly kindness, and love,” because “if you do these things, you will never fall,” but “if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted, and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from all his past sins” (2 Pet. 1:5-10), and a host of other assertions of exactly the same things.

What you describe here is the lifestyle of a genuine believer in Jesus Christ, those who have already been saved. But what about those who REJECT Christ, including Masons of other faith-backgrounds? Are you trying to insist that if they live such pure lives they too will be saved, even though they deny Jesus as Lord and Savior?

Again, the purity of life you've listed from Scripture is ALL a post-salvation requirement, NOT a prerequisite to be saved in the first place:

6And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

Did you get that, pastor? It says salvation is a "gift" from God, not "earned" by good works. But once we are saved (Christians = new creations in Christ Jesus) we're saved to do good works, which is the evidence of true salvation.
The quality of a pure life you describe as "necessary" is not going to get anyone saved. It is however, proof of our genuine conversion. This is what every orthodox Christian denomination teaches, because it is the biblical truth. Your denomination teaches this too, so I do not understand why you teach something entirely different.

What does it mean to be saved and to be assured of salvation? It's to know that after feeling lost and alone, we've been found by God. It's to know that after feeling worthless, we've been redeemed. It's to experience a reunion with God, others, the natural world, and our own best selves. It's a healing of the alienation—the estrangement—we've experienced. In salvation we become whole. Salvation happens to us both now and for the future. It's "eternal life," that new quality of life in unity with God of which the Gospel of John speak—-a life that begins not at death, but in the present. But how does salvation happen?

By grace through faith

Salvation cannot be earned. There's no behavior, no matter how holy or righteous, by which we can achieve salvation. Rather, it's the gift of a gracious God.

By grace we mean God's extraordinary love for us. In most of life we're accustomed to earning approval from others. This is true at school, at work, in society, even at home—to a degree. We may feel that we have to act "just so" to be liked or loved. But God's love, or grace, is given without any regard for our goodness. It's unmerited, unconditional, and unending love.

As we come to accept this love, to entrust ourselves to it, and to ground our lives in it, we discover the wholeness that God has promised. This trust, as we've seen, is called faith. God takes the initiative in grace; but only as we respond through faith is the change wrought in us.

This is the great theme of the Protestant Reformers, as well as John Wesley and the Methodists who followed: We're saved by grace alone through faith alone. We're made whole and reconciled by the love of God as we receive it and trust in it.

Conversion

This process of salvation involves a change in us that we call conversion. Conversion is a turning around, leaving one orientation for another. It may be sudden and dramatic, or gradual and cumulative. But in any case it's a new beginning. Following Jesus' words to Nicodemus, "You must be born anew" (John 3:7 RSV), we speak of this conversion as rebirth, new life in Christ, or regeneration.

Following Paul and Luther, John Wesley called this process justification. Justification is what happens when Christians abandon all those vain attempts to justify themselves before God, to be seen as "just" in God's eyes through religious and moral practices. It's a time when God's "justifying grace" is experienced and accepted, a time of pardon and forgiveness, of new peace and joy and love. Indeed, we're justified by God's grace through faith.

Justification is also a time of repentance—turning away from behaviors rooted in sin and toward actions that express God's love. In this conversion we can expect to receive assurance of our present salvation through the Holy Spirit "bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God" (Romans 8:16).

Growing in grace

Conversion is but the beginning of the new life of wholeness. Through what Wesley called God's "sanctifying grace," we can continue to grow. In fact, Wesley affirmed, we're to press on, with God's help, in the path of sanctification, the gift of Christian perfection. The goal of the sanctified life is to be perfected in love, to experience the pure love of God and others, a holiness of heart and life, a total death to sin. We're not there yet; but by God's grace, as we United Methodists say, "we're going on to perfection!"

—From United Methodist Member's Handbook, Revised by George Koehler (Discipleship Resources, 2006), pp. 78-79. (emphasis added)

 

[Rev Wayne]

And in case you think I've forgotten, and which I'm sure your heavy smokescreen has been intended to make the readers forget, I'm still waiting for your proof or your retraction of the following:

"In fact, one Masonic "Rev" who frequents this site has gone on record as saying something to the effect that, "since Jesus never spoke about false gods in the New Testament, then there must not be any, but rather just simple misconceptions of the One True God."

Oops, my bad. I knew something didn’t look right even as I posted it, because as I read that statement, I wasn’t seeing something that would make me respond as strongly as I did earlier. So I went back to read it again, and it was clear, I appear to have lifted the wrong quote from that post. You made two statements of very similar construction, and I simply lifted the wrong one. The one I referred to as a lie, and posted the earlier response calling it so (see Post #122, p. 13), was this one instead:

In fact, one Masonic "Rev" who frequents this site has gone on record as saying something to the effect that, "since all so-called sacred writings of the major world religions contain the Golden Rule, then they must all be the inspired Word of God."

And what I said in response to it was:

Never at any time or in any place have I ever said that anything other than the Bible is "the inspired Word of God."

Since you mistakenly think differently, I defy you to provide full citation, and provide a link to any place where you falsely believe it to be so. You will not find it.

I also said at the time that until you either retract the claim or show cause for why you think you have substantiated it, I would have no further response to the other issues you raised in the same post. My apologies for the error and the resultant expended energy on your part to raise those issues, but my stand on that point still holds, also. However, should you come across with a proper response, I will gladly respond to the entire post as I already stated.

The ball's in your court, I hope you will choose the better part, and respond accordingly. But something tells me you will probably choose instead to try to make hay of the fact that I made a simple human error.

 

[O.F.F.]

In fact, one Masonic "Rev" who frequents this site has gone on record as saying something to the effect that, "since all so-called sacred writings of the major world religions contain the Golden Rule, then they must all be the inspired Word of God."

The operative words here are "saying something to the effect." Yet you claim:

Never at any time or in any place have I ever said that anything other than the Bible is "the inspired Word of God."

Since you mistakenly think differently, I defy you to provide full citation, and provide a link to any place where you falsely believe it to be so. You will not find it.

As a matter of fact I did find it. The following are the words you spoke that effectively say that so-called "sacred" writings of other world religions are divinely inspired. After all, why would God divinely inspire "central truths" but allow the rest of what they write be false?

You also agreed with my conclusion that since there are central Christian truths that are central truths in other religions, which were developed independently and antecedent to the Christian revelation, that the only explanation for their presence within those systems, is that the adherents of those religions must have received them by revelation from God. (emphasis added)

Let me assure you, and the readers here, that I never at any time or in any place have I ever agreed with you that any part or parts, point or points of any false religious system was divinely inspired (received to them by revelation from God).

However, since you mistakenly think differently, as usual, I trust that you probably misconstrued what I meant. Yet, I challenge you to provide the full citation, and link to any place where you falsely believe it to be so.

In the meantime, you might want to clarify how YOU conclude that apparent central truths in false religions are divinely inspired. Perhaps you may choose not to refute your own claim, as you did with my last post, which would simply confirm that these are indeed YOUR position.

It would make sense though. . .If you really believe that there is no such thing as a false god, since Jesus never spoke of other gods, only misconceptions of the One True God (a position in which YOU just said, "my stand on that point still holds, also.") then it stands to reason you would have to believe that central truths of ALL religions are divinely inspired.

 

[Rev Wayne]

The operative words here are "saying something to the effect."

And the operative action that followed it was this statement. . .

"since all so-called sacred writings of the major world religions contain the Golden Rule, then they must all be the inspired Word of God."

. . .IN QUOTES. You implied a whole lot more with those quotes than you managed to soften just now with “something to the effect.”

As a matter of fact I did find it. The following are the words you spoke that effectively say that so-called "sacred" writings of other world religions are divinely inspired.

Nice try, Sherlock, but you flunked the course. You quoted, out of context, of course:

You also agreed with my conclusion that since there are some central Christian truths that are central truths in other religions, which were developed independently and antecedent to the Christian revelation, that the only explanation for their presence within those systems, is that the adherents of those religions must have received them by revelation from God. (emphasis shifted)

The key point you ignore here is that you agreed with the premise at the time it was stated. You did not argue with it then, and it’s patently obvious you did not argue with it this time either. Since you were in agreement with it when I said it, it’s rather disingenuous of you to point fingers, isn’t it? Especially since when you point the finger at me, three point back at you.

Let me assure you, and the readers here, that I never at any time or in any place have I ever agreed with you that any part or parts, point or points of any false religious system was divinely inspired (received to them by revelation from God).

I don’t have it right in front of me at the moment, but I shall shortly produce the proof that this is merely a second lie to cover the first. You most certainly did give grudging acknowledgment to exactly what I said, that there are certain central truths of Christianity, truths which were also stated in the sacred books of other religions, both independently and antecedent to the Christian Bible. And the point made from that was, that since we take the Bible to be revealed truth, we have no other explanation we can allow, but that God revealed those particular truths to them--NOT that they were, kit and kaboodle, "divinely inspired." In fact, as I recall, I believe I was careful with my choice of words, using "revealed" and "revelation" in regard to those truths as found in other religions, and reserving the word "inspired" for the truths of the Bible. In fact, the instance which you now cite as "proof" (but which fails to be so) bears me out on this.

Since I WAS thus careful in my choice of words, that was one reason I made the challenge, because you have stated that I claimed they were "inspired," which as you know, is quite a different proposition from what I actually stated at the time. And since I know how carefully I chose my comments in that dialogue, and since you clearly are only basing your accusation on "something to the effect," taking the lazy way out instead of doing your homework, it only serves to strengthen the case beyond what was already established.

Like a good antimason, you follow the same pattern with your ideas about Christianity as you do with your accusations against Masonry: namely, taking one or two isolated references and making them out to be the whole. In this case, you have taken a very small number, indeed, and made them out to be the whole of every other sacred book of every other religion. After all, that extended discussion turned up a grand total of what? TWO truths out of the entire collection of truths found in the Bible. There were only two that I ever presented and considered, and made any such statement in regards to them. One, as you well know, was the Golden Rule; the other was the one that is subject of your most recent diatribe, the requirement of purity, which is found in many other religions, just as it is in Christianity.

So now you refer back to that discussion, and try to make the illogical proposition that by proving that two distinct truths of Scripture were found in other religions independent of and antecedent to the Christian Bible; and that by then stating the proposition that these two central truths in Christian faith are also considered central in other religions; and since these two truths were antecedent to and independent of, the Christian corpus, that they, being revealed truths, must thereby necessarily have been revealed to the adherents of those religions—that I have somehow stated, suggested, or even remotely hinted that “all sacred books are the inspired word of God????????"

That’s just plain bizarre.

However, since you mistakenly think differently, as usual, I trust that you probably misconstrued what I meant. Yet, I challenge you to provide the full citation, and link to any place where you falsely believe it to be so.

Oh, you were very clear, all right. And in fact, I certainly do intend to give a full enough quote of it here, and a citation as well, since it occurred right here on christianforums, and not all that long ago.

In the meantime, you might want to clarify how YOU conclude that apparent central truths in false religions are divinely inspired.

No need to clarify what I never said. Never once did I ever say that truths in other religions were "divinely inspired." Those are YOUR words, Michael, and not the first time you have substituted your own inventions for what was actually said.

But never fear, as soon as I find the thread, I will link to it, and will give the readers some idea exactly where it starts and how far it extends, since as I recall, it went for several pages.

And have you never considered, that by by denying what was clearly shown to you, you lay open the Bible to the charge of containing at least two central truths that were derivative? I certainly wouldn't go there, but somehow it doesn't surprise me that you would.

It would make sense though. . .If you really believe that there is no such thing as a false god, since Jesus never spoke of other gods, only misconceptions of the One True God (a position in which YOU just said, "my stand on that point still holds, also.")

And now you add to the list, this third lie??? Even a child would know better, it wasn’t that hard to read—especially IN ITS CONTEXT:

I also said at the time that until you either retract the claim or show cause for why you think you have substantiated it, I would have no further response to the other issues you raised in the same post. My apologies for the error and the resultant expended energy on your part to raise those issues, but my stand on that point still holds, also.

Anybody can see from that statement as it appears in its context, that by “that point” I was referring to having “no further response to the other issues you raised in the same post” until you come across with either support for the claim, or a retraction of it. And as I CLEARLY stated, THAT POINT still STANDS.

Sadly, you DID decide to try to make hay, as predicted; but all you succeeded in creating was chaff in the wind. Thank God the readers here are not the idiots you assume them to be.

 

[Rev Wayne]

AS PROMISED, THE AFOREMENTIONED ACKNOWLEDGMENT ON YOUR PART, OF THE POINTS RAISED CONCERNING CERTAIN DIVINE TRUTHS BEING FOUND IN ALL RELIGIONS (WHICH AT THAT TIME AMOUNTED TO ONLY ONE SUCH TRUTH):

So here is my follow-up to your last post, and the challenge presented. From a thread titled, “Freemasonry is Compatible With Christianity?”, p. 18, post #175, dated 8/1/07:

Well, considering the above post, in order to prove there is NOT spiritual truth in all religions, you must:

(1) Prove the things I quoted do not exist in the sources they are quoted from; or
(2) Prove that the statement they all affirm is not true.

I'd say that presents you with a formidable challenge: the first is well-documented, and the effort to disprove it would fail; the second is biblical, and you would not have any desire to disprove it.

Therefore your premise has failed.

Therefore, since not only is there one truth found in Christianity which is also found in other religions, it happens to be a truth which is at the HEART of Christian faith.

Moreover, since this central Christian truth was already present in many other religions prior to and independent of the Christian revelation, its presence there cannot be described as derivative.

In addition, its presence is not recorded in just any old source in those traditions, it is recorded in the books they consider sacred, indicating they consider God to be the source, and the truth as thus recorded to be the will of God.

Therefore, since the presence of this central Christian truth in other religions is not derivative of the Christian revelation; and since it is true in what it affirms; and since those who recorded it understood it to be divine truth and recorded it in sacred writings of their religions, thereby deeming its source to be God and its truth to be indicative of the divine will:

The only possible way that it could have been perceived by those who recorded it in this manner, would be by divine revelation from the One True God.

What this does NOT mean:

It does not mean that all things contained in those sacred writings are thereby to be considered divine truth. (To do that all the other statements claimed as divine truth within each religious tradition, would have to be examined and proven true.)



It does not mean that all the gods of those religions are thereby to be considered as "different names for the same God." (To do that it would have to be shown that all things represented as true about God within that religion and its writings were identical with the Christian revelation of God.)

But the most serious challenge presented by all this is, how, if you are to sustain your premise about "false religions" and/or "false gods," can you explain how a revelation of truth, perceived as divine truth, and in accord with divine truth in the Christian revelation, could have been revealed to and perceived by those of such false systems? The Bible tells us, after all, that "the natural man" cannot receive divine truth.

I have to admit, I've tried countering this thing from the Christian standpoint, from every conceivable angle, and I have found no explanation that works all the way around. But it poses no problem for me, as I have not made the claims, as you have, about "false religions" and "false gods."

I simply invite you to wrestle with it and see what you can come up with.

And the link, as promised: http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=1182104&page=18

And now, also as promised, the admission in your own words, conceding what I had been stating about certain truths having been revealed in other religions than Christianity:

You began post #192, on the thread “Freemasonry is compatible with Christianity?”, with a response to the following statement by me:

For one thing, I never made any claim about "systems" being true, only about certain truths being found within "systems."

Apparently, even then, as now, you were taking my comments about individual truths WITHIN other religious systems, and treating them as though I had applied them across the board, broad-brush fashion, to the entire body of material found in their sacred books. In actuality, both then and now, I did no such thing. But to the point, here is the reply you gave (Interesting that you avoid the traditional Christian term "Golden Rule" in preference for the world's term "Ethic of Reprocity"):

And the one "truth" at hand that you are stressing is the moral value of the Ethic of Reciprocity or "Golden Rule." Okay, so what's your point?

As I pointed out earlier, based on Romans 2:14-15, God placed this and other moral and ethical values in the heart of mankind when He created us. The fact that it appears in so-called 'sacred' writings that predate Christianity is no surprise, since He is eternal. The fact that it was divinely instilled and later written in them, in and of itself, doesn't validate these religions as being true.

Every person shares certain inherent or "inaliable" rights, which come from God, simply because of our membership in the human race. People are individually very different; they come in two different genders; they have different personalities and varying idiosyncrasies; different sizes, shades of color, shapes and races. And, they have different degrees of skill and ability. They follow different religious beliefs and economic systems, speak many different languages, and participate in many different cultures. All human beings are equal in importance to God, and all should enjoy basic fundamental human rights. So from that standpoint, I concede, the Ethic of Reciprocity is a moral virtue found in many religious systems. Your point has been established, so now let's move on from there.

The link, as promised, is here: Mike: "Your point has been established"

The point was conceded by you, as I already stated here. The range of the discussion there is, it began in earnest on page 18, and continued through at least page 22. After the above point in the conversation, I moved from discussion of the Golden Rule, to bring in the further point that purity was another of those truths of Scripture which finds a commonality with other religions. The same Scriptures were cited there which have been cited here in support of what I have said. If anything, perhaps I did a better job of presenting them there than I did here. After debating at some length, you said of the comparison of Christian purity with purity in other religions:

Yet the ESSENTIAL difference is, all other religions, including Freemasonry exclude Jesus Christ as the source of that purity. Therefore, the pattern that the "purity" requirement in ALL religions is the same as it is found in Christianity is invalid. Without Christ it is not the same thing.

You were raising an objection to a point that I was not making, and Freemasonry does not teach—in other words, a distinction without a difference. Part of the problem in our exchange has been your tendency to merge into one discussion that which should actually be addressed in two separate aspects. The result has been, when you have been challenged on one of these points, you have retreated to the other in your reply. I will elaborate upon the implications of this on those two fronts:

(1) The implications as regards your objection that “that’s different.”

Masonry makes no attempt to quantify or qualify the nature of purity; it simply says the white of the lambskin is a symbol of purity, period. And the indirect statement it also makes in that regard is, that purity is a requirement if we seek to gain admission into heaven. As already cited from other sacred books, I have shown that this is indeed true, that other religions do hold this tenet to be true. And it is also true of Christianity, because without it, Hebrews says, “no one will see the Lord”; and without it, Revelation says, “nothing . . . can enter.” You wish to point to the purity of Jesus Christ as the source, and rightly so; but in doing so, you have still not refuted the fact that purity is required, and that it is stated so by biblical proclamation, in the references so often-cited already. And that’s all that Masonry says, regardless of all your bluster and attempted spin. Whether or not other religions are right or wrong on their own understanding of purity, is irrelevant to the point being discussed, that purity IS a requirement.

(2) The implications as regards your claim that the purity required in Christian faith is strictly of the imputed variety:

But I still think you have slid the idea of purity completely over to the imputed aspect, when there is clearly an imparted aspect of it even in Christian thinking and in the biblical witness. One place is in Philippians 2:12-13, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who works in you, both to will and to do of His good pleasure.” So your contention that our own efforts to follow and do the will of God are of no account, is O.F.F.-center, for Paul urges them to “work out” their salvation. The fact that God works within them as they do, does not negate the fact that they take the initiative and make the effort, for the statement to them is in the Greek imperative, that is, a command form. They are exhorted/commanded by Paul to “work out [their] own salvation.” God working within is not some magical formula by which they kick up their heels, and their salvation is handed to them on a silver platter. The very fact that they needed to be commanded to do so, should be the clearest indication against that foolish notion.

Besides there is still the matter of Hebrews 12, the context of which is, “striving against sin.” And that is the holiness of which the writer there says, without it “no one will see the Lord.” There is the matter of Rev. 21, the context of which describes impure actions that prevent entry into heaven. Not that it matters really, because whether imputed or imparted, purity is the element required for entry. And there is still the matter of John’s description of what is considered righteous and what is not: “he who practices righteousness is righteous, just as HE is righteous.” And conversely, he who DOES not, IS not. Your argument, which you will no doubt raise here, is irrelevant, when you come back with “but this describes only the situation with those who are Christians.” I say that point is irrelevant, not to the set of implications in (1) of contrasting Christian purity vs. other purity; but to the set of implications raised by the question of whether Christianity teaches purity as a requirement. Clearly it does.

In fact, you have admitted as much, although you hedge it all around with “imputation.” But at some point what has been imputed must be imparted; what has been “worked in” must be “worked out.” The imputed righteousness of Christ must become “Christ our righteousness” as it is worked out in our lives in pure actions that spring from pure motives. It is abundantly clear from the admonitions of Paul to “work out your salvation,” from James’ exhortation reminding us that “faith without works is dead,” from Peter’s admonition to “give all diligence, adding to your faith. . .,” that the process of moving from imputation to impartation, from being to doing, is most decidedly not simply an automatic process in the way it comes to pass. It has been given by Christ; it certainly is “the gift of God, lest men should boast”; that fact is in no way altered by the fact that we are to cooperate with the divine grace given, by “walk[ing] circumspectly, taking advantage of every opportunity, for the days are evil.”

Our basic disagreement here, as I have reiterated to you time and again for years now, is the difference between Calvinist and Arminian viewpoints of these things. You take the typical Calvinist position emphasizing the sovereignty of God over all else, I take the Arminian position emphasizing the immense potential of divine grace that is possible through the cooperation of the human will with the divine.

 

[O.F.F.]

Wayne, you misconstrued what I meant when I said, "your point was established." I simply meant, "You made your point."

The point was conceded by you . . .

No, the point to which I conceded was made in the statement you quoted, but perhaps you missed it given all the wording in between:

As I pointed out earlier, based on Romans 2:14-15, God placed this and other moral and ethical values in the heart of mankind when He created us. . . So from that standpoint, I concede, the Ethic of Reciprocity is a moral virtue found in many religious systems.

You confuse man's INNATE, God-giving "conscience" for moral behavior with "divinely-inspired" Scripture. I will never make that mistake! So, I say again, I DO NOT AGREE WITH YOUR POSITION, which is:

. . .that God revealed those particular truths to them. . .

To say that "God revealed" those truths to them for their writings is to say they were "Divinely-inspired." I didn't agree with that they were then, and I certainly do not agree that they are now.

In fact, as I recall, I believe I was careful with my choice of words, using "revealed" and "revelation" in regard to those truths as found in other religions, and reserving the word "inspired" for the truths of the Bible.

You can play semantics all you want pastor, but you chose your word carelessly. I trust educated Christian readers know that "God revealed" and "Divinely-inpired" are synonymous. Apparently you do to, despite your self-contradiction. Otherwise, you would not have been so careless to use them in the same sentence as synonyms.

God revealed those particular truths to them--NOT that they were, kit and kaboodle, "divinely inspired."

Besides my reason based on Romans 2:14-15, this is another reason why I vehemently disagree with you. I will never believe that God would "inspire" other religions to write one basic truth, but allow the rest of their so-called "sacred" writings to be a lie. If you chose to believe that, you might want to explain it to other readers, but you will never convince me of such nonsense.

 

[O.F.F.]

Masonry makes no attempt to quantify or qualify the nature of purity; it simply says the white of the lambskin is a symbol of purity, period.

Grand Lodge sources prove this to be a dishonest statement:

The Apron is at once the emblem of purity and the badge of a Mason. By purity is meant blamelessness, (innocence) a loyal obedience to the laws of the Craft and sincere good will to the Brethren.

A Lodge System Of Masonic Instruction, p. 28 - Grand Lodge of Nevada)

The lambskin apron is at once an emblem of innocence (purity) and the badge of a Mason. By innocence (blameless) is meant clean thinking and clean living, a loyal obedience to the laws of the craft, and sincere goodwill and charity toward one’s brethren. (emphasis added)

Apprentice Handbook, Grand Lodge of California

Freemasonry not only qualifies "purity," it does so beyond what God's Word says by adding to it, a loyal obedience to the laws of the Craft and sincere good will to fellow Masons (the Brethren or Craft).

As for your ongoing argument of trying to prove that "purity" is a requirement for salvation, stop wasting bandwidth, I'm not buying your heretical teachings. And never will other discerning Christians. But, I noticed that during your insidious apostasy, you even managed to abandon the position of the UMC church on the matter, which I posted in post #101 (click here to find it).

I wonder what your boss, Bishop Taylor would think of that?

 

[Jester4kicks]

Grand Lodge sources prove this to be a dishonest statement:



Freemasonry not only qualifies "purity," it does so beyond what God's Word says by adding to it, a loyal obedience to the laws of the Craft and sincere good will to fellow Masons (the Brethren or Craft).

As for your ongoing argument of trying to prove that "purity" is a requirement for salvation, stop wasting bandwidth, I'm not buying your heretical teachings. And never will other discerning Christians. But, I noticed that during your insidious apostasy, you even managed to abandon the position of the UMC church on the matter, which I posted in post #101 (click here to find it).

I wonder what your boss, Bishop Taylor would think of that?

Good work. Thank you for being a shining representative of an ex-mason christian.

 

[Rev Wayne]

I trust educated Christian readers know that "God revealed" and "Divinely-inpired" are synonymous.

I hope educated Christian readers will know better than to trust you by now. Once again you choose your own uninformed opinions over truth:

Divine Revelation Does Not Always Imply Divine Inspiration

Divine inspiration does not always imply revelation. For example, Moses was divinely inspired by God to record events that he himself witnessed. These events were the actual source of his knowledge on the subject. The subject matter was not beyond human knowledge but was there for any observer to record.

There Are Lies Recorded In The Divine Record​

We also have to distinguish between certain words of Scripture and the faithful recording of them. There are statements in the Bible that are lies. Yet the lies are correctly recorded. The statements are not given by divine revelation. The devil was certainly not speaking for God when he made the various statements recorded in Scripture. Jesus said to the religious leaders of His day.
You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies (John 8:44).
Yet the Devil’s words are part of Scripture.

Revelation Sometimes Refers To Illumination​

In the New Testament the word translated, "revelation" sometimes refers to illumination.
Paul wrote.
I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of His glorious inheritance in the saints (Ephesians 1:17,18).
Revelation, in this context, refers to what we call illumination – the ability to understand the truths that God has already revealed. Human beings are not able to impart divine revelation; they are only able to receive it. In addition, all believers do not receive supernatural revelation to impart to others. That was granted only to a special few.

Summary​

Divine inspiration and revelation are not synonymous terms. Revelation is God disclosing truth to humankind that we would not otherwise know. Divine inspiration deals with the recording of God’s Word – it does not always imply revelation.
Statements recorded in Scripture are divinely inspired in the sense they are the things that God wanted revealed to humanity. However not everything found in Scripture is divine revelation neither is everything found in the Scripture true. There are things in Scripture that any observer could record. However, what they could not record was the divine explanation of the event. Scripture correctly records what occurred – this includes misstatements and lies. What is assured with divine inspiration is that each event and saying is accurately recorded.
(Blue Letter Bible website)

I sure hope you were paying attention, it gets old having to repeat everything to you over and over. The difference:

"Revelation is God disclosing truth to humankind that we would not otherwise know."

"Divine inspiration deals with the recording of God’s Word – it does not always imply revelation."

Revelation is God's revealing of what we would not know otherwise.

Inspiration has to do with the faithful and accurate recording of it.

That definition of "revelation" speaks volumes when you apply it to this conversation and the conversation in which you conceded that the point I made "has been established." Clearly those of other religions are not in error on every point ever made in their sacred writings. That ought to be obvious to you when you see that the Golden Rule appears in them. Why you choose to euphemize it and call it "Ethic of Reciprocity" and scoff at it when you see it elsewhere, when it is no different in substance than we have it in our Bible, is beyond me.

But since you don't know the difference between revelation and inspiration, and recognize your own concession as a concession, it's not surprising, really. In fact, when these are considered along with your misrepresentations about Masonry, it becomes obvious that your being definitionally-challenged is severely problematic for you.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Good work. Thank you for being a shining representative of an ex-mason christian.

Are you sure simply "exs-mason" won't suffice?

 

[Jester4kicks]

Are you sure simply "exs-mason" won't suffice?

Yeah... although he does kinda embody everything I don't like about organized religion, in general... I dunno, the comment was kinda loaded on a number of levels.

 

[Rev Wayne]

The Apron is at once the emblem of purity and the badge of a Mason. By purity is meant blamelessness, (innocence) a loyal obedience to the laws of the Craft and sincere good will to the Brethren.

A Lodge System Of Masonic Instruction, p. 28 - Grand Lodge of Nevada)

The lambskin apron is at once an emblem of innocence (purity) and the badge of a Mason. By innocence (blameless) is meant clean thinking and clean living, a loyal obedience to the laws of the craft, and sincere goodwill and charity toward one’s brethren. (emphasis added)

Apprentice Handbook, Grand Lodge of California

There’s been more added here than mere "emphasis." You’ve also added the words in parentheses in both citations, and in doing so you misrepresent what was actually stated. What you are trying to do is pretend the two statements say the same thing, when in actuality, they are not only different, they are also defined differently in each GL’s explanation.

The first actually says "purity," and uses the word "blamelessness."
The second actually says "innocence," and uses the phrase "clean thinking and clean living."


The irony of it is, they would be more accurate if they swapped the definitions: innocence goes more toward “blame” than does "purity," and the idea of “clean” speaks more of “purity” than does "innocence."

As usual, slice and dice, with unacknowledged additions to the text, to create your own accusation.

Given the pattern you’ve exhibited thus far, I fully expect you will now try to convince us that adding words to the text is a part of “emphasis?” You are either very insincere, or you are totally mixed up-or perhaps both.

As for your ongoing argument of trying to prove that "purity" is a requirement for salvation, stop wasting bandwidth, I'm not buying your heretical teachings.

Psalm 24—“Who shall enter into God’s holy mountain? He who has clean hands and a pure heart”
Hebrews 12:14---“Without holiness (sanctification, cleansing, i.e. “purity”) no one will see the Lord”
Revelation 21:27---“Nothing IMpure shall enter there”

Maybe you missed the implications of what you just stated. What you call “heretical teachings,” I cited straight from the Bible. So now you’re claiming that the Bible contains “heretical teachings?”

You ought to be ashamed to dishonor the Christ you claim to serve by making such stupendous allegations.

And never will other discerning Christians. But, I noticed that during your insidious apostasy, you even managed to abandon the position of the UMC church on the matter, which I posted in post #101 (click here to find it).

I wonder what your boss, Bishop Taylor would think of that?

"Insidious apostasy?" Hahahahahaha!

Now THERE’S a bit of irony if I ever saw it: You accuse me of “wasting bandwidth” while at the same time admittedly repeating what you’ve already said, posting a link to it, and then re-posting the comment about Bishop Taylor!!

You’re getting to be quite a riot—not that you weren’t already. But since you ask:

I wonder what your boss, Bishop Taylor would think of that?

I have to say, she'd probably be thrilled that pastors in our conference are well-informed on their Wesleyan theology. And she'd probably drag you over the coals for not paying attention to what you quote-mine, just as I have many times in the past. Really, how did you ever miss this one when you cited it with the rest of that post?

Growing in grace

Conversion is but the beginning of the new life of wholeness. Through what Wesley called God's "sanctifying grace," we can continue to grow. In fact, Wesley affirmed, we're to press on, with God's help, in the path of sanctification, the gift of Christian perfection. The goal of the sanctified life is to be perfected in love, to experience the pure love of God and others, a holiness of heart and life, a total death to sin. We're not there yet; but by God's grace, as we United Methodists say, "we're going on to perfection!" (Emphasis YOURS!)

Now THERE is an example of real BLINDNESS if I ever saw one. You've highlighted portions of this passage which corroborate everything I've already said!!

And just a bit above that portion of the quote, you actually highlighted a portion of this statement:

This process of salvation involves a change in us that we call conversion.

How confused does someone have to be, to highlight things they do not even believe? Salvation as a process??? When on earth did you ever start believing that??? I've pointed that fact out to you over and over again, as a counter to the foundational supposition that underlies all your accusations, namely, that salvation is NOT a process at all. That's why my arguments with you on that point always end up with definitions of Christian sanctification, and with a repeated emphasis upon Hebrews 12:14, which clearly says "without sanctification, no one will see the Lord," the clearest indication one need to read, to understand that justification and sanctification are two separate things, and BOTH ARE REQUIRED. If it's NOT required, as you seem to be suggesting, then why on earth did the author of Hebrews, writing the INSPIRED WORD, insist that it IS???

Moreover, under that heading of "Growing in Grace" in the piece that you cited, how on earth did you miss the first line,

Conversion is but the beginning of the new life of wholeness.

As always, it's not the things you highlight that stand out, it's the things you MISS!

One thing is for certain, you hardly appear qualified to be trying to teach anyone theology. Your errors are enormous, and you don't even seem to be aware of how far off the mark your comments are.

In that regard, you don't fare any better with interpreting and understanding theology, than you do in understanding Freemasonry--which is saying a lot. And believe me, stating it this way is probably the understatement of the year.

You totally missed, even highlighted as though they supported YOUR contentions, points within this Methodist statement that CLEARLY corroborate practically everything I've already stated to you on the matter of this doctrine of biblical purity.

But it's nothing new. From a past thread on Freemasonry, where you were equating "purity" with "works," here is proof positive that once again you are wasting bandwidth in contending about these things:

For you to TWIST the Word of God to say otherwise is not only disingenuous it is pure HERESY. If you insist on taking this position you are charaterizing yourself as a FALSE TEACHER. And, if you think YOU are holy or good or pure enough to get to heaven, in and of yourself, you will never enter the kingdom of God.

My reply:

To RECAP, and to unwind the SPIN you just put on this:

Purity is required to gain admission, because the Word says so.

In Christianity, that purity involves both imputed and imparted righteousness. Imputed comes at justification, imparted comes by the process of sanctification.

Both are by faith. I assume you need no proof that justification is by faith? Likewise, I assume you don’t understand that sanctification is by faith, too, because you have characterized sanctification as something “in and of yourself,” as you just put it. And so you will need proof:


Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to do of His good pleasure. (Phil. 2:12-13)

Work out your—what? SALVATION! How? With fear & trembling, keeping in mind that it is GOD who works IN you, both to WILL and to DO.

Both the will and the action are the work of God—that most DEFINITELY is not “in and of yourself.”

Readers, see for yourselves--Mike has provided the link to the Methodist document that he seems to have forgotten to read before quoting; and here is the link to the above conversation, which is much fuller in its context:

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=1182104&page=21 Post #209

 

[Rev Wayne]

To the readers:

Mike talks about "wasting bandwidth"; yet he continues to raise objections that were refuted long ago. Some of them were already refuted (and thus are NON-arguments) as long ago as five years. I for one have seen enough of it that I can truly say there is "nothing new under the sun" when it comes to accusations of antimasonic crusaders. To illustrate what I say, I offer the following points of objection, and links to the places where they have already been refuted on various threads throughout this very forum. Many of them were discussions in which Mike made the objections, and I offered the refutation. Most of them are so conclusive as to need little or no further deliberation--therefore, I offer this list as a handy go-to tool for future accusations that may be forthcoming on this thread, and simply take my leave. I find little profit in explaining things to someone who consistently misrepresents my comments, denies comments he clearly made, and exhibits little true understanding of the fraternity he abandoned or the theology and practice of the Christian faith he professes.


(1) Common Gavel—refuted here: http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=5291179&page=78 , post #772

And here:
http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=1601295&page=5 , post #43

(2) Lambskin Apron—refuted here: http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=1182104&page=20 , post #197

(3) Ashlar—refuted here: http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=1182104&page=16 , post #156

(4) Hiram Abiff “savior for Masons”—refuted here: http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=5291179&page=6 , post #56

(5) “Master Mason represents. . .”—refuted here: http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=1182104&page=50 , post #494

And here: http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=1182104&page=50 , post #115

(6) Taking of oaths—refuted here: http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=5291179&page=80 , post #800

And here: http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=5291179&page=81 , posts # 808 & 810

(7) Great White Throne—refuted here: http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=5291179&page=78 , post #772

Interesting that a glossary of Masonic terms says the following about it:

GREAT WHITE THRONE:

This term refers to the pure and glorious throne of God. Before it, every knee must bow and every tongue confess that Christ is God to the glory of the Father.

(8) Jah-bul-on—refuted here: http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=5291179&page=38 , post #376

(9) Freemasonry is a Religion—refuted here: http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=5291179&page=50 , post #492


(10) Worshipping Lucifer—I won’t even dignify this with a response. The Leo Taxil Hoax is well-documented history that should have died over a century ago when he published his confession.

(11) GAOTU “all gods into one”—Refuted here: http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=1601295&page=5 , Post #43

And here: http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=1429895&page=2 , post #20

And here: http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=2617099&page=21 , post #203

(12) VSL—refuted here: http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=1182104&page=16 , Post #159

(13) Freemasonry and Christianity not Compatible—refuted here: http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=5291179&page=74 , Post #738

(14) FOG-BOM—refuted here: http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?t=95027 , entire thread. I went off the CF board for this one, because this one involves a thread by the title, with detailed, concise discussion and refutation of the antimasonic claim.

There was also the matter of an exchange there which is eerily similar to the recent one here. Mike cited a source in trying to make a point, and I rebutted with material from the piece that showed he had no understanding of the article (by John Murray on “Adoption&#8221, because the author fully established exactly what I had been contending for some time, that there are at least four separate aspects in Scripture which portray God as Father. Check out the response there:

Before this gets out of hand, I'd like to cease the theological debate and get to the crux of the matter. Ok, while I do not agree entirely with "M.. .K's" assessment, it's been shown that there are indeed four aspects of God as Father found in Scripture. Now let's move on.

Heh, heh. In other words, after posting from an article by John Murray, he turns around and declares he does “not agree entirely” with ME, while at the same time conceding the point. Ironically, he was also declaring that he did a 180-degree turn and suddenly did not agree with the article he had just cited as "proof" against what I had been contending.
In both the case there and the one here, the “let’s move on” response was nothing more than beating a hasty retreat after a poor attempt to defend his position.


There is so much more that could be said in response to accusations about KKK, P2, Albert Pike, Joseph Smith, Mormon connection, Pentagrams, Allegory, Illuminati, William Morgan, Abaddon, the “Masonic Dollar,” Washington “Masonic design,” Racism, Prince Hall Recognition, New World Order, So Mote it Be, “Worshipful Master,” secrecy issues, and a host of others, for which I may or may not post a similar list. Rest assured, they have all been refuted over and over on these very boards. For each of the points above, I could have posted at least half a dozen links at CF, not to mention many more elsewhere.


You get the point, the accusers know they have had their arguments answered sufficiently over and over again, but for some reason, they all seem to have attended the Hillary Clinton School for Incorrigible Diehards. Apparently they don't all have a Bill to welcome them home with open arms.

It's been fun once again, as always, but clearly there are much better things to do than continue to respond to what has become for Mike a detriment and an obsession.

 

[Jester4kicks]

To the readers:

C'mon Wayne... you know nobody else is going to get this far in the thread.

 

[O.F.F.]

Discerning Christian Readers Beware:

Wayne confuses rationalization with refutation. To successfully refute an argument one must prove wrong with sufficient evidence. In the case of Freemasonry he would have to provide such evidence solely from Grand Lodge sources (since they are the only authority in Freemasonry), which categorically refute the Biblical authority presented against its teachings.

He has failed miserably to do that on ALL the issues presented in the Christian case against the Masonic Lodge. Instead, he has provided rationalization ad nauseam by creating excuse-after-excuse in order to try as hard as he can to make a more attractive explanation for the heretical teachings of Freemasonry. As true believers, use your spiritual discernment to judge this case, as he continues the futile exercise of defending the indefensible. This thread includes many, if not most, of the false teaching of Freemasonry, and anyone who defends them is a false teacher. The only thing Wayne has successfully proven is himself to be a false teacher, whom God warned us about:

2 Peter 2:1-3

1But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. 3In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping. (emphasis added)

In his vain attempt to distort the truth of God's Word concerning salvation by good works, rather than by faith, he deliberately ignored the first section of the UMC statement, which comes from the denomination in which he serves.

By grace through faith

Salvation cannot be earned. There's no behavior, no matter how holy or righteous, by which we can achieve salvation. Rather, it's the gift of a gracious God.

By grace we mean God's extraordinary love for us. In most of life we're accustomed to earning approval from others. This is true at school, at work, in society, even at home—to a degree. We may feel that we have to act "just so" to be liked or loved. But God's love, or grace, is given without any regard for our goodness. It's unmerited, unconditional, and unending love.

As we come to accept this love, to entrust ourselves to it, and to ground our lives in it, we discover the wholeness that God has promised. This trust, as we've seen, is called faith. God takes the initiative in grace; but only as we respond through faith is the change wrought in us.

This is the great theme of the Protestant Reformers, as well as John Wesley and the Methodists who followed: We're saved by grace alone through faith alone. We're made whole and reconciled by the love of God as we receive it and trust in it.

From United Methodist Member's Handbook, Revised by George Koehler (Discipleship Resources, 2006), pp. 78. (emphasis added)

So as you can see, in addition to manipulating what his own Church has to say about the requirements for salvation, he made a conscious effort to leave out a direct reference that refutes his own argument.

In fact, he uses reference sources to try to defend his position, that also refute his argument. Here's what the Blue Letter Bible says about salvation; the source he quoted showing the distinction between Revelation and Divine Inspiration.

Salvation Is Not Earned​

It is abundantly clear from Scripture that our salvation cannot be earned. It is God's gift to us when we trust Christ as our Savior.

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5). . .

Summary​

Salvation is a free gift from God, received when a person receives Christ as Savior. It cannot be earned by any amount of good works.

But let's take Wayne's argument that ones own "purity" in life is a requirement for salvation to its logical conclusion. If this is the case for all of us, then certainly it is a requirement for himself. In other words, if Wayne expects to go to heaven, according to his preceived requirement, he must have lived a perfect life, his entire life. In effect, he is declaring that he has never sinned, and as a result he has pleased God enough to earn admission into heaven.

Now as believers, you and I know there is no way this could be true. For God's Word declares that ALL have sinned and fall short of His glory (Romans 3:23). Well, if Wayne comes back here saying, "Of course, I've sinned." How then can he expect to go to heaven per his perceived requirement? If Wayne's argument is true, then not only he, but none of us stands a chance to ever go to heaven.

If he admits he too has sinned like the rest of us, then like us, he too is an impure, imperfect sinner. Sinners are filthy, unclean and do not deserve to go to heaven. Sinners deserve to die and go to Hell. For God says the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). If Wayne returns saying, "It's faith in Christ and a pure life that gets one into heaven," then he would be declaring that Christ finished work on the Cross wasn't sufficient enough for our salvation, because he insists being a good person is an additional requirement. This too, we know is not biblically true.

To say one MUST be pure to enter heaven is to say one has always been pure. As saints, we also know that only one person has ever lived a perfect life, his entire life. That person is our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. And, because he took the punishment of death that we as sinners deserve, we know that it is by faith in him alone that enables us the privilege to go to heaven.

Let me conclude this post with more from what the Blue Letter Bible has to say about it:

Can A Person Please God By Being Good?​

Many people feel they have lived a life that will be good enough to get them to heaven. Since their life has been characterized by a certain degree of morality they assume God will accept them. But the Bible states otherwise. None of us, no matter how good we have been, are able to stand before God.

As it is written: there is none righteous, no, not one; there is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God (Romans 3:10).

Paul says that all have sinned.

For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).

Sin has its consequences.

For the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23).

There are many moral and upright people in the world who contribute much to the common good. But the Bible says that no matter how good someone is, no person is good enough to meet God’s perfect standard.

We Are Measured By God​

The Scriptures teach that man is not to be measured by man but by God. When the creature is measured by the Creator he is found wanting. The psalmist said:

Who may ascend into the hill of the Lord? Or who may stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who has not lifted up his soul to an idol, nor sworn deceitfully (Psalm 24:3,4).

The Apostle Paul wrote:

But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe (Galatians 3:22).

None of us is in a position to please God by our own goodness. We need God’s help to become part of God’s family. God has provided that help in the person of Jesus Christ. Salvation is something that is from the Lord and Him alone. The prophet Jonah wrote.

Salvation is of the Lord (Jonah 2:10).

We Can Know Certain Things About God​

Jesus came to earth that we might know what God is like and what He requires of us. When His disciples asked Jesus Christ about doing works that would please God, he made it clear what God wanted from humankind.

Then they said to him, what shall we do, that we may work the works of God? Jesus answered and said to them, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent’ (John 6:28,29).

The Bible is clear that we must put our faith in Christ as God’s provision for our salvation. Jesus’ death on the cross of Calvary paid the penalty for our sin. We must accept that sacrifice by faith.

For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life (John 3:16).

Salvation Is A Free Gift​

There is nothing any of us can do to earn eternal life—it is a free gift of God.

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast (Ephesians 2:8,9).

We Have A Choice To Believe Or Not To Believe​

God has done everything He can. The only thing stopping an individual from receiving eternal life is his or her own will. Each of us must choose whether we accept of reject God’s gift.

There Is Judgment For Those Who Do Not Believe​

Those who reject the gift of salvation will spend eternity apart from God and His presence. Though the unbelievers will exist eternally they will receive the judgment of God, not His blessings.

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son (John 3:18).

One of the offers that God makes to humanity is the gift of eternal life. God’s promise of eternal life includes living forever in God’s presence in a loving relationship with Him. Jesus defined what it means to receive eternal life:

And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent (John 17:3).

The Death Of Christ Makes Salvation Possible​

The reason God can offer this eternal relationship between Himself and the believer is because of the death of Christ. Jesus died on the cross for the sins of the world. He died as our substitute taking the punishment we deserved for our sins. He offers eternal life to everyone who accepts His sacrifice by faith. The requirement is belief in Jesus Christ. The Bible says,

He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him (John 3:36).

Paul wrote

That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe that God has raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes to righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made to salvation (Romans 10:9,10).

Summary​

It is impossible to please God by our good works. God does not measure us by each other – his standard is Jesus Christ. Unless we measure up to him we will not be able to enter the kingdom of heaven. This is why Christ came to earth. He did what each of us could not do – live a life pleasing to God. Consequently faith in Christ is the only way a person can please God and enter into heaven. Our good works alone will never be sufficient.

Blue Letter Bible, Can A Person Please God By Being Good?

 

[Rev Wayne]

So as you can see, in addition to manipulating what his own Church has to say about the requirements for salvation, he made a conscious effort to leave out a direct reference that refutes his own argument.

Slick trick, this one. You manipulate the quote YOU cited earlier, removing the material which I pointed out was included in it, and then accuse ME of manipulation????

No one manipulated anything but you. All I did was point out the pertinent points you failed to notice. And now that I have, it's a pretty significant point to note that you have now AVOIDED posting them, and sliced them out in true antimason fashion.

This is pure Pharaseeism, plain and simple, accusing someone else of the very thing YOU have done.

In other words, if Wayne expects to go to heaven, according to his preceived requirement, he must have lived a perfect life, his entire life. In effect, he is declaring that he has never sinned, and as a result he has pleased God enough to earn admission into heaven.

What part of this did you not understand:

Purity is required to gain admission, because the Word says so.

In Christianity, that purity involves both imputed and imparted righteousness. Imputed comes at justification, imparted comes by the process of sanctification.

Both are by faith.

And whatever sanctification is, in your estimation, no matter how you choose to define it, it is something that is spoken of again and again in Scripture as a present possibility for the Christian in THIS life.

Otherwise, why would Paul be praying in this manner:

1 Thess. 5:23 "And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our LORD Jesus Christ."

Before one may be “PRESERVED” blameless, they must first BE blameless, do you not agree?

1 Pet. 1:2"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ."

Eph. 2:10"For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."

Titus 2:11-14"For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. It teaches us to say "No" to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, Who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto Himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works."

Eph. 5:25-27"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the Church, and gave Himself for it; That He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word, That He might present it to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish."

2 Peter 1:4-8"Whereby are given unto us Exceeding Great And Precious Promises: that by These ye might be partakers of the Divine Nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience Godliness; And to Godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. For if these things be in you, and abound,They make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the Knowledge of our LORD Jesus Christ."


Luke 1:68-75 Praise be to the Lord, the God of Israel,
because he has come and has redeemed his people.
He has raised up a horn of salvation for us
in the house of his servant David
(as he said through his holy prophets of long ago),
salvation from our enemies
and from the hand of all who hate us—
to show mercy to our fathers
and to remember his holy covenant,
the oath he swore to our father Abraham:
to rescue us from the hand of our enemies,
and to enable us to serve him without fear
in holiness and righteousness before him all our days.

In other words, if Wayne expects to go to heaven, according to his preceived requirement, he must have lived a perfect life, his entire life. In effect, he is declaring that he has never sinned, and as a result he has pleased God enough to earn admission into heaven.

Once AGAIN, nothing new under the sun, and you continue to mis-state what I have said. So once AGAIN, I put the challenge to you:

Cite in its entirety, and provide the link for us to anyplace you think you can establish a claim that I ever said anything about “living a perfect life, one’s entire life,” and I will gladly abandon these threads, and post a retraction of everything I have ever posted on these threads about Freemasonry, and you will not see me here again.

How can I make so bold a challenge? Because once again, I KNOW that what you claim is a flat-out LIE. You will not find me making such a stupid statement anywhere. NOWHERE have I stated, implied, or even remotely hinted that I thought I had never sinned. You’d have to be completely ILLITERATE to think so, because I have not been silent with my testimony for the Lord, and have witnessed on these boards IN YOUR PRESENCE repeatedly, about how the Lord delivered me from a 14-year life of drug-addicted hell.

There’s no way you could have missed seeing that testimony, with the numerous times I have repeated it in response to your personal verbal assaults here and elsewhere. So, where you got this preposterous nonsense you attribute to me, is a total mystery. The only thing I can figure is, you’ve run out of arguments and just completely lost it, and resort to this barrage of lies in the mistaken assumption that throwing dirt at someone else will somehow convince others of the false positions you take.

I have to assume your statement was based on the Luke 1:75 quote above, about serving God in holiness and righteousness before Him “ALL our days.” So once again you pervert the meaning of Scripture and turn it on its head for the sole purpose of sullying a fellow Christian when you have a disagreement.

Is that how you were taught to do theology or Bible interpretation?

To say one MUST be pure to enter heaven is to say one has always been pure.

No, it only says the person has to have been purified, it says nothing about having been ALWAYS pure, otherwise no one would get there, comprende? Rather ridiculous assumption you've made there.

From Titus 2:14, cited above:

Who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto Himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works."

The purification takes place AFTER we come to Christ. It begins at justification, and is continued through sanctification. How do you get that this statement says Christians “must have been pure all along,” when it CLEARLY states that He “redeems us from all iniquity?” How could someone who had been "pure all along" be "redeemed?"

James 4:8 Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded.

How would you suppose from this that a person “must have been pure all along” when he’s addressing the “double-minded?”


James 2:21-26 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

You yourself have acknowledged more than once that “if the faith is genuine, the works will be there,” and that “the works that follow are the proof of the faith.” What you fail to realize is the converse of that statement, that if the works do NOT follow, then that faith is a DEAD faith. Hence Paul’s comment to Titus about us having been purified with the intent that we will be “zealous unto good works.”

 

[Rev Wayne]

Well, if Wayne comes back here saying, "Of course, I've sinned." How then can he expect to go to heaven per his perceived requirement? If he admits he too has sinned like the rest of us, then like us, he too is an impure, imperfect sinner. Sinners are filthy, unclean and do not deserve to go to heaven.

Good grief, Michael! When you get started on the preposterous illogic, there is no end in sight, apparently. That's about as conflicted an interpretation as you could have suggested. If you place yourself among the "filthy, unclean" people who "do not deserve to go to heaven," where does that leave you? Besides, who said anything about "deserving" to go to heaven in the first place?

You have totally confused past sins with present redemption, and thrown everything into a confused, coagulated mess, in a manner I never thought possible coming from someone who professes to be trying to witness Christ.

Where on earth do you get the idea that “I have sinned” is the equivalent of “I am sinning?” And where on earth do you get the idea that “the rest of us,” by which I can only assume you are referring to Christians, remain “filthy and unclean” and must continue sinning AFTER THE LORD JESUS CHRIST HAS REDEEMED US? How on earth can anyone call such a miserable condition as that, a state of having been “redeemed???” Redeemed from what???? You seem to think that we get to Romans 3:23, and stop reading from that point, and thus never read the entire argument Paul presents, by which we learn of the struggle against sin, our inability to overcome it on our own, and the praise Paul gives before getting to the "much more" proclamations of what the Spirit does for us in Romans 8:

What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! (Rom. 7:24-25)

I don’t know about you, but Jesus came and rescued me FROM my sins, not to leave me IN them. I gave up the drugs, I gave up the alcohol, I gave up the filthy lusts, I gave up the cigarettes, I gave up the idea that my life was mine to control. According to what YOU just said, apparently I should not have followed that call to LEAVE those things? What does the Bible say about this? From the same place you make your case about “all have sinned” (past tense) in Romans, Paul also gives us instructions as to what shall be our present reality AFTER we have been redeemed:

Romans 6:1-4 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.


Apparently, even though we are told we should “walk in newness of life,” you would have us believe we are to “stand still in oldness of life?”
Well, that would explain, at least, why you are able to engage in continual character assassinations, and have no compunctions about telling what even you know are flat-out lies. Apparently you feel the descriptions in Scripture of what we WERE is no different from what we are to be even afterward.

I thought you highlighted in the Methodist quote the first time you posted it, a line emphasizing that conversion produces a change? With what you have just posted, how on earth do you expect to ever see anyone converted by your witness, when you offer them nothing positive that they can expect from committing their lives to Christ?

What do you DO with Scriptures that tell you differently? Just ignore them?

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

1 Corinthians 6:19-20 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.

No wonder you never understood Masonry. All that stuff about the body being a temple must have gone over your head, since apparently it never seems to have ever been a part of your Christian faith—which is a real puzzle, considering the high estimation you have professed to have of the Holy Bible. I guess that high estimation of the Bible doesn’t include believing anything it tells us—or apparently so, because you sure do seem to have rejected some key passages.

As saints, we also know that only one person has ever lived a perfect life, his entire life. That person is our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. And, because he took the punishment of death that we as sinners deserve, we know that it is by faith in him alone that enables us the privilege to go to heaven.

Well, duh. So where do you get the idea that any of what you just stated, is in conflict with anything I’ve presented, or with God’s desire (and command) for us to be holy? I thought you were familiar with Ephesians? How did you miss:

Eph. 5:25-27"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the Church, and gave Himself for it; That He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word, That He might present it to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish."

The purification is for the purpose of cleansing us with the “washing of water by the Word.” Maybe y’all need to get past the 5:11 thing and read the REST of the chapter.

In fact, he uses reference sources to try to defend his position, that also refute his argument.Here's what the Blue Letter Bible says about salvation; the source he quoted showing the distinction between Revelation and Divine Inspiration.

Elymas the sorcerer strikes again, “all subtle and full of deception.” What does this have to do with “my argument,” MUCH LESS REFUTE it???

“My argument,” as you put it, was that inspiration and revelation are two different things theologically speaking, and the citation provided supported exactly what I said. Claiming that “the reference source I used refutes my argument,” is a classic straw man substitute, for you clearly did not show by this quote that the cited passage on inspiration and revelation, “refuted my argument.”

Clearly, it refuted YOURS.

I thank my God through Jesus Christ, that I didn't wind up following a course that would have led me to any church with the low expectations of grace that you seem to profess as a member of whatever church it is where you hold membership.

Charles Wesley, the premier Methodist hymnist, catches the whole change of conversion better than anyone I can imagine. When I was in Bible college, we quite often sang in our chapel services one hymn in particular by him, which captures the essence of being "born again," and gives the praise to Christ in a manner like no other. Even the title, "And Can it Be?", shows the wonder of the convert at the amazing grace of our loving Savior. I've never forgotten the hymn, which is one which has unfortunately been preserved in very few Methodist traditions. The fourth verse always brought tears of thankfulness for the grace that freed me from my own personally-created dungeon:

And can it be that I should gain
An interest in the Savior’s blood?
Died He for me, who caused His pain—
For me, who Him to death pursued?
Amazing love! How can it be,
That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?
Amazing love! How can it be,
That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?


’Tis mystery all: th’Immortal dies:
Who can explore His strange design?
In vain the firstborn seraph tries
To sound the depths of love divine.
’Tis mercy all! Let earth adore,
Let angel minds inquire no more.
’Tis mercy all! Let earth adore;
Let angel minds inquire no more.


He left His Father’s throne above
So free, so infinite His grace—
Emptied Himself of all but love,
And bled for Adam’s helpless race:
’Tis mercy all, immense and free,
For O my God, it found out me!
’Tis mercy all, immense and free,
For O my God, it found out me!


Long my imprisoned spirit lay,
Fast bound in sin and nature’s night;
Thine eye diffused a quickening ray—
I woke, the dungeon flamed with light;
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.


Still the small inward voice I hear,
That whispers all my sins forgiven;
Still the atoning blood is near,
That quenched the wrath of hostile Heaven.
I feel the life His wounds impart;
I feel the Savior in my heart.
I feel the life His wounds impart;
I feel the Savior in my heart.


No condemnation now I dread;
Jesus, and all in Him, is mine;
Alive in Him, my living Head,
And clothed in righteousness divine,
Bold I approach th’eternal throne,
And claim the crown, through Christ my own.
Bold I approach th’eternal throne,
And claim the crown, through Christ my own.


"Clothed in righteousness DIVINE." That's been my position all along, you wrongly try to characterize all I have said as some kind of "self-effort" or "works." And Wesley understood this as the gracious result available for us after conversion as well, for the line "No condemnation now I dread" is from the first verse of Romans 8 after giving praise for the victory through Jesus Christ.

You have ignored it when I have posted my view on it:


Phil. 2:12-13 Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.

You somehow wrongly interpret any mention of purity to somehow be equated with the idea of human merit. You err in so doing, for nothing I have said even remotely suggests such a thing.

I'd suggest you either get some theological training, or drop the snide insinuendoes you raise about "seminary-trained," for you clearly have no grounds to be belittling anyone else's theology. I'm appalled at your last post.

 

[Jester4kicks]

Wayne, you sure you would rather just bang your head against a brick wall?

I think it would be more productive...



...and at this point, less painful. :lol:

 

[O.F.F.]

Wayne,

I'm not sure what you proclaim, but I do believe there is an opportunity for us to agree without being so disagreeable, especially if we mean the same thing, but fail to clarify our meaning. If ever we are on the same page, please just say so.

Perhaps that is one of the problems with trying to communicate via finite posts on the Internet, rather than a 'live' friendly discussion. I'd welcome that if you are open to it, by calling you directly so that we can discuss these issues further as gentlemen. Are you open to that suggestion?

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

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. But I am also aware even as I am “reminded” of these things, that there is much more to it than that:

You now have suddenly declared that it (purity) occurs AFTER coming to Christ, which I assume now that you mention it, is your, "much more to it than that." Am I correct?

The purification takes place AFTER we come to Christ.

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?

While we wait for your answer, please note that purification taking place AFTER we come to Christ, is precisely what I've declared all along:

Again, the purity of life you've listed from Scripture is ALL a post-salvation requirement, NOT a prerequisite to be saved in the first place.

But before now, every post you made prior to this last one has not stated, or even inferred, "purification taking place AFTER we come to Christ." Instead, you have clearly given the impression that "purity" is a prerequisite to salvation, with NO mention of Jesus Christ. Yet you seem to blame me for you not including it in any of your comments.

What part of this did you not understand. . .In Christianity, that purity involves both imputed and imparted righteousness. Imputed comes at justification, imparted comes by the process of sanctification.

I have no misunderstanding of the difference between imputed and imparted righteousness. I think my position on those terms were implied, to include the "AFTER coming to Christ" as a believer, when I said:

I do not refuse or deny the fact that purity must be evident in the life of a Christian.

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, or the imparted righteousness that comes by the process of sanctification by the Holy Spirit -- especially for those who REJECT Christ and any notion of a biblical Holy Spirit.

If the "purity" we're talking about, that gets a person to heaven, is that which takes place AFTER a person comes to Christ, then by your own admission coming to Christ is the PREREQUISITE for salvation, not purification. By NOT including this ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENT (coming to Christ), Freemasonry's Apron Lecture effectively says that "purity" comes from the individual Mason. Likewise, the Masonic Plumb-line, and Rough & Perfect Ashlars Lectures imply the same thing, which also do not include faith in Jesus Christ or the sanctification of the Holy Spirit to those who believe. As such, NO Christian should support such an organization through membership and monitary dues; because in doing so they demonstrate tacit approval of this non-biblical position.

Now, moving on to another comment you made:

I don’t know about you, but Jesus came and rescued me FROM my sins, not to leave me IN them. I gave up the drugs, I gave up the alcohol, I gave up the filthy lusts, I gave up the cigarettes, I gave up the idea that my life was mine to control. According to what YOU just said, apparently I should not have followed that call to LEAVE those things? What does the Bible say about this? From the same place you make your case about “all have sinned” (past tense) in Romans, Paul also gives us instructions as to what shall be our present reality AFTER we have been redeemed:

Romans 6:1-4 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Apparently, even though we are told we should “walk in newness of life,” you would have us believe we are to “stand still in oldness of life?”

No, I have not said, nor have I implied this in the least. 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? If so, how do you reconcile the following, from a source you deem credible?

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

The Bible does not teach that a person will become without sin in this life. The Apostle John wrote:

If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us . . . If we say we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us (1 John 1:8,10).

This letter, written to believers, makes it clear that we will never reach a sinless state in this life.

The Apostle Paul acknowledged that he had not reached a sinless state.

Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me. Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus (Philippians 3:12-14).

Be Like Him​

There will, however, be a time in the future when we are without sin. This will occurs when we see Jesus face to face.

Beloved, now we are the children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is (1 John 3:2).

Summary​

Before we are in His presence we will be sinners. No Christian should consider themself as having arrived. There is always new territory to conquer.

Blue Letter Bible, Will Anyone Get To The Place Where They Are Without Sin?

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:

What Happens When We Keep Repeating The Same Sin?​

One of the practical problems that we face is that we keep repeating the same sin. Many of us confess a particular sin and then shortly thereafter commit the same sin again. Does this mean our confession was not genuine? Not necessarily. In cases like this we need to realize that God in His grace has made provision for our repeated failures.

Continuous Confession​

In 1 John 1:9 the word translated is in what as known as a conditional sentence. It can be better translated

If and it is probably that you will have to. . .

Hence the text assumes that we will have to keep on confessing. 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. God has provided this remedy because He is aware of our human weaknesses.

Confession looks backward to what we have done. It takes care of past sins already committed. It is primarily curative of something that has happened. It does not, in and of itself, give power for us to overcome temptation next time it hits.

Summary​

When we continue to repeat a sin (be they sinful thoughts, words or action) we must continue to confess that sin. 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. (emphasis added)

Blue Letter Bible, What Happens When We Keep Repeating The Same Sin?

 

[Rev Wayne]

If ever we are on the same page, please just say so.

Well, it just so happens, that right at this very moment we both appear to be on page 20.