Can a Christian be a Freemason???

[Jester4kicks]

Hi, NavyGuy7.

Not at all out of context. Some folks just like to find any excuse and opportunity to ridicule Christians.

Where did anyone ridicule him?

Matthew 6:24: No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

From 'David Guzik's Commentaries on the Bible': "Jesus states that serving two masters is a simple impossibility. If you think that you are successfully serving two masters, you are deceived. It can't be done. As ancient Israel struggled with idolatry, they thought they could worship the Lord God and Baal. God constantly reminded them that to worship Baal was to forsake the Lord God. To be loyal to the one is to despise the other."

It certainly applies where Freemasonry is concerned. We either serve the True and Living God who is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; or we serve the conglomerated mess Masonry refers to as its "Great Architect Of The Universe", which it says is anything and everything anybody wants to call it.

First, masonry is not focused on serving god.
Second, as it has already been explained, the concept of the grand architect is not meant to imply anything. It is simply used as a means for all masons to have reverence and faith in their own beliefs, without excluding anyone. Presumably, if a christian prays in a lodge, they are praying to the christian god (holy trinity, whatever their particular belief may be)... while at the exact same time, a muslim could be praying to his god. If both men stayed in that lodge, and reference was made to the grand architect, each man would probably think of their own god, according to their own faith.

The grand architect is more of a concept than a pronoun, more of a symbol than a specific reference to any particular faith.

You are correct in the attitudes that a couple of folks here have exhibited toward you. What they lack in civility, they seem to make up for in arrogance.

Um... might want to keep reading there... even he realized he was coming across as a little harsh. Good to see you're as good at paying attention to detail around here as you are when reading masonic materials.

Thanks for the info, Jester:
'The Colorado Craftsman or Masonic Monitor': "The lamb has been deemed in all ages an emblem of innocence. He, therefore, who wears the lambskin as a badge of Masonry, is constantly reminded of that purity of life and conduct which is so essentially necessary to his gaining admission into the Celestial Lodge above, over which the Supreme Architect of the Universe presides."

There goes that term them pesky ritualists seem to be hung up on again, even in Colorado, huh?

Yup, there's that term... what of it? Please refer back to post # 79.

 

[NavyGuy7]

Where did anyone ridicule him?

I think it was a misunderstanding on my part. Just ignore it.

First, masonry is not focused on serving god.

Exactly.

Second, as it has already been explained, the concept of the grand architect is not meant to imply anything. It is simply used as a means for all masons to have reverence and faith in their own beliefs, without excluding anyone. Presumably, if a christian prays in a lodge, they are praying to the christian god (holy trinity, whatever their particular belief may be)... while at the exact same time, a muslim could be praying to his god. If both men stayed in that lodge, and reference was made to the grand architect, each man would probably think of their own god, according to their own faith.

Yah... that just seems a little off to me, sorry.

The grand architect is more of a concept than a pronoun, more of a symbol than a specific reference to any particular faith.

And therein lies the danger... maybe. I dunno for certain, but it DID sound cool... what I mean basically is it ssems "off" to me. But I didn't wanna repeat myself, lol.

Um... might want to keep reading there... even he realized he was coming across as a little harsh. Good to see you're as good at paying attention to detail around here as you are when reading masonic materials.

Ah, so that's what I perceived. Never know with text though.

 

[Jester4kicks]

Exactly.

That's not to say that reverence for god isn't an important part of masonry, it just isn't the sole focus. Good values, strong character, charity, friendship, brotherly love... these are all at the heart of masonry. The common reverence for god is just an element that all masons share.

Yah... that just seems a little off to me, sorry.

Let me ask you this... when you're in a large group, and you saying the pledge of allegiance... do you really think every single person in that group thinks of the exact same religious tenets and beliefs when they say "under god"? Does that make the pledge any less significant? Does it make you feel any different just because the guy next to you might say "god" and think of an image of god that is different than the one you think of when you say that same line?

I hope the answer is a simple "of course not".... well it's the same thing with freemasonry. Now do you understand?

And therein lies the danger... maybe. I dunno for certain, but it DID sound cool... what I mean basically is it ssems "off" to me. But I didn't wanna repeat myself, lol.

I wouldn't say "danger", I would say therein lies the ability for all masons to meet each other on the same level, as equals, with mutual respect for the values they share, and tolerance towards the values they might differ on.

 

[O.F.F.]

How could a genuine Christian go into a Masonic Lodge seeking light and truth, when that can only be found in Christ, "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6)? Jesus said of Himself, "I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in the darkness, but have the light of life." (John 8:12).

Only those who are in Christ are in the kingdom of light and are children of light. So those of you who claim to be genuine Christians, yet are members of a Masonic Lodge, need to come out from among that which claims to have what only Jesus Christ can give.

The following link is to an article with the same title as this thread. May the Holy Spirit use it to convict the hearts of discerning saints who are considering the idea to become a Mason as well as those who remain in the Lodge.


CAN A CHRISTIAN BE A MASON? By David J. Riggs

 

[Jester4kicks]

How could a genuine Christian go into a Masonic Lodge seeking light and truth, when that can only be found in Christ, "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6)? Jesus said of Himself, "I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in the darkness, but have the light of life." (John 8:12).

You seem to be forgetting that masonic "light" is knowledge. You might as well say that people should not go to college.

Only those who are in Christ are in the kingdom of light and are children of light. So those of you who claim to be genuine Christians, yet are members of a Masonic Lodge, need to come out from among that which claims to have what only Jesus Christ can give.

Freemasonry makes no such claim, you're just mixing usages of the term "light".

The following link is to an article with the same title as this thread. May the Holy Spirit use it to convict the hearts of discerning saints who are considering the idea to become a Mason as well as those who remain in the Lodge.


CAN A CHRISTIAN BE A MASON? By David J. Riggs

There are SO many things wrong with that article. One of the most interesting things I noticed was that they made several references regarding freemasonry being a religious institution... but the only place they found anyone saying it was actually a religion, was in Albert Pike's writings. We've already addressed Pike's works several times, do we really need to go there again?

And before you jump all over the term "religious" versus "religion", consider this:

Across the nation, there are seminary schools (or are they called ministry colleges now?) where students go learn to become minister's, etc... certainly, these schools would be considered "religious", but are those schools, themselves, their own "religion"? Of course not. Just because something is religious in nature, it does not make it a religion.

 

[NavyGuy7]

Then if masonic "light" is knowledge, why refer to it as "light" in the first place, eh?

 

[Jester4kicks]

Then if masonic "light" is knowledge, why refer to it as "light" in the first place, eh?

I dunno... it sounds cooler?



It could have been taken from the term "enlightenment". Or it could have any number of other origins.

In both masonry, and religion, the term "light" seems to be more of a metaphor than anything else... unless jesus was saying that he was literally a candle. I dunno, maybe that's what he meant... it would certainly make every owner of a wax-museum a lot happier.

 

[NavyGuy7]

I dunno... it sounds cooler?



It could have been taken from the term "enlightenment". Or it could have any number of other origins.

Yes, including some of the less favorable origins...

In both masonry, and religion, the term "light" seems to be more of a metaphor than anything else... unless jesus was saying that he was literally a candle. I dunno, maybe that's what he meant... it would certainly make every owner of a wax-museum a lot happier.

Yah... hrm... I don't get that one, unless yer being sarcastic about the whole "happy" thing. Uh...oh...... duh.... candles are made of wax, aren't they.

 

[Jester4kicks]

Yes, including some of the less favorable origins...

Go back far enough in history, and you'll find metaphors and usages of terms in all sorts different contexts.

Yah... hrm... I don't get that one, unless yer being sarcastic about the whole "happy" thing. Uh...oh...... duh.... candles are made of wax, aren't they.

I made ya work for it... but it was worth it.

 

[NavyGuy7]

Yup, I guess so....

 

[Jester4kicks]

Yup, I guess so....

Don't worry, we'll eventually rekindle that sense of humor that the navy burned out of you.

 

[izarya]

How could a genuine Christian go into a Masonic Lodge seeking light and truth, when that can only be found in Christ, "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6)? Jesus said of Himself, "I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in the darkness, but have the light of life." (John 8:12).

Only those who are in Christ are in the kingdom of light and are children of light. So those of you who claim to be genuine Christians, yet are members of a Masonic Lodge, need to come out from among that which claims to have what only Jesus Christ can give.

I know many Christians in whom there is no light to be found at all.

 

[Texas Lynn]

I dunno... it sounds cooler?



It could have been taken from the term "enlightenment". Or it could have any number of other origins.

In both masonry, and religion, the term "light" seems to be more of a metaphor than anything else...

The 18th Century, in which the modern Lodges in Europe and America emerged, is called "The Age of Enlightenment". That such masonic figures as George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Marquis de LaFayette etc. are considered as leading lights of The Enlightenment, it is not unusual to consider that "Light" as a metaphor for "knowledge" would have been employed.

The Enlightenment was the period in which the rights of the individual were theorized to have come from "Nature and Nature's God" in John Locke's phrase. Once on this board in a dialogue with a Calvinist fellow he expressed surprise I (and most who consider it) considered the Enlightenment Period more important than the Reformation. I told him for me the choice was easy: the latter was concerned with control of the individual by authority, and the former was a rejection of such authority. In Jefferson's (not a mason) credo, he stated "I have sworn upon the Altar of Almighty God eternal hostility toward every form of control over the mind of man." No phrase I know of better describes the Enlightment ideal, or, if you will, the masonic ideal.

We certainly see it in these debates on this topic: masons and masonic sympathizers support the freedom of the individual and antimasons seek to control the individual.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Go back far enough in history, and you'll find metaphors and usages of terms in all sorts different contexts.

Indeed, much of the Bible is metaphorical in nature.

 

[NavyGuy7]

Don't worry, we'll eventually rekindle that sense of humor that the navy burned out of you.

You're implying the Navy could possibly do that. I'm made of stronger stuff than that, sheesh. Give me credit. *rolls eyes, as there is no 'rolls eyes' smilie, and he wishes there were one, and maybe one of a Cookie Monster type thing.... ).
Just because I don't get one joke at first doesn't mean I don't have a sense of humor.

 

[NavyGuy7]

Indeed, much of the Bible is metaphorical in nature.

I take certain things literally, when like it says stuff about burning mountains falling into the ocean (asteroid/meteor?) or like when it says an earthquake will happen (not really metaphorical, really. It's too literal.)

 

[Texas Lynn]

I take certain things literally, when like it says stuff about burning mountains falling into the ocean (asteroid/meteor?) or like when it says an earthquake will happen (not really metaphorical, really. It's too literal.)

I'm not familiar with those particular tales so I couldn't really comment on them.

The Leviathan, a mythical sea monster, is mentioned in Isaiah 40 but not specifically as a real sighting; in the 15th Century Thomas Hobbes titled a book Leviathan using the sea moster (or possibly a whale) as a metaphor for government.

 

[Rev Wayne]

The idea your facts are "indisputable" is merely an arrogant statement of opinion.

Good point, and a reminder of an earlier comment that was made:

I tend to be a tad suspicious when somebody begins with, "It appears that", which means "I don't have the slightest clue, but for my own purposes, maybe this will sail."

What you view negatively, many others view as the most positive manner in which to engage in dialogue. Benjamin Franklin, for instance, in attempting to put away what he saw as “pride in conversation,” and put on humility, wrote these words:

I made it a Rule to forbear all direct Contradiction to the Sentiments of others, and all positive Assertion of my own. I even forbid myself agreable to the old Laws of our Junto, the Use of every Word or Expression in the Language that imported a fix’d Opinion; such as certainly, undoubtedly, &c. and I adopted instead of them, I conceive, I apprehend, or I imagine a thing to be so or so, or it so appears to me at present. When another asserted something, that I thought an Error, I deny’d my self the Pleasure of contradicting him abruptly, and of showing immediately some Absurdity in his Proposition; and in answering I began by observing that in certain Cases or Circumstances his Opinion would be right, but that in the present case there appear’d or seem’d to me some Difference, &c. I soon found the Advantage of this Change in my Manners. The Conversations I engag’d in went on more pleasantly. The modest way in which I propos’d my Opinions, procur’d them a readier Reception and less Contradiction; I had less Mortification when I was found to be in the wrong, and I more easily prevail’d with others to give up their Mistakes and join with me when I happen’d to be in the right. (Autobiography, Part 10)

It seems to me he makes some very pertinent observations on this point. I have found his conclusions in the last line to be very true: less mortification when wrong, more persuasiveness with others when right. Only a dogmatist could object.

COMMENTS FROM ELSEWHERE THROUGHOUT THE THREAD, WITH SOME RESPONSE:

Somewhat of a shame, actually, that the only two people who responded to your mentioning of Bill Schnoebelen's book opted for character assassination in lieu of discussing the contents of the book in regard to Freemasonry and its incompatibility with the Christian faith

Interesting thing about character assassination is that it is so very often the weapon of choice for those who attempt to defend that which is indefensible. The ploy is, "If you do not like the message, kill the messenger.".

It is not character assassination to point out when a source is less than credible and/or unreliable; in fact, it is good practice to check out ANY source on ANY matter on internet forums. Jack Chick should need no comment--most anti-masonic sources who are interested in maintaining even a minimum of credibility, have already steered clear of his publications. Bill Schnoebelen's claims of Masonic status have been shown to be false. There are many accusers who have used the same tactic in an effort to create a thin veneer of appearing knowledgeable. For me, reading his claims of alien abductions by Freemasons was enough to know he was not to be taken seriously.

Any honest Christian can look at that teaching and immediately see that Freemasonry, in establishing that which it claims to be "essentially necessary", for gaining admission into heaven (salvation) has totally ignored the acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and has instead, supplanted His authority with the candidate's own works.

It actually says nothing at all about “works,” that is an incorrect read of what is said. And “purity of life” is an expression that Masonry borrowed from Christianity, as is “rectitude of conduct.” Both the phrases were very much in vogue in Christian expression before and during the same time frame in which the rituals were first put in place. The necessity of “purity of life” in regards to salvation, has a solid foundation in Scripture, the most direct statements on it being found in Psa. 24, Heb. 12:14, and Rev. 21:27. So even though Masonry does not directly address any theological concept of “how do we get to heaven” in the wording of the apron lecture, your objection is irrelevant. Why? Because the point to which you object is a solid plank in Christian theology.

Please be assured that many of us in this country are thankful for your service in the military; please also be assured that many of us DO NOT question your ability to be both a Christian and a member of our fighting forces.

As an institution it does not acknowledge the exclusivity of the God of the Bible (Father, Son and Holy Spirit).

Neither did my high-school book club... I suppose that means it's off limits?

The analogies are understandable; however, there is another one which is much closer in its similarities—the Boy Scouts. Boy Scouts require belief in “a Supreme Being,” without designating who that shall be; they take an oath; the twelve Scout Laws inculcate moral teaching, etc. etc.

 

[O.F.F.]

What you view negatively, many others view as the most positive manner in which to engage in dialogue. Benjamin Franklin, for instance, in attempting to put away what he saw as “pride in conversation,” and put on humility. . .

Kinda like the example of humility put on by a so-called pastor when confronting about whether or not he lives up to the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19) by witnessing to non-Christian Masons (particularly with one before he recently died), and he responded with "it's none of your damn business," right?

The necessity of “purity of life” in regards to salvation, has a solid foundation in Scripture. . .

So you are saying that “purity of life” is a REQUIREMENT for salvation, right pastor?

A biblically educated Christian who knows God's Word, knows that faith in Jesus Christ and His finished work on Calvary is the only requirement for salvation (Ephesians 2:8-9). For they know that if a pure life of ones own were a requirement for salvation, then no one could be saved, since all of sinned and fall short of such a strict requirement (Romans 3:23).

However, they also know that the “purity of life” the Bible is talking about is the righteousness from God that comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe (Romans 3:21-22). For they know that God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in Christ we might become the righteousness of God (2 Corinthians 5:21). But is this what is meant by the "purity" found in the Masonic Apron lecture? As was pointed out earlier, no it is NOT!

The Apron is at once the emblem of purity and the badge of a Mason. By purity is meant blamelessness, 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)

Freemasonry does not speak about "purity" from God that comes through faith in Jesus Christ, but instead a self-serving loyalty and obedience to the laws of the Craft (Freemasonry) and sincere good will to fellow Masons (the Brethren).

 

[Rev Wayne]

Kinda like the example of humility put on by a so-called pastor when confronting about whether or not he lives up to the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19) by witnessing to non-Christian Masons (particularly with one before he recently died), and he responded with "it's none of your damn business," right?

Hey Duane, you wanna see an attempted CHARACTER ASSASSINATION? Mike just showed you what one REALLY looks like.

I have much I'd like to say in response to some of the other comments in your post, but before I do, I want to deal with your continued character assassination attempts on me, once and for, in this separate post.

As for my remarks elsewhere, what relevance does that have here, other than to serve as a weapon in your assassination arsenal? Besides, have you totally forgotten about CONTEXT??

Readers, if you really would like to know what prompted such a response, consider: A man recently died, and obviously his family has been in touch with the forum board where he was an administrator, and where many kind notices were posted to his wife and family.

Suddenly, with no provocation whatsoever, Mike, professing "Christianity," comes on the forum, makes thinly-veiled--no, make that NON-veiled, comments suggesting the man is in hell; and when he saw that I had mentioned elsewhere on the forum that the deceased had been in private communication with me by email, asking some genuinely seeking questions about Christian faith, Mike had the gall to suggest that I break every commitment I have made concerning the respecting of confidentiality of those who come to me, by discussing the content of those conversations with HIM!!!

My concerns were:

(1) Why would anyone post such nasty allegations in a place where a grieving widow is almost CERTAIN to see them???

(2) Why would anyone try to pry into private communications between a pastor and someone coming to him privately as a seeker???

(3) Why would anyone ask a pastor who is bound to confidentiality to break that trust merely because of someone's mere idle curiosity???

I would pose to the readers, do you consider these actions the actions of a true, committed Christian?

Besides, on the matter of context again, I totally explained the reason for the remark, and it was not just an idle, flippant use of the phrase, but was a simple re-use of an approach taken by a pastor in our conference from his pulpit. I can't imagine anyone here is remotely interested in following up on Mike's spiel, but for the record, you can find the story behind this entire idiotic assassination attempt on me here, my post entered Fri. @ 12:53:

A Bit O.F.F. Center

As you can see by the title of the thread, they weren't exactly too thrilled by Mike's disrespect of a dead man and his grieving widow.

As for my own answer to the question posed, I have a hard time reconciling this with Christian faith, for the following reasons:

(1) I’ve never seen anyone at all who would have the audacity to walk into a funeral home and in front of a deceased man’s family, start loudly proclaiming the man is in hell. Granted, that's not what he did, but on a forum thread dedicated to posting kind remarks intended for a grieving widow and family, it amounts to the same thing, because it would have the same effect.

In his defense, if that is even remotely possible, perhaps Mike felt he had some kind of anonymity due to internet, or perhaps the internet by its very nature shielded him from the recognition of the reality of what he was doing. The admin of that forum, being kind enough not to ban him summarily, at least had the decency to do the right thing as a first response, and move the remarks to some other place besides a collection of notices intended as remarks of comfort for his family.

(2) I find no way to reconcile this with the standard raised in recent years of “What would Jesus do?” Somehow, slam-dunking a man into hell, and then using the situation as cannon fodder for assassination attempts on a Christian minister, just do not seem like the actions our Savior would condone.

(3) Mike’s response to the language was exactly the reaction that I sought. It's the purpose of the illustrative tool I used, and it is designed to produce the natural response that came. Had he not responded as expected, then the use of it would have missed its purpose. It was not an angry explosion of profanity as Mike would have you believe, but a very common tool often used in my profession as an attention-grabber.

Of COURSE a Christian reading it might respond in immediate objection, that’s the way it’s DESIGNED. I gave one illustration of it after getting the response and explaining it. I offer another example of it here:

Tell the Church to Go to Hell
And another one here:

Go to Hell


Pastors have been using that kind of attention-getter when dealing with the more hardened of heart, for as long as there have been sermons. It is modeled after the example of Nathan the prophet, who came to King David with a story about a man doing horrible things to another, knowing that David will immediately respond with righteous indignation--but knowing also, that the intent is to use the outrage that David feels to turn it on its head and re-direct it back at David, so that he feels the full brunt of what he has done.

Apparently, though, Mike will still attempt to justify his offensive responses to this man's family any way he can.

I do beg the forgiveness of the readers here on this forum, for having to endure what should have been a matter between the two of us alone. Bringing a personal response to a personal insult into a public forum is not the approach I would have chosen, but Mike made it necessary when he publicly insulted the grieving family of a man recently deceased.

Nor would it have been my approach to bring all of that garbage from the forum where Mike spawned it, to this forum unnecessarily. But apparently, far from having any shame over his actions, he chooses the path of further embarrassment by spreading it elsewhere.

As for my part, dredging up the incident and using it here to smear Mike is not what I would have chosen, and even now, smearing him is not my intent at all. I am simply defending myself against his smear campaign, which he uses as a smokescreen to hide the unspeakably insulting manner in which he chose to "witness" to the grieving.


So what will it be now, Mike? Drop the matter, or continue the bluster? Will you go the route of trying to publish my specific physical address here as you did there, for all the world to see? Will you make threats about coming down to my house in person, as you did on the other forum? I mean, where do your insults find respite?

(Good luck finding the place if you DO come, by the way. The street listed as my physical address does not exist. A repairman trying to find the house drove past it 4 or 5 times, I finally had to stand up on the main road, guide him by cell phone, and wave my hand when he came by.)

Response to your other comments is forthcoming in a separate post.