• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Can a Christian be a Freemason???

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sphinx777

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2007
6,327
972
Bibliotheca Alexandrina
✟10,752.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
This has been a most "enlightening" discussion and debate... both of you have helped keep this thread alive longer than I would have expected... your knowledge and insight concerning all things esoteric is much appreciated... thank you, all of you who have participated so far...




 
Upvote 0

izarya

Theurgist Extraordinaire
Sep 14, 2005
1,559
182
Oregon
Visit site
✟2,655.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I just have to wonder.... If I am an actual initiate of the Mysteries and according to you I do not fully understand or am not "high up" enough to know the TRUE nature of the mysteries, then how do you suppose that you, an outsider knows more about the TRUE nature and agenda of something that is soooo secret that it hides the truth about itself from its own members... yet you found this information on the internet....Hmmmmm very stealth indeed.

Maybe the truth is that you don't know half of what you think you know, eh?

Besides, there are more divisions in occultism than there are denominations within Christianity. The beliefs you speak of slightly resemble those of a sect within Gnosticism, but by no means does it represent occultism (or gnosticism for that matter) as a whole.

There are bodies and groups who do not even believe in the biblical account at all, let alone the Christian paradigm. There are some that deal with chaos and transyuggothian philosophies etc.

FYI, most of the stuff that groups post on the net are called 'blinds,' but I'm sure you know that.
 
Upvote 0

SealedEternal

Regular Member
Jul 23, 2007
375
17
Milwaukee, WI
Visit site
✟586.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

As you know, most of the occult is hidden in plain site. It's only a matter of having eyes to see it and ears to hear it. Isn't that what esoteric knowledge is all about? I suspect you do understand more than you are letting on in this discussion, but then isn't that how the occult works as well? If you guys just started blabbing everything you knew on the worldwide web, their would be no secret knowledge and your whole existence would become moot. It's only by cleverly concealing what you know that your knowledge holds any power, so by nature you must be evasive and either lie or feign ignorance.

SealedEternal
 
Upvote 0

izarya

Theurgist Extraordinaire
Sep 14, 2005
1,559
182
Oregon
Visit site
✟2,655.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
You keep thrying to speak as if you know me; That's not my approach, I try to inform those who actually want to know so long as they aren't going to try to do something dangerous. The problem is that most people get in their own way, they are so convinced that they 'know something' that they can't accept anything else, or another angle.

There is nothing on earth that can moot my existence as you put it.
 
Reactions: Sphinx777
Upvote 0

Rev Wayne

Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity
Sep 16, 2003
4,128
101
72
SC
Visit site
✟21,040.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The individual opinions of 5 Masons (including yourself) do not mean anything

A couple of posts ago it all had to do with the attempt to back me into a corner over a point that was more accusation than it was question. My point with the quote of the four men I cited was NOT “Masonry is Christian,” or whatever it is you’re trying to read into my answer. I was responding to your claim of non-witness, remember???

My response was saying, this is where I have continually stood, and I have been consistent with the position in all forums, whether it be at the Ephesians 5-11 Mason-gangbangers’ site, or here, or at the old MOM or lodgeroom sites, or the current Lodgeroom-US site. So much for your claims of non-witness to Masons, they all know where I stand, and so do you, you are simply being disingenuous, on the assumption that no one will know any better.

And how forgetful of you to think the opinions of the four I cited would mean nothing at all to the overwhelming majority of Christians who happen to be of Christian faith!

What matters is what they teach, not what any Mason thinks.

Of course! Hence the Mackey quote:

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


And Wilmshurst, though I did not include this comment in the earlier quote, actually says the same thing also:

To clear vision, Christian and Masonic doctrine are identical in intention though different in method. The one says "Via Crucis"; the other "Via Lucis"; yet the two ways are but one way. The former
teaches through the ear; the latter through the eye


I think you forget too, that George Oliver has been called by many, the most knowledgeable about Masonry among any who ever lived. Not surprising that he addresses what Masonry teaches as well:

This is a lesson which Freemasonry
 
Reactions: Sphinx777
Upvote 0

Rev Wayne

Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity
Sep 16, 2003
4,128
101
72
SC
Visit site
✟21,040.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So you are saying that “purity of life” is a REQUIREMENT for salvation, right pastor?
Psalm 24:3-4:

3 Who may ascend the hill of the LORD ?
Who may stand in his holy place?
4 He who has clean hands and a pure heart,
who does not lift up his soul to an idol
or swear by what is false.

Hebrews 12:14:

14 Make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord.

Rev. 21:27:

27 Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life.

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; . .
Well, that’s ONE lodge’s definition. Let’s take a look at what they WERE saying:

By “obedience to the laws of the Craft” was meant, the basic rules of procedure and conduct to be followed in Masonic meetings. The EA, for example, is restricted to a greater degree than other degrees, and must become familiar with these in order to “be in obedience to the laws of the Craft.” For instance, the EA is not yet a member, has no voice and no vote, cannot hold office, is not subject to dues, not entitled to Masonic burial, cannot walk in public proceedings, may not visit another lodge without the approval of his own W.M., and cannot be examined for visitation purposes. Since no moral or spiritual laws were intended by the statement, the comparison to any supposed ideas of “salvation” or “the way to heaven” is invalid.

That leaves us with the other two parts of this particular statement, concerning “blamelessness” and “sincere good will to the brethren.” I see no conflict with Christian teaching in showing “sincere good will” to anyone; nor, for that matter, have I ever seen any accusations against the Lodge that were predicated upon such a statement. Therefore, I must assume that no one should have a problem with this one, and turn to the third part, “blamelessness.”

In discussing this matter as regards Masonry, we are dealing with rituals that were written (in some cases) centuries ago, and have been in place in Masonry relatively unchanged since then. This well-established fact, coupled with the semantic shift that has strengthened the meaning of “purity” to its current ideas of absolute purity, suggests that in defining Masonry’s use of the word, we must look to the point of its origination, if possible. Those who accuse Masonry in relation to statements regarding purity, who do so based on absolute concepts of human efforts to attain purity, do so on a false basis, as this could never have been what Masonry intended by it. Such restrictive meanings came about much later than the time during which the Masonic usage was adopted. Masonry’s continued inclusion of the wording has been done by tradition and a bent toward preservation; for the true meaning of the words, we must trace them, and the rituals in which they appear, to their origins in Masonry.

Taking this approach is further supported by taking a look at the two separate instances in which the mention of purity has been cited in Masonry. The one which I have so far made remark upon, is a relatively new innovation in Masonry, one which I have not located anywhere in Masonry before its appearance in the LSME booklets. As shown from the article about the LSME origins, that could not be any earlier than 1932. By contrast, the Lambskin Apron lecture may be traced in Masonry at least as far back as Webb’s Monitor of 1817. It appears there in the following form:


The same may be found also in Samuel Coles’ Ahiman Rezon of 1817, Kentucky’s Masonic Constitutions (1818), Bradley’s Some of the Beauties of Freemasonry (1816), Parmele’s Masonic Mirror (1825), Hardie’s New Freemason’s Monitor (1818), Oliver’s Historical Landmarks (1846), and Jeremy Cross’s True Masonic Chart (1826). Thus the appearance and initial use of this particular lecture during that general time frame, is well established.

Hardie’s Monitor has a significant component in its wording:


When I have cited this monitor in the past, someone has always scoffed about the accuracy, or about it perhaps being obscure, or being otherwise non-representative of Masonry. But there are many sources that bear this out, both old and new. Since the older versions are the key focus here, representing the lecture in its original appearance in Masonry, let us examine some older sources where its meaning is fleshed out, and see exactly what Masonry was saying about the apron at that point.

First, from “White,” Mackey’s Encyclopedia:


It is significant that Mackey presents a biblical foundation for the symbolism of the color white. It is even more significant for our discussion here, that in the same context he discusses the practice of the ceremonial adorning of persons with a white garment, making specific reference to the early Christian practice. It is this same Christian practice to which he alludes in the Apron lecture, establishing the intent of the lecture; for, as he says in his Encyclopedia, the same symbolism applies as is found in the practices found in so many other places, that the white represents purity.

But let’s look at another source that fleshes this out even more directly and in great detail:


Hardie, then, is not the only one who takes the Lambskin Apron into discussion of “the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world.” But there is far more:

 
Reactions: Sphinx777
Upvote 0

O.F.F.

An Ex-Mason for Jesus
Jan 22, 2004
1,422
49
USA
Visit site
✟16,848.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"Rev" Wayne,

You are attempting to deceive the readers by quoting the PERSONAL OPINIONS of Masonic authors that have written books that support YOUR PERSONAL OPINION about Freemasonry, rather than what Masonic authorities (Grand Lodges), who dictate Masonic teaching, have to say.

In other words, none of what you quote comes from any Grand Lodge source, but from Masonic writers that support your deluded thinking, rendering it irrelevant and null and void. In contrast, what I provided in my last post (http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=47288506&postcount=151) was what the institution of Freemasonry actually teaches vs. a figment of your deluded imagination.

And, to prove my point, you cannot cite one Grand Lodge source within the U.S. that supports your claims. Because if you could, you would. But since you can't, you won't. Deceive the gullable readers here to which you prey upon pseudo-pastor, as long as Satan leads you to do so, but discerning Christians recognize your efforts are from the pit of HELL.
 
Upvote 0

Rev Wayne

Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity
Sep 16, 2003
4,128
101
72
SC
Visit site
✟21,040.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married


Paton says the same things here that I and others have been saying about this passage all along. He even references the same biblical points, from Psa. 24, and from the words of Jesus about the heart as the source of purity, and from the analogy Jesus used about making both the tree and the fruit good. To these he adds references to James and the fountain with bitter and sweet water, and to Paul’s words in Phil. 4:8. To these I can only add the words of Heb. 12:14, which tells us of the necessity of purity as a part of the Christian walk, in declaring that “without holiness, no one will see the Lord.” It cannot be denied that Heb. 12:14 is one of the clearest indications we have from Scripture that purity is essential to our salvation. But there is another as well, in Rev. 21:27, where John wrote of the New Jerusalem, or heaven:

“Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life.”


If “nothing impure will ever enter it,” then what does that say about the necessity of purity for entrance?? How can you suggest it is Unnecessary when the Bible clearly says it is NECESSARY? How can you claim it has nothing to do with one’s actions, when Revelation 21:27 clearly speaks of “anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful” as the basis for it?

As I stated already, Masons borrowed the phrase “purity of life” from Christian theology. A few illustrations might be helpful:

He [Jeremy Taylor] was aware, that purity of heart and thought, could alone produce purity of life and conduct, grace for being gradually produced. (The Works of Hannah More, p. 185)






Gee, I would have thought you would be familiar with the one about “walk in the light, and have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of
darkness
.” Isn’t that from Ephesians? How have you quoted this verse so often and never seen its connection with “purity of life?”



Hey, you should recognize that one, too. Don’t you have a member of your organization, “Offensive Former Freemasons,” who is a member of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church? Maybe you should kick him out if he sounds so much like a Mason. I mean, after all, where in that statement does the man even once mention Christ?



I’d say an expression used by the church, which goes all the way back to John Bunyan and Jeremy Taylor, is one that has been pretty well established for quite some time now. But as a doctrine, Schaaf even points it as far back as the early church fathers. Not surprising, after all, since it IS scriptural.
 
Upvote 0

Rev Wayne

Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity
Sep 16, 2003
4,128
101
72
SC
Visit site
✟21,040.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married


Paton says the same things here that I and others have been saying about this passage all along. He even references the same biblical points, from Psa. 24, and from the words of Jesus about the heart as the source of purity, and from the analogy Jesus used about making both the tree and the fruit good. To these he adds references to James and the fountain with bitter and sweet water, and to Paul’s words in Phil. 4:8. To these I can only add the words of Heb. 12:14, which tells us of the necessity of purity as a part of the Christian walk, in declaring that “without holiness, no one will see the Lord.” It cannot be denied that Heb. 12:14 is one of the clearest indications we have from Scripture that purity is essential to our salvation. But there is another as well, in Rev. 21:27, where John wrote of the New Jerusalem, or heaven:

“Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life.”


If “nothing impure will ever enter it,” then what does that say about the necessity of purity for entrance?? How can you suggest it is Unnecessary when the Bible clearly says it is NECESSARY? How can you claim it has nothing to do with one’s actions, when Revelation 21:27 clearly speaks of “anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful” as the basis for it?

As I stated already, Masons borrowed the phrase “purity of life” from Christian theology. A few illustrations might be helpful:

He [Jeremy Taylor] was aware, that purity of heart and thought, could alone produce purity of life and conduct, grace for being gradually produced. (The Works of Hannah More, p. 185)







Gee, I would have thought you would be familiar with the one about “walk in the light, and have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of
darkness
.” Isn’t that from Ephesians? How have you quoted this verse so often and never seen its connection with “purity of life?”


I have remained and still remain of the same Presbytery. And although I have always enjoyed a full and free opportunity of being useful, (with one very serious exception,) I know myself to have been an unprofitable servant; have had my discouragements, darkness and doubts, and am less than the least of saints, and not worthy to be called a minister. Yet, by the grace of God, I am what I am. And by his grace I hope at last to finish my course and gain admission into that 'Temple not made with hands, eternal in heaven.' (Hamilton Woods, in "The Cumberland Presbyterian Church," The Presbyterian Historical Almanac and Annual Remembrancer of the Church, Vol. VIII, 1866, p. 306)
Hey, you should recognize that one, too. Don’t you have a member of your organization, “Offensive Former Freemasons,” who is a member of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church? Maybe you should kick him out if he sounds so much like a Mason. I mean, after all, where in that statement does the man even once mention Christ?


I’d say an expression used by the church, which goes all the way back to John Bunyan and Jeremy Taylor, is one that has been pretty well established for quite some time now. But as a doctrine, Schaaf even points it as far back as the early church fathers. Not surprising, after all, since it IS scriptural.
 
Upvote 0

O.F.F.

An Ex-Mason for Jesus
Jan 22, 2004
1,422
49
USA
Visit site
✟16,848.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

So by quoting these passages, and a few supporting commentaries, are you saying that YOU have "clean hands," a "pure heart," and are "holy" pseudo-pastor? In other words, are you suggesting YOU are without sin? If not, and you know the Bible says that ALL have sinned and fall short of God's glory, then how do YOU expect to gain admission into heaven, since YOU insist its a REQUIREMENT?


If you cannot quote a CURRENT Masonic source (1945 or later), then you are not only trying to deceive gullible readers here, you are deceiving YOURSELF. Show us this information in your CURRENT ritual of South Carolina. And, if you can't find it there, provide it from the CURRENT ritual of another U.S. Grand Lodge.

Otherwise, STOP WASTING OUR TIME with outdated, OBSOLETE information that NO Grand Lodge on the planet currently uses!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Rev Wayne

Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity
Sep 16, 2003
4,128
101
72
SC
Visit site
✟21,040.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Since we're talking about symbolic interpretation, Grand Lodges do not "dictate" it at all. Interpretation is up to the individual, and I shared what some prominent Masonic individuals have shared by way of interpretation.

And, to prove my point, you cannot cite one Grand Lodge source within the U.S. that supports your claims.
I take it your addition of "within the U.S." was intentionally designed to remove from consideration the Grand Lodge of Sweden, which requires Christian faith as a prerequisite for membership.

You're just tossing insistences out here so you can attempt to steerthe debate in your desired re-frame. We have been discussing Masonic interpretation, which is not one-size-fits-all as you attempt to make it, nor is it subject to Grand Lodge edict. You yourself should know, after all, you're the one who is fond of citing the obscure versions and pretending they are representative of the whole.


I'll do you one better. Here's what your buddy Duane Washum posted, #100, and the statement is a carbon copy of the one I was addressing:


The only difference in this one is the word "so" which was not in the one I posted and made that comment about. That's a difference not worth mentioning, since the "so" in "so essentially necessary" is superfluous, there being in actuality no discernible degree of difference between the two.

Where do you get the idea it's "obsolete?" Your buddy Duane Washum doesn't seem to think so. Have you informed him of your newfound discovery?

And how is it essentially different from what you yourself have been posting? The only difference I can see is the omission of two words, "rectitude of," so that it reads "purity of life and conduct" rather than "purity of life and rectitude of conduct." How does that change anything to which you have been objecting?

I'll tell you how: it differs not one whit, for you have made no claims concerning the "rectitude of" that was dropped, making your quote and this one essentially the same. You are raising objections to my citation of a statement that is practically word for word the same as you have been criticizing. Talk about "deceiving yourself!"

Are you sure you're up to this? You seem confused. You really need to pay more attention to what you are criticizing.

SC's current Ahiman Rezon, by the way, though there are minor differences in the introductory phrases at the beginning, is essentially the same as the one I cited, reading "purity of life and conduct"--although it does have the added distinction that it contains the superfluous "so."

Besides that, you miss my point with the post anyway. I was establishing the fact that the wording was essentially unchanged, and that since it was, it was incumbent upon anyone interpreting what was meant by "purity of life" to do so by making a determination whether or not it was a phrase that was in vogue at the time it was adopted; and if so, what was the context in which it was located.

In fact, I established both: Yes, the phrase was in vogue during that period; and the context was, a commonly used expression found in the writings of some of the most well-known Christian theologians and writers of the period: Charles Spurgeon, Phillip Schaaf, John Bunyan, Jeremy Taylor, Hannah More, James Hastings.





 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Rev Wayne

Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity
Sep 16, 2003
4,128
101
72
SC
Visit site
✟21,040.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So by quoting these passages, and a few supporting commentaries, are you saying that YOU have "clean hands," a "pure heart," and are "holy" pseudo-pastor?
I said nothing about myself at all, I'll leave the Narcissism to you. You really seem to love seeing your words in print, so much so that you read them to the exclusion of reading mine, apparently. Don't know how you could have made a gaffe like your most recent post, insisting that the very apron lecture quote you have addressed is "obsolete" and that "no Grand Lodge on the planet" currently uses it.

In other words, are you suggesting YOU are without sin?
There you go again, twisting my comments to make me say what I did not--in other words, lying.

What I addressed was the phrase "purity of life," or as it later came to be expressed in Christian theology, "purity of heart." Since Jesus suggested that "only the pure in heart shall see God," are you denying then what Jesus said? Jesus said in Revelation 21:27 that purity was a requirement for entry into the New Jerusalem, for He clearly stated that "nothing IMpure shall enter it." Are you then calling Jesus a liar? You seem to be, because you seem to be claiming one cannot be pure and thus cannot enter, while Jesus clearly said the pure in heart were blessed, "for they shall see God."

If not, and you know the Bible says that ALL have sinned and fall short of God's glory, then how do YOU expect to gain admission into heaven, since YOU insist its a REQUIREMENT?
Very simple: the verse you just quoted says nothing one way or the other about the question of purity, it speaks only of the common condition of humanity which is the starting point of every one of us, before we receive the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Romans is an extended argument, Paul builds it and rebuilds it, crescendoing into the 8th chapter boldly proclaiming Jesus Christ as the solution to this horrible condition of impurity that separates us from God. You really do yourself an injustice by stopping at chapter three, and thus never reaching the good part.
how do YOU expect to gain admission into heaven, since YOU insist its a REQUIREMENT?
Where do you get off throwing ME into the picture.

I simply pointed you to the truth of the Word. I thought you had a high regard for it, or at least in the past you have PROFESSED to.

Psalm 24 says the one who enters the holy hill of God must have clean hands and a pure heart.

I didn't write Psalm 24, David did.

Hebrews 12:14 says that without holiness no one shall see the Lord.

It's unclear who wrote Hebrews. Tradition says Paul, scholars now say no, and suggest other possibilities. If not Paul, my vote goes to Apollos.

But one thing, at least, is clear: I'm not even in the running.

Revelation 21:27 says that nothing impure can enter heaven. The implication is clear, that purity is required for entry, impurity will get you kicked out.

I didn't write Revelation, the apostle John did.

I think the real question is, why don't you believe the Word of God when it's right there in front of you? I'm really baffled at your pick-and-choose theology which allows rejection of the passages you don't find personally appealing.
 
Reactions: Sphinx777
Upvote 0

O.F.F.

An Ex-Mason for Jesus
Jan 22, 2004
1,422
49
USA
Visit site
✟16,848.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Wayne said:
I take it your addition of "within the U.S." was intentionally designed to remove from consideration the Grand Lodge of Sweden, which requires Christian faith as a prerequisite for membership.

I take it that you should know, but apparently don't, that a SAID faith is not necessarily a REAL faith. Yet that (a mere profession of faith, without evidence) is ALL that is required from Sweden, and the Knight Templars for that matter. Moreover, YOU and most Masons and former Masons we know have practiced Freemasonry in the United States, which is a predominately Christian society. So let's stick to that Masonic domain and what it REQUIRES.

O.F.F. said:
In other words, are you suggesting YOU are without sin?


I did not lie, I simply took the sole Masonic position (which excludes Jesus Christ) of, "if a Mason lives a "pure life" they WILL gain admission into heaven," which is PRECISELY what the Apron Lecture tells ALL Masons, including those who REJECT Christ.

O.F.F. said:
If not, and you know the Bible says that ALL have sinned and fall short of God's glory, then how do YOU expect to gain admission into heaven, since YOU insist its a REQUIREMENT?


I think you are finally starting to get it, but you've missed a vital point from a Masonic perspective, which is why NO Christian should support it. Freemasonry DOES NOT acknowledge the grace of God as declared by Scripture (which is suppose to be its Great Light) that Jesus Christ is THE ONLY WAY TO SALVATION.

And Freemasonry ignores the fact that it is HIS (Jesus Christ) PURE LIFE, which one is REQUIRED TO ACCEPT by faith and repentance from sin, in order to receive the amnesty and eternal privilege to go to heaven under God's terms, not that of the Masonic Lodge. Instead, its (Freemasonry) terms as stated in the Apron Lecture is THAT ALL MASONS merely have to live a "pure life" to earn salvation, since it insists that it is the ONLY REQUIREMENT to gain admission!

in other words, you and all other "professing Christian Masons" belong to an organization that claims that believers in false gods, and those who REJECT Christ as Lord and Savior WILL go to heaven as long as "they" live a "pure life."

How can anyone professing to be a Christian, let alone one who claims to be a pastor, defend such a position that is so contrary to biblical teaching be a genuine disciple of Jesus Christ?

ANSWER: It is biblically IMPOSSIBLE!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Jester4kicks

Warning - The following may cause you to think
Nov 13, 2007
1,555
127
43
✟24,959.00
Faith
Taoist
Marital Status
Single

Are you still hung up on the idea that freemasonry offers some kind of path to salvation?

Seems like that's your only argument at this point... and it all seems to originate from a simple phrase that exists as part of a lesson about the apron.

Seriously? THAT's what you've ultimately boiled this all down to?
 
Upvote 0

O.F.F.

An Ex-Mason for Jesus
Jan 22, 2004
1,422
49
USA
Visit site
✟16,848.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

No my friend, I'm not "hung up" solely on the fact that Freemasony offers a false plan of salvation. If you look at my last several posts, there are a number of issues that I have contention with.

The issue of "a plan of salvation" as taught by Freemasonry, does not stem from the Apron Lecture alone, but it is also Masonically presumed via the Common Gavel, Perfect Ashlar, and Third Degree Lectures as well. The biblical point is this, any "path of salvation" apart from Jesus Christ is a "false plan of salvation," from a biblical perspective -- Masonic or otherwise.

This issue of "salvation" is one of several "essential" doctrines of the biblically based, historic Christian faith. And, if someone claims to be a "Christian," which I know you do not, yet supports any other option than what Christ said of Himself, effectively deems Jesus a liar based on (click) John 14:6. It doesn't matter if those other options come from Osama bin Laden, Oprah Winfrey or a UMC pastor, they are heretical, period.

A chief disdain of mine is any "Christian" pastor (a supposed leader of the Church) who supports such heresy, while insisting its not "his own personal position" at the same time. That's just biblical nonsense; as far as I'm concerned.

However, the issue of a false "path of salvation" is one of many issues any genuine, biblically knowledgable Christian should have against the religious teachings of Freemasonry. Again, if you review my last 7 or so posts, you will see some of the other issues with which I personal contend with. All of these issues led me out of the Lodge to renounce the Masonic faith in favor of my Savior, Jesus Christ. These same issues should lead true followers of Christ, that are Masons, out of Freemasonry as well.

If not, I biblically cannot see how they can persist as Masons without being in deliberate rebellion against God, unless they are not genuine Christians to begin with.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Rev Wayne

Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity
Sep 16, 2003
4,128
101
72
SC
Visit site
✟21,040.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I take it that you should know, but apparently don't, that a SAID faith is not necessarily a REAL faith. Yet that (a mere profession of faith, without evidence) is ALL that is required from Sweden, and the Knight Templars for that matter.

So when was the last time YOU were asked for proof? If you ever were, that is?

Moreover, YOU and most Masons and former Masons we know have practiced Freemasonry in the United States, which is a predominately Christian society. So let's stick to that Masonic domain and what it REQUIRES.


Oh, you mean like the essential items necessary for any U.S. lodge to open? In the U.S., there would be three things in any lodge without which it could not open: The Holy Bible, the Square and Compasses (generally taken together as one symbol), and a charter or warrant authorizing them to operate.


My Bible says purity is a requirement. That would necessarily have to be true for ANY man, so your logic is faulty when you fault the language for applying to everyone. After all, the Word is the standard by which God has revealed His will, is it not? And God is no respecter of persons, right? Then the purity requirement would apply to ALL. Therefore, Masonry is not incorrect to state to all its members that purity is a requirement, because (1) the Bible declares it, and (2) God’s Word is intended to apply to all.

Freemasonry DOES NOT acknowledge the grace of God as declared by Scripture (which is suppose to be its Great Light) that Jesus Christ is THE ONLY WAY TO SALVATION.

Nor does it deny it. But one thing is for sure:

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


And the proof is in the pudding, as they say. Mackey made that statement in reference to the earliest formulations of the lectures. The Graham Manuscript was one of those early lectures, and in it, certain points of the EA candidate’s strange garb were explained this way:


The “neither. . . nor’s” of that degree, then, were modeled with the direct intent of illustrating the dual nature of Christ in the Incarnation. You know as well as I do, that same symbolic dress is still present even to this time, so don’t be disingenuous here by crying “obsolete.”

Are you totally unaware of what you just said, or simply not aware of what it means? You just stated that we accept this pure life of Christ "by faith AND repentance from sin." Repent means to "turn around," and while that is certainly a part of "accepting by faith," it is not always a one-shot deal, in fact, probably rarely so. It involves MANY turnings, and a walk that has a consistent pattern of turning from sin, recognizing God's requirement is a "pure heart."


But it needs to be stated that we must consider what the Bible teaches in its entirety, not just pick and choose what YOU wish to be truth. But don’t take my word for it. Here are the words of the Holman Bible Dictionary, a source which some of your ex-Mason buddies have been fond of quoting in the past:


Interesting, their choice of the word "essential." No, Masonry doesn’t “ignore” it at all. In fact, the “pure life of Christ” is foundational to the lamb symbolism in Masonry. From an earlier version of the lambskin quote you posted:



That’s the quote, EXACTLY as it appears there.

Mackey makes the statement in his Encyclopedia, and it is stated also in the current Ahiman Rezon:


Now, don’t pretend you don’t see that line “that you may obtain eternal life.” That’s no different than the line, after all, to which you object in Masonry. And I wasn’t kidding when I said Masonry’s Lamb symbolism was foundational upon the symbolism of Christ the Lamb:

Mackey hit the nail right on the head, this was the proclamation made in the early church.

Mackey seems to have been pretty perceptive of the symbolism—not that it takes any great perception to understand it when the very wording of the lecture is so CLEARLY modeled after its Christian counterpart from several centuries earlier. But his comments on that point are not the only thing he said in regard to the symbolism of the Lamb. From his Encyclopedia of Freemasonry:

Then there’s this witness to the same things:

LAMB, a title given to the Lord Jesus Christ as the atoning sacrifice for the sins of His people. Its innocence and gentleness made the lamb an example of such qualities in the Saviour. (“Dictionary and Concordance,” Heirloom Masonic Bible, Master Mason Edition)
 
Upvote 0

Rev Wayne

Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity
Sep 16, 2003
4,128
101
72
SC
Visit site
✟21,040.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
A chief disdain of mine is any "Christian" pastor

I'm sure everyone is well aware that you have a disdain for practically ANY pastor who chooses the route of education over ignorance, as has been well attested by your often-included "seminary-trained" when you make that accuastion. Your tendency to lump things into one-size-fits-all categories apparently is not restricted only to Masonry, because you seem to spit the phrase "seminary-trained" out with disgust, as though every single seminary that may be found is to be condemned.

who supports such heresy, while insisting its not "his own personal position" at the same time.
Apparently, then, you refer to the Bible itself as "heresy," which is where I got the position I take on "purity." That is most DEFINITELY YOUR "own personal position."

You offered your spin, "which excludes Jesus Christ," in reference to Masonry. Masonry does not "exclude Jesus Christ." The nearest thing you could possibly state in that regard is that "Masonry does not insist on Jesus Christ." But that only means Masonry is neutral, in much the same way it would be with Boy Scouts, Lions Club, the teaching profession, or any other group which is neutral in regard to one's religion. But as can be seen from the previous post, and from an ABUNDANCE MORE I could post, Masonry's symbols were adopted in DIRECT reference to Christ in symbol. The Lamb quote certainly shows that, and why would anybody say the symbol of a lamb in reference to Christ is "heresy?"

And it ought to be clear to anyone that "does not insist" is a far different situation than "excludes."

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.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Rev Wayne

Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity
Sep 16, 2003
4,128
101
72
SC
Visit site
✟21,040.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Instead, its (Freemasonry) terms as stated in the Apron Lecture is THAT ALL MASONS merely have to live a "pure life" to earn salvation, since it insists that it is the ONLY REQUIREMENT to gain admission!

You have misread the statement. It is not a theological one, it is an explanatory one giving the symbolism of the lambskin apron. And your claim that they “insist” that this is the “only” requirement is a false one. There is no way possible to construe this as an “only” statement. You are being deliberately deceptive with this. You are pretending "the only one mentioned" is the equivalent of "the only requirement." That's pure hogwash.

The author of the lecture did not begin with an explanation of the symbol, and then suddenly veer off into a theological treatise on "salvation."

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:


Where does this one fit into your “purity has only to do with Jesus Christ, and nothing to do with our actions,” which is the essence of what you claim?

And the idea of “earning” salvation was never the intent of the statement in the lecture. You take what is said indirectly and treat it as though it were a direct statement about salvation. But Masonry, when it DOES make direct statements, is pretty clear:


The “Lion of the tribe of Judah,” who “hath prevailed to open the book and to loosen the seven seals thereof,” can only have one reference point: Revelation 5:5. And since it has only the one reference, then there is only one possible interpretation of who it refers to, which is the same One referred to in Rev. 5:5, Jesus Christ. And if that wasn’t enough, there is also the “lamb that taketh away the sin of the world,” and a bodily resurrection, both of which are strictly Christian references.

Making the accusation of “earning salvation,” when it is abstracted from one obtuse reference, ignoring the abundance of statements that are more direct, is a farce. For an example of the logic of that kind of thinking, let’s look at some biblical references:

“All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.”—Mt. 10:22
“but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.”—Mt. 24:13
“Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.”—Mk. 16:16
“For we are saved by hope”—Romans 8:24
“Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.”—1 Tim. 2:15
“There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism”—1 Pet. 3:21

By YOUR logic, Matthew’s “plan of salvation” would be “stand firm to the end.” Mark’s “plan of salvation” would be “believe and be baptized.” Paul’s “plan of salvation” would be hope—unless you’re female, of course, in which case it would be childbearing—but even then, with the added requirement of continuing in “faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.” And Peter’s “plan of salvation” would be baptism.

Anyone can see the error with that kind of logic. The same is true with Freemasonry, you can’t take one indirect statement and use it to negate all the direct statements made elsewhere:

This is by no means an isolated incident:

"I now solemnly consecrate this lodge to the honor and glory of Jehovah, the Grand Architect of the Universe." (Monitor of the GL of Texas)

"It is therefore proper and in accordance with Masonic law and tenets for a Mason who believes in the Christ Jesus to offer prayers in the Lodge in His Name." (Masonic Code of Alabama)


"I am the resurrection and the life, saith the Lord. He that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live. And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die." (Funeral Service, Masonic Manual, GL of Georgia)


"Wherein they [older forms of religion] were deficient [Masonry] found in the New Law of Love, preached by Jesus of Nazareth, and which He sealed with His blood." (Scottish Rite, 18th degree)


in other words, you and all other "professing Christian Masons" belong to an organization that claims that believers in false gods, and those who REJECT Christ as Lord and Savior WILL go to heaven as long as "they" live a "pure life."

Never said any such thing, the entire logic behind such a claim is terribly flawed.

How can anyone professing to be a Christian, let alone one who claims to be a pastor, defend such a position that is so contrary to biblical teaching be a genuine disciple of Jesus Christ?

Your errors are manifest: (1) I am not “one who claims to be a pastor,” I was called by God to be a pastor; (2) You have not shown in even the first point, that this is “contrary to biblical teaching”; quite the contrary, it has a solid foundation in Scripture (Psa. 24, Mt. 5:8, Heb. 12:14, 1 John 3:7-10, Rev. 21:27); (3) your claim of “earning salvation” does not even come close to being true, since (a) the Apron Lecture is not making a statement about salvation, and (b) the abundance of DIRECT statements CONTRADICT your claim; (4) “purity of life” as an expression derives from Christian faith, going all the way back, as already PROVED, to at least the time of John Bunyan (“rectitude of conduct,” by the way, is ALSO Christian in origin); (5) Ironically, you make derisive insinuations about the genuineness of the faith of the Christian Mason—yet at the same time, you yourself refuse the truth of Scripture requiring purity, pretending that the abundance of Scriptural supports for it do not exist.

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:



Since I know you can't provide such "proof," I'll be expecting a retraction, otherwise this statement will continue in its current state of existence as a lie.

(Nice evasion, too, by the way, on your "obsolete" goof-up. Can't blame you there.)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Jester4kicks

Warning - The following may cause you to think
Nov 13, 2007
1,555
127
43
✟24,959.00
Faith
Taoist
Marital Status
Single

I don't particularly care to sort through your personal bickering with wayne to see if you had a valid point in any of it. If you intend to state you position, I would suggest sticking to the points.

To that end, I'll make it simple. Freemasonry is not a religion, it's not a faith, and it doesn't teach any path to salvation.
 
Upvote 0

O.F.F.

An Ex-Mason for Jesus
Jan 22, 2004
1,422
49
USA
Visit site
✟16,848.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

I will not post a retraction, but I will allow you to clarify what you did say. First of all, you said:


Here you seem to imply that there is no such thing as a false god, since Jesus never spoke of other gods, only misconceptions of the One True God. It sounds like you're suggesting that Muslims who worship Allah, Hindus who worship Yishnu and/or Brahma and/or Shiva, Mormons who worship the spirit brother of Lucifer, Zoroastrian who worship Ahura Mazda, etc. etc. ALL worship the same God, but just have incorrect concepts of who God is.

Secondly, since there is only One God, and you claim that G.A.O.T.U. is a generic, "neutral" reference for God, when asked do ALL Masons worship or pray to the same God, you said:

Wayne said:
Since there is only One True and Living God, there is only one God who can POSSIBLY be prayed to. Who it is that all these people are praying to is not my call.

So if I understand you correctly, it sounds like you're saying that the specific name people choose to refer to God is not your call, but since there is only One True God, it must only be Him to whom they are praying.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.