Can a Christian be a Freemason???

[Sphinx777]

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...

​

 

[izarya]

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.

 

[SealedEternal]

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.

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

 

[izarya]

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.

 

[Rev Wayne]

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

teaches. Charity and Brotherly Love is the foundation and cape stone, the; glory and cement of our ancient and honourable institution. If these principles be strictly inculcated in our Lodges, Freemasonry will become what it ought ever to be—a beatific vision, leading, through its connection with Christianity, to a Grand Lodge in the skies, where the just exist in perfect bliss to all eternity; where they will be for ever happy with God the Great Architect of the Universe, and dwell to all eternity in the celestial bowers of peace and Brotherly Love. (The Theocratic Philosophy of Freemasonry, p. 171)

The authorities of Freemasonry are the Grand Lodges that disseminate Masonic education material to its disciples. Despite the fact that Christianity is the predominate religion in the U.S., NOT one Grand Lodge in this country has ever declared Masonic teaching as being Christian, like you and the 4 other Masons you quote have deluded yourselves into thinking.

No delusion here. The symbols are the teachers. Mackey says they were designed (in the blue degrees) to teach pure Trinitarian Christianity. The symbolism which is most easily seen throughout the blue degrees is the Christian interpretation. The one “sacred book” you will find directly quoted in Masonic ritual to the exclusion of all others, is the Holy Bible. Therefore, Mackey’s claim does not appear to be in error at all. I’ve not seen any Mason ever dispute Wilmshurst’s claim, nor Mackey’s. Theirs being the strongest of the claims, I find that very significant. Considering the strength of what they claim, why would no one have challenged it in the 100+ years since they wrote them?

Even if they try to apply a Christian principle here or there, they are applying them to ALL disciples of Freemasonry, including believers, non-believers, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, and other pagans. That alone is contrary to biblical teaching, no matter what 5 deluded Masons have to say about it.

How will you ever understand Freemasonry when you do not even understand Christianity? The Christian faith is declared again and again to be the one faith designed to be the religion of all, and will be the one under which “the knowledge of God will cover the earth.” How, then, do the principles espoused from the Bible in Freemasonry not apply to all men everywhere? And you err in your downplaying of the matter with the “here and there” comment. Masonic principles are directly based on the Bible, and completely in line with moral teachings found there.

And you incorrectly included one category in your list which does not belong there, “unbelievers.” Belief in God is an essential requirement before one may join Masonry.

Then let us imitate our

G. M. H. A. (Grand Master Hiram Abif) in all his varied perfection. Let us emulate his amiable and virtuous character, his unfeigned piety to God, and his inflexible fidelity to his trust, that, like him, we may welcome the grim tyrant Death, and receive him as a kind messenger sent by our Supreme Grand Master to translate us from this imperfect to that all-perfect, glorious, and celestial Lodge above, where the Great Architect of the Universe presides, forever reigns. (emphasis removed)

There you go again, treating the symbolic as though it were literal. When will you ever learn? Did you never read Wilmshurst, so you might be better informed as to who that represents?

the Grand Master and Exemplar of Masonry, Hiram Abiff, is but a figure of the Great Master and Exemplar and Saviour of the world, the Divine Architect by whom all things were made, without whom is nothing that hath been made, and whose life is the light of men. If, in the words of the Masonic hymn

"Hiram the architect
Did all the Craft direct
How they should build,"

it is equally true that the protagonist of the Christian Scriptures also taught universal humanity "how they should build" and reconstruct their own fallen nature, and that the method of such building is one which involves the cross as its working tool and one which culminates in a death and a raising from the dead. And, of those who attain their initiation and mastership by that method, is it not further written there that they become of the household of God and built into a spiritual temple not made with hands, but eternal and in the heavens and of which "Jesus Christ is the chief corner stone, in whom all the building, fitly framed together, groweth unto an holy temple builded for an habitation of God?"
(Wilmshurst, Meaning of Masonry, 207-08)

Once again, a Christian context fleshes it all out perfectly.

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.

More on this one a bit later, you at least were given the biblical basis for the “purity of life and conduct,” in Psalm 24, Hebrews 12:14, and Revelation 21:27.

The lamb has always been a symbol of innocence and sacrifice. There are two senses in which innocence is being used here: Innocence, in one sense, meaning free from moral defect; the other sense is that of being newly born and without blemish, in the sense of fulfilling the goal of Masonic initiation—that of spiritual rebirth.

You seem to have missed the obvious: if you accept the statements by Mackey, Wilmshurst, Oliver, and Hutchinson, and allow that the symbolism is Christian, this piece actually works. “The Lamb” will easily represent Christ, and the “spiritual rebirth” represents the “new birth” insisted upon by Christ. Naturally, you will object, but what other system do you know that has a symbolic lamb and a “spiritual rebirth” besides Christianity? Even if you could, would it also have a "Lion of the tribe of Judah, who has prevailed to open the seven seals?" And the “without blemish” is straight from KJV Old Testament, don’t see how you could miss it.

And in this regard, all one need do to compare with what I’ve stated about the four men whom I’ve quoted, is consult Hutchinson. Seems like I recall a similar accusation being raised, having to do with the wording in the MM degree lecture that says:

Thus the Master Mason represents a man, saved from the grave of iniquity and raised to the faith of salvation.

The original, of course, comes from Hutchinson, and the fuller quote of the original in the MM degree as found in Chapter Nine of Hutchinson’s Spirit of Masonry reads:

Thus the Master Mason represents a man, under the Christian doctrine, saved from the grave of iniquity and raised to the faith of salvation. As the great testimonial that we are risen from the state of corruption, we bear the emblem of the Holy Trinity, as the insignia of our vows and of the origin of the Master's order. On receiving this ensign, the Mason professeth himself in a short distich, in the Greek language, which, from the rules of our order, we are forbidden to commit to writing; the literal meaning of which is, "Vehementer cupio vitam," - ardently I wish for life: meaning the everlasting life of redemption and regeneration; an avowal which carries with it the most religious import, and must proceed from a pure faith.

Once again, accept the stated interpretation of the symbols as Christian, and there is absolutely no problem with ANY of this. And on that foundation, I rest my case.

Yet the Bible teaches that redemption comes from Jesus Christ alone:

Not a problem: the cited passages, taken as Christian in their intent, present no challenge to that statement, and in fact proclaim the same. Seems like the only way to reconcile Christianity and Freemasonry is to take these men at their word, recognize the high esteem in which they are held in Masonry, and understand their mutual opinion concerning Christian interpretation to be valid, and the pieces of the puzzle fall into place.

I see you seem to have decided not to address post #121 in its entirety. So I guess we can assume its true. Unless you can provide clarification on the things you've said in the past on the matters indicated therein. For readers who missed it, here is the link for your convenience.

“Readers who missed it” are not as stupid as you presume.

I had good reason not to respond to that post in any way, because it contains a flat-out lie on your part, and you have not retracted it nor provided my requested support for your claim.

What you are trying to do now is an ages-old fallacy in any debate, trying to shift the burden of proof. You mention “clarification on the things I’ve said in the past.” The fact is, YOU are the one who brought up “things I’ve said in the past,” and YOU are the one who told lies in doing so. I challenged you on the point, and so far the only response you have given is to ignore it.

Since the burden of proof of the lie you posted rests on YOU, and not me, then first clean up your act and either provide direct citation that you feel supports your claim, or post a retraction—at which point I will be more than happy to respond to anything found in the rest of the post—not that I haven’t already more than once in the past.

Until then, drop the self-absorption. Taking the low road, as you have done, never works very well when you try it on a high horse.

 

[Rev Wayne]

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 lamb has in all ages been deemed an emblem of innocence; he, therefore, who wears the lamb-skin as a badge of masonry, is thereby continually reminded of that purity of life and conduct, which is essentially necessary to his gaining admission into the celestial lodge above, where the Supreme Grand Architect of the Universe presides.

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:

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

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:

There are to be found throughout the Scriptures many allusions to the color as an emblem of purity. "Though thy sins be as scarlet." says Isaiah, "they shall be as white as snow. Jeremiah, describing the once innocent condition of Zion, says, "her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk." "Many," says Daniel, "shall be purified and made white." In Revelation, a white stone was the reward promised by the Spirit to those who overcame; and again, "he that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white garments"; and in another part of the same book the Apostle is instructed to say that fine Linen, clean and white, is the righteousness of the saints. The ancient prophets always imagined the Deity clothed in white, because, says Portal (Des Couleurs Symboliques, p. 35), white is the color of absolute truth, of Him who is; it alone reflects all the luminous rays; it is the unity whence all the primitive colors emanate." Thus Daniel, in one of his prophetic visions, saw the Ancient of days, "whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool."

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:

The apron is made of lamb-skin, because the lamb has in all ages been recognised as the emblem of innocence, and was therefore chosen by God himself to be offered to Him in sacrifice, as a type of the great propitiatory sacrifice, the Lamb of God—the Lamb without blemish and without spot— that taketh away the sin of the world. The Mason's apron is, therefore, not only a symbol ever reminding him of the duty of maintaining to the utmost possible degree purity of heart and purity of life, and of ever seeking greater perfection in both, but also of the propitiation for sin, and the pardon ready to be granted to every one who seeks it in the way appointed. (Chalmers Izett Paton, Freemasonry, its Symbolism, Religious Nature, & Law of Perfection, 1873, p. 17)

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:

As the white apron suggests the thought of purity of heart, so the white gloves symbolise cleanness of hands. And thus, by his clothing, the Freemason is ever reminded of that important lesson so often repeated with wonderful variety of expression in the Holy Scriptures. He may fitly call to remembrance, for example, the words of the 24th Psalm: " Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord ? and who shall stand in His holy place ? He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully" (Ps. xxiv. 3, 4).

 

[O.F.F.]

"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.

 

[Rev Wayne]

The connection between cleanness of hands and purity of heart is most intimate, for out of the heart are the issues of life. The tree must be good, that its fruit may be good. The same fountain cannot send forth sweet waters and bitter. All that is praiseworthy in moral conduct is required of the Freemason,—"whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report " (Phil. iv. 8). (Paton, Ibid., p. 85)

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)

We may sum up the features of Christian life in its earliest environment as a moral ideal, coloured and modified by loyalty to the tenets of Judaism ; but issuing, under belief in the Messianic Jesus and by the power of His Spirit, in brotherliness, sympathy, love of enemies, heroic confession of faith, and purity of life. (James Hastings, Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, Vol. I, p. 201)

But though his [Hilary's] tone is buoyant and life in his eyes is well worth living for the Christian, he insists not merely upon a general purity of life, but upon renunciation of worldly pleasures. . (Philip Schaff, A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Chapter II, "The Theology of St. Hilary of Poitiers," p. lxxxviii)

For to this end was Christ born into this world; to this end lived he here among us; to this end preached he, and taught the people God's holy word, that we, by his example, and the doctrine of his gospel, should live an upright and holy life. And therefore Zacharias, that holy prophet, being filled with the Holy Ghost, prophesied and said, before Christ's birth, that Christ should for this cause appear in this world, That we, being by him delivered from the fear of our enemies, might serve him in pureness and holiness all the days of our life, Luke i. And St. Paul likewise saith, Eph. v. Ye were in darkness, but now ye are light; walk therefore as becometh the children of light. Therefore are we delivered from the power of darkness, saith St. Paul, that we should walk in the light, and have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of
darkness. And so, 1 Thess. iv. God hath not called us to uncleanness, but to holiness and sanctity of life. Thus hath he called us, that we, not only in body but in soul, should be pure and unspotted. And therefore St. Paul unto the Romans, Know you not saith he, (chap, vi.) that all we which are baptized into Jesus Christ, are baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death, that like as Christ was raise up from the dead, even so also should we walk in a new life. And for this cause this same Paul likewise saith, Rom. xii.
Show yourselves as quick and lively members. And, Give over your bodies for a sacrifice, holy and acceptable before God. And, 1 Cor. iii. Know you not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
These and many such other lessons has St. Paul given us, to call us unto pureness and holiness of life. Let us therefore, good brethren, live holily. Consider that God hath not called you to uncleanness, but to purity of life; consider, if ye be baptized with Christ into death, you must also walk with him in a new life; let your bodies be a sacrifice, holy and acceptable unto God; show yourselves lively members of Christ, and the temple of the Holy Ghost. St. Paul saith, 1 Thess. iv. God hath called us, God hath appointed us to live in soberness, to live in pureness, to live in holiness; and this not in one part of our bodies, not in one part of our souls, but in our whole bodies, in our whole souls. (British Reformers: Writings of John Jewell, Bishop of Salisbury, "Sermon on Romans vi. 19," Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1843, p. 471)

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?

2. Our second text (Rom. i. 17) exhibits faith as working salvation from the evil which is in the world through lust. The chapter in which it stands presents an awful view of human nature. and implies that only faith in the gospel can bring us life in the form of— Mental enlightenment of life as to the true God : Rom. i. 19—23. Moral purity of life : Rom. i. verse 24, and onward. Spiritual life and communion with that which is divine and holy. Naturally men are dead and corrupt. The law reveals our death, see Rom. iii. 10—20; but the gospel imparts spiritual life to those who receive it by faith. (C.H. Spurgeon, My Sermon-Notes, Part II. London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1885, p. 355)

PIETY. When we were young, and living at home with our friends, we were daily exposed to~innumerable vanities and follies, and were carried away by the flood of custom; yet being religiously inclined from our childhood, we, by degrees as we grew up, began to grow sick of our carnal education, and to despise the vanities and fooleries of the world, and sought for a place where we might be free of them, and where we might serve the Lord both night and day in all holiness and purity of life. (John Bunyan, The Pilgrim's Progress From This World to That Which is to Come, Oxford: Bartlett & Minton, 1823, p. 443)

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.

 

[Rev Wayne]

The connection between cleanness of hands and purity of heart is most intimate, for out of the heart are the issues of life. The tree must be good, that its fruit may be good. The same fountain cannot send forth sweet waters and bitter. All that is praiseworthy in moral conduct is required of the Freemason,—"whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report " (Phil. iv. 8). (Paton, Ibid., p. 85)

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)

We may sum up the features of Christian life in its earliest environment as a moral ideal, coloured and modified by loyalty to the tenets of Judaism ; but issuing, under belief in the Messianic Jesus and by the power of His Spirit, in brotherliness, sympathy, love of enemies, heroic confession of faith, and purity of life. (James Hastings, Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, Vol. I, p. 201)

But though his [Hilary's] tone is buoyant and life in his eyes is well worth living for the Christian, he insists not merely upon a general purity of life, but upon renunciation of worldly pleasures. . (Philip Schaff, A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Chapter II, "The Theology of St. Hilary of Poitiers," p. lxxxviii)

For to this end was Christ born into this world; to this end lived he here among us; to this end preached he, and taught the people God's holy word, that we, by his example, and the doctrine of his gospel, should live an upright and holy life. And therefore Zacharias, that holy prophet, being filled with the Holy Ghost, prophesied and said, before Christ's birth, that Christ should for this cause appear in this world, That we, being by him delivered from the fear of our enemies, might serve him in pureness and holiness all the days of our life, Luke i. And St. Paul likewise saith, Eph. v. Ye were in darkness, but now ye are light; walk therefore as becometh the children of light. Therefore are we delivered from the power of darkness, saith St. Paul, that we should walk in the light, and have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of
darkness. And so, 1 Thess. iv. God hath not called us to uncleanness, but to holiness and sanctity of life. Thus hath he called us, that we, not only in body but in soul, should be pure and unspotted. And therefore St. Paul unto the Romans, Know you not saith he, (chap, vi.) that all we which are baptized into Jesus Christ, are baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death, that like as Christ was raise up from the dead, even so also should we walk in a new life. And for this cause this same Paul likewise saith, Rom. xii.
Show yourselves as quick and lively members. And, Give over your bodies for a sacrifice, holy and acceptable before God. And, 1 Cor. iii. Know you not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
These and many such other lessons has St. Paul given us, to call us unto pureness and holiness of life. Let us therefore, good brethren, live holily. Consider that God hath not called you to uncleanness, but to purity of life; consider, if ye be baptized with Christ into death, you must also walk with him in a new life; let your bodies be a sacrifice, holy and acceptable unto God; show yourselves lively members of Christ, and the temple of the Holy Ghost. St. Paul saith, 1 Thess. iv. God hath called us, God hath appointed us to live in soberness, to live in pureness, to live in holiness; and this not in one part of our bodies, not in one part of our souls, but in our whole bodies, in our whole souls. (British Reformers: Writings of John Jewell, Bishop of Salisbury, "Sermon on Romans vi. 19," Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1843, p. 471)

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?

2. Our second text (Rom. i. 17) exhibits faith as working salvation from the evil which is in the world through lust. The chapter in which it stands presents an awful view of human nature. and implies that only faith in the gospel can bring us life in the form of— Mental enlightenment of life as to the true God : Rom. i. 19—23. Moral purity of life : Rom. i. verse 24, and onward. Spiritual life and communion with that which is divine and holy. Naturally men are dead and corrupt. The law reveals our death, see Rom. iii. 10—20; but the gospel imparts spiritual life to those who receive it by faith. (C.H. Spurgeon, My Sermon-Notes, Part II. London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1885, p. 355)

PIETY. When we were young, and living at home with our friends, we were daily exposed to~innumerable vanities and follies, and were carried away by the flood of custom; yet being religiously inclined from our childhood, we, by degrees as we grew up, began to grow sick of our carnal education, and to despise the vanities and fooleries of the world, and sought for a place where we might be free of them, and where we might serve the Lord both night and day in all holiness and purity of life. (John Bunyan, The Pilgrim's Progress From This World to That Which is to Come, Oxford: Bartlett & Minton, 1823, p. 443)

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.

 

[O.F.F.]

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.

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?

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.

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!

 

[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.

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.

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.

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 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?

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.

 

[Rev Wayne]

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.

 

[O.F.F.]

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.

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."

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.

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.

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!

 

[Jester4kicks]

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.





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.





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!

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?

 

[O.F.F.]

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?

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.

 

[Rev Wayne]

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.

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.

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:

I was neither sitting, standing . . ., naked nor clothed, shod nor barefoot.
-- A reason for such posture?
-- In regard one God one man make a very Christ, so one object being half naked half clothed, half shod half barefoot, half kneeling half standing, being half of all, was none of the whole, this shows a humble and obedient heart for to be a faithful follower of that just Jesus.

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.”

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 priviledge to go to heaven under God's terms, not that of the Masonic Lodge.

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:

Hebrews also emphasizes the ethical aspect of sanctification. Sanctification/holiness is to be pursued as an essential aspect of the believer's life (Hebrews 12:14); the blood of sanctification must not be defiled by sinful conduct (Hebrews 10:26-31). Paul stressed both the individual's commitment to holy living (Romans 6:19-22; 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8; 2 Corinthians 7:1) and the enabling power of God for it (1 Thessalonians 3:13; 1 Thessalonians 4:8). The summation of the ethical imperative is seen in Peter's use (1 Peter 1:15-16) of Leviticus 11:44; Leviticus 19:2; Leviticus 20:7: “Be ye holy; for I am holy.” See Ethics; Hebrews; Salvation. (Lorin L. Cranford)

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:

The Lamb has in all ages been considered as an emblem of innocence and peace. The Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world, will grant to those who put their trust in Him, His peace. He, therefore, who wears the lamb-skin as the badge of Masonry, is reminded of that purity of life and conversation, which it is absolutely necessary for those to observe, who expect to be admitted into the Grand Lodge above, where under the precedency of the Grand Master of Heaven and Earth, they will for ever enjoy those “pleasures, which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.” 1 Corinthians, ii.9. (James Hardie, New Freemason's Monitor, 1819, pp. 140-41.)

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:

In the early ages of the Christian church, a white garment was placed upon the catechumen who had been newly baptized, to denote that he had been cleansed from his former sins, and was henceforth to lead a life of purity. Hence it was presented to him with this solemn charge: “Receive the white and undefiled garment, and produce it unspotted before the Tribunal of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you may obtain eternal life.”

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:

THE WHITE GARMENT

On the person baptized the priest then puts a white garment, saying: Receive this white garment, which mayest thou carry unstained before the judgment-seat of our Lord Jesus Christ; that thou mayest have eternal life. Instead of a white garment, infants, because not formally dressed, receive a white cloth, accompanied by the same words.

On sacraments, Catechism of the Council of Trent.

Source: http://www.catecheticsonline.com/Trent2.php

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:

LAMB

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

LAMB, PASCHAL

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

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)

 

[Rev Wayne]

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.

 

[Rev Wayne]

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:

Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work. No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother. (1 John 3:7-10)

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:

"What doth the Lord require of thee, 0 man, but 'to do justly and love mercy and walk humbly with thy God.'" "And one of the elders sayeth unto me: 'Rejoice ye and be exceedingly glad-behold the Lion of the tribe of Judah hath prevailed to open the book and to loosen the seven seals thereof," reminding us of two of the great symbolisms of Masonry - the white lamb-skin apron and the sprig of acacia.
The white apron, representative of the lamb that taketh away the sin of the world; the good Mason is constantly reminded by the ever living sprig of Faith in the merits of the Lion of the tribe of Judah which strengthens him with confidence and composure to look forward to a blessed immortality and doubts not but that in the glorious morn of the Resurrection, his body will rise and become as incorruptible as his soul; and thus death is not a cessation of life, but only an incident in it. (“Memorial Service Program,” Texas)

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)

"According to the grace of god which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I Have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay, than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." (Murrow’s Masonic Monitor, Oklahoma)

"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)

"However they may differ in creed or theology, all good men are agreed that within the covers of the Holy Bible are found those principles of morality which lay the foundation upon which to build a righteous life. . . . It is the one volume which has lived in the hearts of the people, molding and shaping their destinies; and it leads the waty to Him who is the Light of the world." (Louisiana Masonic Monitor)

"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)

"My Brethren, this is the anniversary of that Last Supper of which Jesus of Nazareth partook with His humble disciples, after which He was betrayed and crucified.
"Who, of any creed, can picture to himself, unmoved, that noble and sweet countenance, which never looked on anything in anger, pale with agony, and streaming with tears? His back was torn by the lash, His bro pierced by the thorns. He suffered, willingly, until it seemed, even to Him, that His God and Father had forsaken Him.
"And yet, even then, bruised, hanged upon a cross, betrayed by one He loved, suffering and, for a moment, questioning, He still calls down not curses but blessings and a prayer for forgiveness upon those who had so treated Him." (Scottish Rite, “Maundy Thursday” ceremony)

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:

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."

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.)

 

[Jester4kicks]

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.

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.

 

[O.F.F.]

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."

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

My own expression of it has been modeled on what I see revealed in word and example by the Lord Jesus Christ in the New Testament. Jesus never spoke of "other gods," He only spoke of (1) people's incorrect concepts of who God is, and (2) those who did not serve God but served Satan instead. So I choose to address these things in like manner.

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:

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.