Can a Christian be a Freemason???

[Rev Wayne]

He would be well proud, I’m sure, of today’s mainstream acceptance of those very same occult mysteries. Another passage on page 46-47, proves the teaching of Freemasonry is the same as New Age beliefs:

He begins his Masonic career as the natural man; he ends it by becoming through its discipline, a regenerated man... This the evolution of man into superman—was always the purpose of the ancient Mysteries, and the real purpose of modern Masonry is, not the social and charitable purposes to which so much attention is paid, but the expediting of the spiritual evolution of those who aspire to perfect their own nature and transform it into a more god-like quality.

Apparently you didn't read the whole book and follow his argument to its conclusions, where he shows the point of the whole argument to be, an assertion that the lodge teaches the same things as Christianity, though it teaches them by different methods:

Christianity came not to destroy, but to fulfill and expand. That fulfillment and expansion were consequent upon an event of cosmic importance which we speak of as The Incarnation. By that event something had happened affecting the very fabric of our planet and every item of the human family. What that something was and the nature of the change it wrought is too great and deep a theme to develop now, but, to illustrate it by Masonic symbolism, it was an event which is the equivalent of, and is represented by, the transference of the Sacred Symbol of the Grand Geometrician of the Universe from the ceiling of the Lodge, where it is located in the elementary grades of the Craft, to the floor, where it is found in the Royal Arch Degree surrounded with flaming lights and every circumstance of reverence and sanctity. How many Masons are there in the Order to-day who recognize that, in this piece of symbolism, Masonry is giving affirmation and ocular testimony to precisely the same fact as the churchman affirms when he recites in his Creed the words " He came down from heaven, and was incarnate and was made man?"

By a tacit and quite unwarranted convention the members of the Craft avoid mention in their Lodges of the Christian Master and confine their scriptural readings and references almost exclusively to the Old Testament, the motive being no doubt due to a desire to observe the injunction as to refraining from religious discussion and to prevent offence on the part of brethren who may not be of the Christian faith. The motive is an entirely misguided one and is negated by the fact that the "greater light" upon which every member is obligated, and to which his earnest attention is recommended from the moment of his admission to the Order, is not only the Old Testament, but the volume of the Sacred Law in its entirety. The New Testament is as essential to his instruction as the Old, not merely because of its moral teaching, but in virtue of its constituting the record of the Mysteries in their supreme form and historic culmination. The Gospels themselves, like the Masonic degrees, are a record of preparation and illumination, leading up to the ordeal of death, followed by a raising from the dead and the attainment of Mastership, and they exhibit the process of initiation carried to the highest conceivable degree of attainment. The New Testament is full of passages in Masonic terminology and there is not a little irony in the failure by modern Masons to recognize its supreme importance and relevancy to their Lodge proceedings and in the fact that in so doing they may be likening themselves to those builders of whom it is written that they rejected the chief Corner Stone. They would learn further that 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, 206-08)

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 and by identifying the aspirant with the doctrine by passing him personally and dramatically through symbolic rites which he is expected to translate from ceremonial form into subjective experience. As Patristic literature shows, the primitive method of the Christian Church was not that which now obtains, under which the religious offices and teaching are administered to the whole public alike and in a way implying a common level of doctrine for all and uniform power of comprehension by every member of the congrega­tion. It was, on the other hand, a graduated method of instruction and identical with the Masonic system of degrees conferred by reason of advancing merit and ability. To cite one of the most instructive of early Christian treatises (Dionysius : On the Eccle­siastical Hierarchy), with which every Masonic student should familiarize himself, it will be found that admission to the early Church was by three ceremonial degrees exactly corresponding in intention with those of Masonry. "The most holy initiation of the Mystic Rites has as its first Godly purpose the holy cleansing of the initiated; and as second, the enlightening instruction of the purified; and finally and as the completion of the former, the perfecting of those instructed in the science of their appropriate instructions. The order of the Ministers in the first class cleanses the initiated through the Mystic Rites; in the second, conducts the purified to light; and, in the last and highest, makes perfect those who have participated in the Divine Light by the scientific contemplations of the illuminations con­templated." This brief passage alone suffices to show that originally membership of the Christian Church involved a sequence of three initiatory rites identical in intention with those of the Craft to-day. The names given to those who had qualified in those Rites were respectively Catechumens, Leiturgoi, and Priests or Presbyters; which in turn are identifiable with our Entered Apprentices, Fellow Crafts and Master Masons. Their first degree was that of a rebirth and purification of the heart; their second related to the illumination of the intelligence; and their third to a total death unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness, in which the candidate died with Christ on the cross, as with us he is made to imitate the death of Hiram, and was raised to that higher order of life which is Mastership. (Wilmshurst, Meaning of Masonry, 209-11)

 

[wayseer]

Spoken like a true Mason!

No spoken as a Christian.

 

[AoDoA]

Apparently you didn't read the whole book and follow his argument to its conclusions, where he shows the point of the whole argument to be, an assertion that the lodge teaches the same things as Christianity, though it teaches them by different methods:

you are not helping your case

 

[Rev Wayne]

you are not helping your case

At least, unlike you, I have a case. You're still out in the La-La Land of the Baileys and everybody else irrelevant to actual Freemasonry.

 

[AoDoA]

At least, unlike you, I have a case. You're still out in the La-La Land of the Baileys and everybody else irrelevant to actual Freemasonry.

you have nothing whatsoever

you've only further solidified the case for Masonry being a religion

a religion based on the New Age and the formation of a perfect secular order

 

[Rev Wayne]

you have nothing whatsoever

you've only further solidified the case for Masonry being a religion

a religion based on the New Age and the formation of a perfect secular order

And you have just proven exactly what I said, by confirming it with this reply. The "New World Order" conspiracy theory of Masonry is all part of the "Masonic Dollar" stupidity, a huge concoction of nonsense tossed in with a heaping helping of superstition, to come up with the most ridiculous urban legend ever. It's all based on the "Novus Ordo Seclorum" found on the back of the U.S. dollar. Sure, it says "New World Order," but it is in reference to the founding of our nation in 1776, it even has the date featured there as well. The U.S. in 1776 WAS a "new world order," a brand new nation.

There are several symbolic groupings of various objects, which conspiracists try to cast in the worst possible light as some "satanic number"--when in fact, the 13's on the dollar all have to do with the beginning of this new nation, in the founding of its original 13 colonies.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Rev Wayne,

Don't be silly. "Christians in the lodge love and worship Jesus Christ; those of other religions love and worship God as they see Him" isn't an automatic statement of a "same god" at all. Heck, I didn't even flesh it out with an example at all. Had I done so, your claim would have been immediately shown false. That being the case, let's put it to the lie right now. Observe:

You are still missing it.
You said love and worship God as they see Him, but you say it isn't the same god. Other religions do not see God, they do not see Him, your statement is incorrect. Other religions do not worship God, they worship their god.
God is Father Son and Holy Spirit, that’s who He is, others who don’t see God as Father Son and Holy Spirit, and who dont see the same character of God, don’t see God. If they don’t see Him and know His character they don’t worship God.

 

[wayseer]

Other religions do not worship God, they worship their god.

If there is only one God then it would appear we all worship God.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To wayseer,

If there is only one God then it would appear we all worship God.

The is only one God, but not all worship God, some worship other gods.

 

[O.F.F.]

In order to monitor the deliberate attempts of Masonic deception, I find it necessary to remove certain ones from my "ignore list" lest they think they are able to succeed in duping the masses.

Apparently you didn't read the whole book and follow his argument to its conclusions, where he shows the point of the whole argument to be, an assertion that the lodge teaches the same things as Christianity

Apparently you didn't read the whole book and follow his argument to its conclusions either, because nothing could be further from the truth of what Wilmshurst actually "concludes." What he actually concludes is that Freemasonry is a descendant of the Ancient Mysteries and, which as they were, was designed to deify its adherents.

Whether it was intentional or not, from the end of your quote on page 208 to where you resumed quoting on page 209, you skipped a very important section that appears as though you were doing so purposely, in order to give the impression that nothing came before, "To clear vision, Christian and Masonic doctrine are . . ." Had you placed ellipses appropriately we would have known something came before it. However, since there was more there that you conveniently excluded, in context, it cast a completely different point than what you are trying to claim. For the reader's sake, I will post it here, but for more context they can simple click here to read the entire book. The portion we are discussing now comes from Chapter 5, with the appropriate title, "FREEMASONRY IN RELATION TO THE ANCIENT MYSTERIES."

Neither the Ancient Mysteries nor Modern Masonry, their descendant, therefore, can be rightly viewed without reference to their relation to the Christian evangel, into which the pre-Christian schools became assumed. The line of succession and evolution from the former to the latter is direct and organic. Allowing for differences of time, place and form of expression, both taught exactly the same truths and inculcated the necessity for regeneration. In such a matter there cannot be a diversity of doctrine. The truth concerning it must be static and uniform at all periods of the world's history. Hence we find St. Augustine affirming that there has never existed but one religion in the world since the beginning of time (meaning by religion the science of rebinding the dislocated soul to its source), and that that religion began to be called Christian in apostolic times. And hence too it is that both the Roman Church and Masonry, although so widely divergent in outlook and method, have this feature in common, that each declares and insists that no alteration or innovation in its central doctrine is permissible and that it is unlawful to remove or deviate from its ancient landmarks. Each is right in its insistence, for in the system of each is enshrined the age-old doctrine of regeneration and divinization of the human soul, obscured in the one case by theological and other accretions foreign to the main purpose of religion, and unperceived in the other because its symbolism remains uninterpreted.

Wilmshurst, Meaning of Masonry, page 209 (emphasis added)

How a professing "Christian" and seminary-trained "pastor" could miss this is beyond me. Who knows, maybe he is really just a 'babe' in Christ lacking spiritual discernment, assuming he is a Christian at all. One thing is certain though; since he is such an educated man, I must conclude that he missed it deliberately to make a false claim. The Church (the Body of Christ) does not originate from the Ancient Mysteries, nor does it teach the divinization of the human soul. That's what Wilmhurst taught, and that may very well be what Masons like Wayne believe; but together, that's just their own false doctrine.

Yet Wilmhurst reiterates his point as he goes on to say:

The Christian Master's affirmation "Ye must be born again" is regarded as but a pious counsel towards an indefinite improvement of conduct and character, not as a reference to a drastic scientific revolution and reformation of the individual in the way contemplated by the rites of initiation prescribed in the Mysteries. Popular religion may indeed produce "good" men, as the world's standard of goodness goes. It does not and cannot produce divinized men endued with the qualities of Mastership, for it is ignorant of the traditional wisdom and methods by which that end is to be attained.

Wilmshurst, Meaning of Masonry, page 212 (emphasis added)

Again, how a professing "Christian pastor" could miss this, after supposedly reading the 'whole' book is beyond me. Jesus taught that to be "born again" is an act of faith for as many who receive Him they would become a child of the Living God (John 1:12-13). Never did Jesus teach that being "born again" was merely a pious counsel towards an indefinite improvement of conduct and character (works righteousness). In other words, He taught that it (being born again) is the only way to become a child of God. He most certainly did NOT teach that it was a means to produce divinized men endued with the qualities of Mastership (godhood).

The fact is, what Wilmhurst actually 'concluded,' was that Christianity and Freemasonry teach the necessity for regeneration (being born again). The difference is, biblical it means becoming a child of God; but Masonically it means becoming a god. This is what Masonic authors like Wilmhurst taught, and it may very well be what Masons like Wayne believe; but as we can see, it's really just more false doctrine and Masonic heresy.

So my question to Wayne is this, given the fact that you are now a Royal Arch Mason, does that mean you have finally attained your godhood, or are you still working on it?

 

[O.F.F.]

The fact is, in three years in my current appointment, I got a raise only one of those years, the first one. . . In the previous appointment I served, I received no raise for the first two years there, at my own request, . . . And for the coming year? I will be the recipient of a pay cut to the tune of about 5%. So in six years, there were only three changes, two of them raises, but . . . the ironic thing is, my wife, who doesn't even work, has had a 6% cumulative increase, while I have a cumulative decrease over 6years! So, you still wanna talk to me about this incredibly ridiculous notion ..., about "selling out" and "defending my income?"

Absolutely, I stand firmly on my assertion. I wasn't talking about you defending your "raises," pay increases, or the lack thereof. I was talking about YOUR INCOME, period.

The bottom-line is, if your denomination has more Masonic membership in it than any other denomination in the world, than it stands to reason that the revenue it brings in and the income that supports its ministers comes predominately from Masons. So again, you defend your income, because you know you should, "never look a gift horse in the mouth" and "never bite the hand that feeds you."

 

[O.F.F.]

Don't be silly. "Christians in the lodge love and worship Jesus Christ; those of other religions love and worship God as they see Him" isn't an automatic statement of a "same god" at all. Heck, I didn't even flesh it out with an example at all. Had I done so, your claim would have been immediately shown false. That being the case, let's put it to the lie right now. Observe:

"Christian lodge members love and worship Jesus Christ."
"Hindu lodge members love and worship Brahma."

Now that looks to ME like a very DIFFERENT god. What it looks like to you, I can't imagine, but your statement is false.

But that is NOT what you said. Observe this, what YOU said was, "Christians in the lodge love and worship Jesus Christ; those of other religions love and worship God as they see Him" (singular).

Had you really meant different gods (plural), then you would have said something like, "Christians in the lodge love and worship Jesus Christ; those of other religions love and worship 'their' god as they see it". That would have made a difference, but since you opted for the Masonic worldview of "God" instead, you have gone on record of agreeing with the Lodge, that ALL gods are one in the same. And I will hold it against you, forever, just as you have held my past comments against me.

 

[spidergains]

YouTube - Proof Pope Benedict is a Freemason: Facilitating Masonic Ecumenicalism for the Third Temple

 

[Rev Wayne]

Absolutely, I stand firmly on my assertion. I wasn't talking about you defending your "raises," pay increases, or the lack thereof. I was talking about YOUR INCOME, period.

Pure semantics.

The bottom-line is, if your denomination has more Masonic membership in it than any other denomination in the world,

No, the bottom line is, you have in no way made any case for this at all. All we have on it is your word, and I think we've already shown not so many pages back, just how little that's worth.

than it stands to reason that the revenue it brings in and the income that supports its ministers comes predominately from Masons.

The only way this can "stand to reason," of course, would be if anything you have said was in any way related to "reason," which it clearly is not. First make your case for the other point, before you start claiming points that are predicated upon the verifiability of the first.

You don't seem to know the first thing about constructing an argument. Did nobody ever tell you, that before you can claim something to be so, it has to be SHOWN to be so? Your percentage for Masons in the Methodist Church, from my personal experience in the church, is completely and incontrovertibly SKEWED.

Oh, I almost forgot: PERIOD!


As a postscript and a further rebuttal to this ridiculous argument, Michael, have you done the math? Your claim is that there are so many Masons in the UMC, that you feel justified in claiming that my membership has more to do with where the paycheck comes from than anything else. Since you have failed (or neglected, or intentionally avoided) producing anything in the way of corroboration of your claim, then perhaps it's time to produce the most telling statistic that makes this one of your more laughable falsehoods.

Masonic membership in the U.S.------------1.5 million (bessel.org, 2005 statistics)

United Methodist membership in the U.S.-------8.2 million (WCC figures, 2006)

I ask you, readers, to look at this very closely, and very simply, for it is not complicated at all. For there to be any kind of majority of Masons in U.S. Methodist churches, they would have to number over half of congregation members, right?

Well, if you look at these figures, which should not be significantly different though coming from estimates that are one year apart, it easily becomes apparent that there are over 5 Methodists in the U.S. for every Mason!

What that means, in nuts and bolts, is: even if EVERY MASON IN THE U.S. were Methodist, they would STILL constitute a less than 20% minority in the UM churches! Since it's pretty safe to assume that Masons are FAR from unanimously Methodist, it appears you've been puffing your pipe out in the alfalfa patch again.

 

[Rev Wayne]

But that is NOT what you said. Observe this, what YOU said was, "Christians in the lodge love and worship Jesus Christ; those of other religions love and worship God as they see Him" (singular).

Had you really meant different gods (plural), then you would have said something like, "Christians in the lodge love and worship Jesus Christ; those of other religions love and worship 'their' god as they see it". That would have made a difference, but since you opted for the Masonic worldview of "God" instead, you have gone on record of agreeing with the Lodge, that ALL gods are one in the same. And I will hold it against you, forever, just as you have held my past comments against me.

Readers, for a good reference to what is going on with this ridiculosity, see my comments re alfalfa in the previous post.

Since WHEN do I need you tor write my sentences for me? And since WHEN do I need you to re-interpret what was meant when I posted this?

And the bizarre thing is, even though you make some incoherent assertion about the plural vs. the singular, even in the sentence you re-wrote, you STILL wound up with a singular "god" in your "correction."

Since you still seem so bent on this, and since you seem so blind to the total abandonment of logic in what you just posted, observe:

MY STATEMENT:

"Christians in the lodge love and worship Jesus Christ; those of other religions love and worship God as they see Him."

"Christians in the lodge love and worship Jesus Christ; those of other religions love and worship 'their' god as they see it".

For some foolish and mistaken notion, you seem to think that the key difference here lies in the singular versus the plural.

But as anyone can see, and which OUGHT to be plain as the font on your screen, and which does not make ONE WHIT of difference whether you read YOUR version or MINE, is:

Christians: "Jesus Christ"
Other religiions: "God as they see him."

What I can't figure out is, who you thought it was that would be too dumb to know the difference between "Jesus Christ" whom Christians worship, and "God as other religions see Him," on a Christian forum?

 

[wayseer]

To wayseer,
The is only one God, but not all worship God, some worship other gods.

As you know I am NOT talking about 'other gods'. I am talking about God. If we all worship God and God is one then we all worship the one God.

 

[O.F.F.]

As you know I am NOT talking about 'other gods'. I am talking about God. If we all worship God and God is one then we all worship the one God.

Wayseer, can you please clarify what you mean by, if we all worship God and God is one then we all worship the one God? By "we all worship God" do you mean people from ALL religions? And by, if God is one then we all worship the one God, are you saying then that there is no such thing as 'other gods' or false gods? Again, please clarify your point.

 

[O.F.F.]

Apparently you didn't read the whole book and follow his argument to its conclusions, where he shows the point of the whole argument to be, an assertion that the lodge teaches the same things as Christianity

Apparently you didn't read the whole book and follow his argument to its conclusions either, because nothing could be further from the truth of what Wilmshurst actually "concludes." What he actually concludes is that Freemasonry is a descendant of the Ancient Mysteries and, which as they were, was designed to deify its adherents.

Whether it was intentional or not, from the end of your quote on page 208 to where you resumed quoting on page 209, you skipped a very important section that appears as though you were doing so purposely, in order to give the impression that nothing came before, "To clear vision, Christian and Masonic doctrine are . . ." Had you placed ellipses appropriately we would have known something came before it. However, since there was more there that you conveniently excluded, in context, it cast a completely different point than what you are trying to claim. For the reader's sake, I will post it here, but for more context they can simple click here to read the entire book. The portion we are discussing now comes from Chapter 5, with the appropriate title, "FREEMASONRY IN RELATION TO THE ANCIENT MYSTERIES."

Neither the Ancient Mysteries nor Modern Masonry, their descendant, therefore, can be rightly viewed without reference to their relation to the Christian evangel, into which the pre-Christian schools became assumed. The line of succession and evolution from the former to the latter is direct and organic. Allowing for differences of time, place and form of expression, both taught exactly the same truths and inculcated the necessity for regeneration. In such a matter there cannot be a diversity of doctrine. The truth concerning it must be static and uniform at all periods of the world's history. Hence we find St. Augustine affirming that there has never existed but one religion in the world since the beginning of time (meaning by religion the science of rebinding the dislocated soul to its source), and that that religion began to be called Christian in apostolic times. And hence too it is that both the Roman Church and Masonry, although so widely divergent in outlook and method, have this feature in common, that each declares and insists that no alteration or innovation in its central doctrine is permissible and that it is unlawful to remove or deviate from its ancient landmarks. Each is right in its insistence, for in the system of each is enshrined the age-old doctrine of regeneration and divinization of the human soul, obscured in the one case by theological and other accretions foreign to the main purpose of religion, and unperceived in the other because its symbolism remains uninterpreted.

Wilmshurst, Meaning of Masonry, page 209 (emphasis added)

How a professing "Christian" and seminary-trained "pastor" could miss this is beyond me. Who knows, maybe he is really just a 'babe' in Christ lacking spiritual discernment, assuming he is a Christian at all. One thing is certain though; since he is such an educated man, I must conclude that he missed it deliberately to make a false claim. The Church (the Body of Christ) does not originate from the Ancient Mysteries, nor does it teach the divinization of the human soul. That's what Wilmhurst taught, and that may very well be what Masons like Wayne believe; but together, that's just their own false doctrine.

Yet Wilmhurst reiterates his point as he goes on to say:

The Christian Master's affirmation "Ye must be born again" is regarded as but a pious counsel towards an indefinite improvement of conduct and character, not as a reference to a drastic scientific revolution and reformation of the individual in the way contemplated by the rites of initiation prescribed in the Mysteries. Popular religion may indeed produce "good" men, as the world's standard of goodness goes. It does not and cannot produce divinized men endued with the qualities of Mastership, for it is ignorant of the traditional wisdom and methods by which that end is to be attained.

Wilmshurst, Meaning of Masonry, page 212 (emphasis added)

Again, how a professing "Christian pastor" could miss this, after supposedly reading the 'whole' book is beyond me. Jesus taught that to be "born again" is an act of faith for as many who receive Him they would become a child of the Living God (John 1:12-13). Never did Jesus teach that being "born again" was merely a pious counsel towards an indefinite improvement of conduct and character (works righteousness). In other words, He taught that it (being born again) is the only way to become a child of God. He most certainly did NOT teach that it was a means to produce divinized men endued with the qualities of Mastership (godhood).

The fact is, what Wilmhurst also actually 'concluded,' was that Christianity and Freemasonry teach the necessity for regeneration (being born again). The difference is, biblical it means becoming a child of God; but Masonically it means becoming a god. This is what Masonic authors like Wilmhurst taught, and it may very well be what Masons like Wayne believe; but as we can see, it's really just more false doctrine and Masonic heresy.

So my question to Wayne is this, given the fact that you are now a Royal Arch Mason, does that mean you have finally attained your godhood, or are you still working on it?

 

[Rhamiel]

YouTube - Proof Pope Benedict is a Freemason: Facilitating Masonic Ecumenicalism for the Third Temple

well this is crazy, he is just old and german and that is how he shakes hands

 

[Rev Wayne]

O angel of God, my holy guardian, given to me from heaven, enlighten me this day, and save me from all evil. Instruct me in doing good deeds, and set me on the path of salvation. Amen.

Amen.