Rev Wayne
Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity
That's too bad, Christians and their pastors, should be concerned about the differences. After all, we are called to be set apart (i.e. sanctified 1 Thessalonians 4:3) from the world, not to assimilate into it.
Nobody is assimilating anything, and nothing was said about assimilation. Can you not respond without false characterizations? You know exactly what was meant, Freemasonry is interested in morality, not religion, and its moral focus applies across sectarian boundaries that Christianity does not cross.
And yes, I caught your little attempt to redefine sanctification as “set apart.” But you forget, its meaning is derived from OT usage as well. There were Temple implements which were “sanctified” or “set apart” for use only in the Temple. But the very first thing that took place in that “setting apart” was, the items were CLEANSED.
Not only does your statement mischaracterize the biblically accepted Christian position on how salvation is attained, you contradict your own denomination's position on the matter
I mischaracterized nothing. I was clearly referring to the evidences of regeneration resulting in sanctification, without which “no one will see the Lord,” just as the Scripture says in Hebrews 12:14. I didn’t make the verse up, I did not write it, and it clearly SAYS that WITHOUT holiness “NO ONE will see the Lord.” The Greek word in that verse is the same Greek word for sanctification or cleansing, i.e., “purity.” It’s the same thing Jesus spoke of when He said “blessed are the PURE IN HEART, for they shall see God” (Matt. 5:8). It’s the same thing David wrote of, describing those who are allowed to “enter the holy hill of God,” they must have “CLEAN HANDS and a PURE HEART” (Psa. 24:4). It’s the same thing Paul wrote about when he described Gentiles being saved, declaring that God put no difference between them, “PURIFYING their hearts by faith” (Acts 15:9). It’s the same thing James wrote to those he termed “double-minded,” telling them to “PURIFY your hearts” (James 4:8). And it’s the same thing John wrote when told to write down the vision he saw, and wrote concerning the New Jerusalem, that “NOTHING IMPURE shall ever enter there, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful” (Rev. 21:27).
The CLEAREST verses indicating the requirement of PURITY, though by no means the ONLY ones, are Hebrews 12:14, Acts 15:9, and Rev. 21:27.
Surely if it is sufficiently important to the point that “no one will see the Lord” without it, then it most certainly is REQUIRED.
Surely if “NOTHING IMPURE shall EVER” enter heaven, then it doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to figure out that “Gee, purity must be REQUIRED before entry.”
Surely if the purification of the heart is BY FAITH as Acts 15:9 states it, then you cannot accuse me of “works righteousness” or an “alternate plan of salvation,” nor can you accuse Masonry of it, for Masonry only states, as does Christianity, that it is a NECESSARY COMPONENT of salvation.
We could go back and forth all day about differences between imputed vs. imparted, or justification vs. sanctification, or instantaneous sanctification vs. gradual/continual, and it will not change the fact that the above verses and MANY MORE besides those all show a consistent pattern of stating purity as a REQUIRED component of salvation by which we enter heaven. Nor will it change the fact that Masonry states nothing about how purity must be gained, only that purity is required for entry. You may try to argue that since they don’t mention Jesus, the statement is incorrect. But the claim would be in error, because the intended purpose of the statement you quoted in the lambskin lecture, is NOT to describe HOW the purity is attained, only that purity is necessary, which it CLEARLY IS.
Your argument is no longer with me, you are now clearly arguing against the very clearly stated proclamation of Scripture:
“Without holiness NO ONE shall see the Lord.”
“NOTHING IMPURE will EVER enter there.”
The statements are about as plain as you can make them, and they are NOT mine.
And you have mis-highlighted once again, this time in quoting the Methodist source you found:
This is the great theme of the Protestant Reformers, as well as John Wesley and the Methodists who followed: We're saved by grace alone through faith alone. We're made whole and reconciled by the love of God as we receive it and trust in it.
For some people, certainly “receiving it and trusting in it” is a one-time experience from which they never turn back, and it sticks. For others, it’s an up-and-down bumpy road and they finally get settled. And then there are some who “make shipwreck of the faith” and turn their backs and go the other way. As Jesus said, “No one, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the Kingdom of God.” In other words, there’s more to it than just a beginning. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there whose lives do not change, who sum up their whole expectation of salvation in an experience at an altar way back in their past somewhere. I’ve met some who testify to their expectation of salvation by pointing to when they were baptized. The whole idea that salvation is a one-time experience and nothing afterward matters, is an invitation to spiritual ruin.
Did Christ come to establish a "religion in which all men agree?" Of course not, and apparently neither did the UMC. So why would a Christian participate in such a religion?
Yet ANOTHER mischaracterization. No one is talking about “a religion” in the terms you wish to put it. “That religion in which all men may agree” is a set of identifiable actions and traits which are common to all religions.
Humility, patience, brotherly love, charity, mercy, kindness, goodness, faith—these and many others would be among them.
So why would a Christian participate in such a religion?
Well, considering the things that Masonry emphasizes, I see you are asking me once again, why would a Christian participate in:
"brotherly love, relief, and truth; beauty, wisdom, and truth; the importance of being able to keep a confidence; taking care of widows and orphans and keeping oneself unspotted from the world (James 1:27); loving one's neighbor as oneself; faith, hope, and love; being diligent in work and not slothful; patience, humility, and every positive virtue," and the many other positive moral virtues Masonry emphasizes.
I fail to see how such things are antithetical to Christianity in the least. These things are all found in Christian teaching as well as in Masonry. So yes, you are correct, it’s very clear where my allegiance lies, with Christian teaching WHEREVER it may be found. If it had not been found also in Masonry, and had I not been able to discern its presence there beforehand, I would not have joined, it’s as simple as that.
Did Christ come to establish a "religion in which all men agree?"
Yes, He did, it’s called Christianity. He did proclaim that it was for “whoever will,” so He clearly wanted one in which everyone would agree. And if you will check out the sermon on the mount, you will find a lot of the things He included within its span. Come to think of it, that’s where He said “Blessed are the PURE IN HEART, for they shall see God.” You know, the same thing that’s proclaimed by the writer of Hebrews 12:14, “Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which NO ONE WILL SEE THE LORD.”
Purity, you will “see God.”
No purity, “no one will see the Lord.”
Does seeing these side by side help clarify it any better for you?
Upvote
0