Freemasonry is compatible with Christianity?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rev Wayne

Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity
Sep 16, 2003
4,128
100
71
SC
Visit site
✟13,530.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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

Rev Wayne

Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity
Sep 16, 2003
4,128
100
71
SC
Visit site
✟13,530.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The Christian faith is, indeed, our faith. But for this reason are we all the more sympathetic toward the good and true in all other religions; and none the less faithful to our ideas of what is really good and true, wherever found, in our critical examination and testing of our own religion. (George Trumbull Ladd, in preface to The Philosophy of Religion)

"PROVE all things; HOLD FAST that which is GOOD."
 
Upvote 0

AndrewCS

Active Member
Jun 7, 2007
277
9
✟15,437.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Exactly my point: "blah blah blah" says it all. My kids are more serious than that when they are playing their video games.

Since you have apparently opted out of the debate, I'll wait till someone more "serious" comes along.


Obviously because you are a “rev” you know best and are obviously better equipped to judge.

Carry on with your debate Rev, I am sure this is God’s calling for your ministry.

God Bless you. :clap:



 
Upvote 0

AndrewCS

Active Member
Jun 7, 2007
277
9
✟15,437.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
My, my. Got our knickers in quite a twist, don't we? Sorry, but I find it hard to take anyone serious who can begin with blah blah blah and end with God bless, in practically the same breath.

REV,

I too can be blunt.

Quite seriously, after how ever long you studied to become ordained if this is the end result then I am not surprised if you opted to join the Freemasons. :D

Deep breath – God Bless you :hug:

Ahh, that feels better. Prefer to bless than to spit fire. :clap:

Just for that , another breath – God Bless you again. :hug:
 
Upvote 0

Rev Wayne

Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity
Sep 16, 2003
4,128
100
71
SC
Visit site
✟13,530.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Quite seriously, after how ever long you studied to become ordained if this is the end result then I am not surprised if you opted to join the Freemasons.

Thanks for confirming my suspicions that you were dropping bait, and fishing for something to criticize.

I am not the topic. If you wish to continue the baiting and personal remarks, find someone else.
 
Upvote 0

O.F.F.

An Ex-Mason for Jesus
Jan 22, 2004
1,422
49
USA
Visit site
✟9,348.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Wayne said:
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.

Not once in your post did you say anything about the evidences of regeneration resulting in sanctification. In order to produce "evidences of regeneration" it stands to reason that "regeneration" must come first, right?

But let's assume for a moment you are correct (although you are not), in that this is the same application of "purity of life and rectitude of conduct" used by Freemasonry in the Apron Lecture. Since it is already a lecture contained in its ritual long before a candidate petitions the Lodge for membership, Masonry would have to presuppose that every candidate for membership is already saved (regenerated, born again Christians) as outlined in Scripture.

Yet we know this cannot be the case for several reasons, but let me share a few:

  1. When an Investigating Committee comes to a candidate's home, as it relates to religious matters he is asked one question, and one question only. "Do you believe in the existence of a Supreme Being?" Never in Masonry is anyone ever asked, "Are you a blood-bought, born again believer in Jesus Christ our Lord?"

  2. Since Freemasonry claims not to be a religion, but accepts men from ALL religions, there is no way this same application is intended in its Apron Lecture. It can't apply if not ALL Masons believe in Jesus Christ.

  3. Hebrews was written to BELIEVERS, not Masons or non-believers.
Therefore, you are wrong in applying Scripture in a Christian context to a fraternity that, by its own admission, insists that it is NOT a religion or sectarian in any shape or form. You need to STOP trying to apply Christian Doctrine and principles to a non-Christian, non-sectarian, secular organization. To do so would be like trying to fit a square peg into a round whole. It's a futile exercise, that is making you look very foolish.

MOA said:
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.” . . . 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. . .

Purity, you will “see God.”
No purity, “no one will see the Lord.”

What you fail to acknowledge is that the PURITY required does NOT COME by a person's own efforts or behavior. It is by the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ that we enter the kingdom of God (2 Corinthians 5:21)!

For you to TWIST the Word of God to say otherwise is not only disingenuous it is pure HERESY. If you insist on taking this position you are charaterizing yourself as a FALSE TEACHER. And, if you think YOU are holy or good or pure enough to get to heaven, in and of yourself, you will never enter the kingdom of God.

It is NOT your goodness and purity that gets you into heaven as Freemasonry teaches in its Apron Lecture; it is the "purity" and holiness of Jesus Christ applied to BELIEVERS, not Masons, that gets us there.
 
Upvote 0

Rev Wayne

Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity
Sep 16, 2003
4,128
100
71
SC
Visit site
✟13,530.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
By the way, I know we are both in the same time zone. It is now 10:20am, Sunday August 5. I'm about to go to church, shouldn't you be preparing to deliver a sermon or something yourself? Why are you still online here at this present time?

Actually, at 10:20 a.m. I was sitting in Sunday School class, and had been for 20 minutes.

Is that all you do, sit around all day trying to dream up personal accusations to toss at me? This is a cable hookup, and it stays on all the time. Apparently the christianforums signal that lets you know whether or not I'm online, can detect my presence online whether I happen to be on the forum or not, because I did not leave a window open, nor have I been in here since I sat here eating breakfast earlier this morning, at which time I posted one brief note, as you can see, at 9:09.

This is a real chuckler, since I notice you just made a remark in another post about "making yourself look foolish." Don't you think this is a strong indication you need to dispense with the personal attacks and get on with some genuine debate?
 
Upvote 0

Rev Wayne

Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity
Sep 16, 2003
4,128
100
71
SC
Visit site
✟13,530.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Since you are so confident that Freemasonry is compatible with biblical Christianity, if I could arrange us to have a 'live' debate on Christian radio or television, would you be willing to attend?
Not on your life. Now, I certainly would not mind attending, to be sure, but not as a participant. Some people are geared up for one type of debate, others are geared up for other means. I am a researcher and writer, I am much more geared for examining and compiling and comparing and pulling evidence into a coherent whole, I am not so gifted in the oral skills and the thinking on one's feet that are necessary for that type of format. And thank God that over the years I've become at least wise enough to recognize this and decline the offer.

I will stick with my strengths, just as I would advise anyone else to do, and so I must pass and leave that avenue for those who are thus gifted.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Rev Wayne

Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity
Sep 16, 2003
4,128
100
71
SC
Visit site
✟13,530.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Not once in your post did you say anything about the evidences of regeneration resulting in sanctification. In order to produce "evidences of regeneration" it stands to reason that "regeneration" must come first, right?
Precisely. It IS obvious, what you just stated, for one who knows the theology, which is why I saw no need to waste time stating the obvious.

But let's assume for a moment you are correct (although you are not), in that this is the same application of "purity of life and rectitude of conduct" used by Freemasonry in the Apron Lecture.

Assume it all you wish, just don't pull me into it. I never once said this was "the same application." Application would be made by the individual, so that would be a matter of personal interpretation.

Purity, after all, is another of those points of religion that fit into the "religion in which all men agree." Nowhere in the use of the phrase "religion in which all men agree" does Masonry intend "absolute conformity to one standard" on anything included within that phrase. It simply points to common themes and motifs shared by all religions. And purity is certainly one of them. I'm sure you've seen all the comparisons with the motif as found in other religions, as Mackey describes them: in Israel, the girdle; in Persia, the white apron; in Hindustan, the sash; in the Essene Jewish sect, the white robe; in Japan, a white apron bound with a girdle; and of course, the mention of the Roman garter.

But you forget that you have already been shown that the apron lecture derives, just as Mackey has said, from an early church ritual where the newly-baptized person is given a white garment, with these accompanying words:

Receive this white and undefiled garment, and produce it unspotted before the tribunal of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you may obtain life eternal.

Follow the verbs: RECEIVE the white and undefiled garment, and produce it unspotted before the tribunal of our Lord Jesus Christ, THAT YOU MAY OBTAIN life eternal. The receiving and the producing are done with the direct PURPOSE “that you may obtain life eternal.”

In other words, it states in exactly the same manner in this Christian declaration, as it is expressed in the Masonic lecture.

Since it is already a lecture contained in its ritual long before a candidate petitions the Lodge for membership, Masonry would have to presuppose that every candidate for membership is already saved (regenerated, born again Christians) as outlined in Scripture.

How so? Just because it recognizes that purity is a requirement for entry into heaven? As I said before, all Masonry says, and even then indirectly, is that (1) purity is required, and (2) the white lambskin apron is to be a reminder of that fact. That says nothing at all about any Mason having obtained it, or when, or any other such detail. As worded, it could just as easily say “let this be a reminder of the purity you have yet to obtain” as it could “let this be a reminder of the purity you have obtained,” as you suggest, because it specifies neither.

Hebrews was written to BELIEVERS, not Masons or non-believers.

Apparently you have totally missed the point altogether. Nobody made any application of the statement in Hebrews to Masons. Now follow the discourse this time:

First, you made accusation using the lecture, based on your notion that it says “purity is essentially necessary for entry” into heaven.

Second, I replied with a counterpoint showing that yes, it IS indeed required, and I cited Heb. 12:14, Matt. 5:8, and Rev. 21:27.

Thirdly, I further stated the case based on what was contained in those verses:

Matt. 5:8 says the pure in heart will see God;
Heb. 12:14 says those not pure in heart, i.e., “without holiness,” will NOT see God.
Rev. 21:27 says “nothing impure will EVER enter” into heaven.

FOURTHLY: the CONCLUSION drawn from these: Purity is most definitely REQUIRED for entry into heaven.

See? Just as I said, it was not applied to Masons at all. The reason for the whole exercise in presenting it was:

IT PROVES THAT PURITY IS ESSENTIAL TO GAINING ADMISSION TO THAT “HOUSE NOT BUILT WITH HANDS, ETERNAL IN THE HEAVENS.”

And since it IS, you have no argument. You can’t criticize Masonry for declaring the essentiality of what God has declared to be essential.

Honestly, you’ve flipped this thing around at every possible angle, given it every possible spin you can, and the SCRIPTURES still say the same thing.

Every religion says the same thing in one form or another, that purity is an essential component of their religion. The only thing that has changed now, is that your argument that Christianity is an exception to the pattern and does not require it, has been shown to be invalid.

Therefore, you are wrong in applying Scripture in a Christian context to a fraternity that, by its own admission, insists that it is NOT a religion or sectarian in any shape or form.

As I just pointed out, I clearly have not done so.

You need to STOP trying to apply Christian Doctrine and principles to a non-Christian, non-sectarian, secular organization.

I haven’t. Masonry is free to be interpreted by the individual as he chooses, according to his own beliefs and religion. The purity requirement would apply no matter which one that might be. I myself am a Christian, and so I have explained my own understanding of it as it relates to Jesus Christ. Contrary to your claim, this is EXACTLY what I am SUPPOSED to do.
 
Upvote 0

AndrewCS

Active Member
Jun 7, 2007
277
9
✟15,437.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Thanks for confirming my suspicions that you were dropping bait, and fishing for something to criticize.

I am not the topic. If you wish to continue the baiting and personal remarks, find someone else.

Rev,

Exactly, your discernment is wrong. Perhaps you need to read over this thread and see that you started attacking me with derogatory remarks. In some of my last responses to you, I even used the “hug” smilies to try to reach you.

When I have remarked on the Freemasons, you have taken it that I am talking about you and “baiting you” therefore, I understand that you are aligned with the Freemasons.

The basis of communication is questions and answers, if it is just one person giving the answers it is dictatorship. The Body of Christ is made up of many components and people and we are told by God to interact in harmony

You sound like you have some control issues as it is okay in your mind to get personal and rude with me but if anyone challenges you, in return you respond like this.

God wants us to submit to Him through our own choice not someone getting all nasty and talking over us. I do not believe that it is the Godly way to behave.

Yes, you are right; you are not the topic here, GOD IS. Due to my belief in JESUS the SON, CHRIST the FATHER and the HOLY SPIRIT when you stand up for the Freemasons YOU ARE CRITICISING GOD.

God Bless you. :hug:
 
Upvote 0

Rev Wayne

Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity
Sep 16, 2003
4,128
100
71
SC
Visit site
✟13,530.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What you fail to acknowledge is that the PURITY required does NOT COME by a person's own efforts or behavior.

“Fail to acknowledge?” Where WERE you???

“The purity and rectitude of conduct so essentially necessary” is the purity and rectitude of conduct accomplished by Christ. The symbology of the Lamb clearly draws that imagery to “my” mind, and so that is what “I’m” reminded of. I don’t know any Christian in lodge who would NOT be, unless they were a new Christian and did not yet know the references in Scripture to Jesus as the Lamb. HIS “purity and rectitude” were REQUIRED; if they had NOT been, it would have been cruel for the Father to put His Son through the agony of the Cross. So when “I” hear the lecture and see Christ in the symbology of the Lamb, “I” am reminded of “the purity and rectitude of conduct so essentially necessary,” because “I” am reminded of HIS. (P. 20, Post #197, bold emphasis added)

FIRST: This clearly shows you that I DID acknowledge what you just claimed I did not.

SECOND: The highlighted “I’s” in what I said there, are a clear indication that I was expressing here MY interpretation and NOT “applying Christian doctrine to ‘Masonry,’” as you implied.

For you to TWIST the Word of God to say otherwise is not only disingenuous it is pure HERESY. If you insist on taking this position you are charaterizing yourself as a FALSE TEACHER. And, if you think YOU are holy or good or pure enough to get to heaven, in and of yourself, you will never enter the kingdom of God.

To RECAP, and to unwind the SPIN you just put on this:

Purity is required to gain admission, because the Word says so.

In Christianity, that purity involves both imputed and imparted righteousness. Imputed comes at justification, imparted comes by the process of sanctification.

Both are by faith. I assume you need no proof that justification is by faith? Likewise, I assume you don’t understand that sanctification is by faith, too, because you have characterized sanctification as something “in and of yourself,” as you just put it. And so you will need proof:



Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to do of His good pleasure. (Phil. 2:12-13)

Work out your—what? SALVATION! How? With fear & trembling, keeping in mind that it is GOD who works IN you, both to WILL and to DO.

Both the will and the action are the work of God—that most DEFINITELY is not “in and of yourself.”

But undoubtedly you will come back with “But not for the Mason who is from some other religion.”

And of course I would reply, “So what?” How does that affect ME, and how does that affect the compatibility of my faith with what is said in the lambskin apron lecture? Truth is, it does not, for as I’ve pointed out, the lamb symbol would be automatic for the Christian in Lodge, who would automatically see Christ in the symbol.

And you will then say, “But that is not so for the non-Christian in Lodge, Masonry would be applying a false standard in presenting that to the non-Christian.”

The thing is, you have such one-dimensional thinking when it comes to symbols, you fail to grasp that this is not “Masonry presenting this interpretation to ALL,” it is ME as a CHRISTIAN Mason, interpreting the symbology for MYSELF. Masonry simply points out in the lecture that the purity is required.

But perhaps you need a reminder where this derives from anyway:

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.)

Therefore, your claim that this is not the same purity as Christian purity is now in doubt anyway, even though it was not what I was claiming, because this former version of the ritual, which would naturally be closer to the original, has Christ as the Lamb from whom the symbol derives, and this comment from Paul concerning the heaven to which the Mason aspires.
 
Upvote 0

Rev Wayne

Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity
Sep 16, 2003
4,128
100
71
SC
Visit site
✟13,530.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
When I have remarked on the Freemasons, you have taken it that I am talking about you and “baiting you”
No, the baiting started when you started with "blah blah blah." Anyone can review the posts and see that what I say is true. The "blah blah blah" taunting started when your question was answered with evidence you did not expect to see, apparently. Your frustration is evident, but it's no excuse for taunting remarks.
The basis of communication is questions and answers
Exactly. And that format ended when you started with "blah blah blah" and baiting remarks.

Sorry, but as I pointed out, "God bless you" on the end of a "blah blah blah" taunt smacks of insincerity, no matter how many smilies you attach to it. In fact, when you are engaging in ridicule in this childish fashion, attaching a smiley only serves to exacerbate the taunting nature of the post.

Say all you wish from this point, you have made it clear you have no interest in the debate any longer, and I have no interest in engaging you in debate even if you were interested, because you've made it plain what your last line of defense will be.
 
Upvote 0

AndrewCS

Active Member
Jun 7, 2007
277
9
✟15,437.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Say all you wish from this point, you have made it clear you have no interest in the debate any longer, and I have no interest in engaging you in debate even if you were interested, because you've made it plain what your last line of defense will be.

Rev,

Once again you are telling me about me and making decisions on my beahalf.

At what stage do you take ANY of this to GOD in prayer?

God Bless you :hug:


 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

O.F.F.

An Ex-Mason for Jesus
Jan 22, 2004
1,422
49
USA
Visit site
✟9,348.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
MOA said:
Now follow the discourse this time:

First, you made accusation using the lecture, based on your notion that it says “purity is essentially necessary for entry” into heaven.

Second, I replied with a counterpoint showing that yes, it IS indeed required, and I cited Heb. 12:14, Matt. 5:8, and Rev. 21:27.

Thirdly, I further stated the case based on what was contained in those verses:

Matt. 5:8 says the pure in heart will see God;
Heb. 12:14 says those not pure in heart, i.e., “without holiness,” will NOT see God.
Rev. 21:27 says “nothing impure will EVER enter” into heaven.

FOURTHLY: the CONCLUSION drawn from these: Purity is most definitely REQUIRED for entry into heaven.

See? Just as I said, it was not applied to Masons at all. The reason for the whole exercise in presenting it was:

IT PROVES THAT PURITY IS ESSENTIAL TO GAINING ADMISSION TO THAT “HOUSE NOT BUILT WITH HANDS, ETERNAL IN THE HEAVENS.

And again you left out the fact that since purity is the standard, and man is in no way PURE, the only way this 'requirement' could be fulfilled is if God supplied a worthy substitute; which He did with His pure Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

MOA said:
You can’t criticize Masonry for declaring the essentiality of what God has declared to be essential.

Yes I can, because like you just did, Freemasonry does not include Christ as the essential element from which one is to obtain that purity.

MOA said:
Every religion says the same thing in one form or another, that purity is an essential component of their religion.

Yet the ESSENTIAL difference is, all other religions, including Freemasonry exclude Jesus Christ as the source of that purity. Therefore, the pattern that the "purity" requirement in ALL religions is the same as it is found in Christianity is invalid. Without Christ it is not the same thing.

MOA said:
But perhaps you need a reminder where this derives from anyway:

No, on the contrary, it is disingenuous of you to try and dupe the readers into thinking that James Hardie's New Freemason's Monitor, is representative of an authoritative source for ALL of Masonry. Although it was written and published in New York, it isn't even considered an authoritative source of the Grand Lodge of New York, let alone Freemasonry as a whole. Perhaps you need to be reminded that no one Mason speaks on behalf of ALL Masonry, including James Hardie, and Rev. Wayne Major.

MOA said:
But undoubtedly you will come back with “But not for the Mason who is from some other religion.”

And of course I would reply, “So what?” How does that affect ME, and how does that affect the compatibility of my faith with what is said in the lambskin apron lecture? Truth is, it does not, for as I’ve pointed out, the lamb symbol would be automatic for the Christian in Lodge, who would automatically see Christ in the symbol.

And you will then say, “But that is not so for the non-Christian in Lodge, Masonry would be applying a false standard in presenting that to the non-Christian.”

The thing is, you have such one-dimensional thinking when it comes to symbols, you fail to grasp that this is not “Masonry presenting this interpretation to ALL,” it is ME as a CHRISTIAN Mason, interpreting the symbology for MYSELF.

So now we know your real motives. At the end of the day, it's all about YOU. Where does the GOSPEL fit into the equation, pastor? For it [the gospel] is the crux of the matter. For it is the gospel that is at the heart of the Christian faith, NOT the "Golden Rule." The gospel is much more critical than the Ethic of Reciprocity, and since Freemasonry ignores it, Freemasonry could NEVER be compatible with Biblical Christianity.

NO GOSPEL, NO COMPATIBILITY!
 
Upvote 0

Rev Wayne

Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity
Sep 16, 2003
4,128
100
71
SC
Visit site
✟13,530.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
NO GOSPEL, NO COMPATIBILITY!
Since Masonry does not claim to either be or to teach the Gospel, being a fraternity and not a religion, I'm afraid yours is a false standard.


So now we know your real motives. At the end of the day, it's all about YOU.
You're so predictable it's comical. Just as I was typing that up, before I even entered it, the thought occurred to me that this was EXACTLY what you would do with the fact that I highlighted the ME.

But the fact is, I was speaking of my own interpretation, so naturally I wasn't going to say "them," or "her," or "you," or any of a number of other pronouns I could have used.

So let's try this same portion you just quoted, in third person so you can't do your spin cycle on it, and make the same point, which was, the interpretation is up to the individual:

But undoubtedly you will come back with “But not for the Mason who is from some other religion.”

And of course THE CHRISTIAN MASON would reply, “So what?” How does that affect THE CHRISTIAN MASON, and how does that affect the compatibility of HIS faith with what is said in the lambskin apron lecture? Truth is, it does not, for as I’ve pointed out, the lamb symbol would be automatic for the Christian in Lodge, who would automatically see Christ in the symbol.

And you will then say, “But that is not so for the non-Christian in Lodge, Masonry would be applying a false standard in presenting that to the non-Christian.”

The thing is, you have such one-dimensional thinking when it comes to symbols, you fail to grasp that this is not “Masonry presenting this interpretation to ALL,” it is THE CHRISTIAN MASON, interpreting the symbology for HIMSELF.
Now, if you will drop the facetiousness of making this comment all about me, maybe you will read this just as it was intended, since your spin point has been removed.

The fact is, EVERY individual chooses his own religion, because that is what Masonry teaches. A sample statement on the matter as Masonry puts it:

Masons believe a man's relationship between God and himself is a matter for each individual to decide.

Where does the GOSPEL fit into the equation, pastor?

Right where the individual Christian Mason interprets it. And as regards the apron lecture quote that is so often attacked, I already told you EXACTLY where the Gospel fits into the equation for me, which would not be substantially different from the interpretation of other Christian Masons as well. Since you seem to have forgotten it so soon:

“The purity and rectitude of conduct so essentially necessary” is the purity and rectitude of conduct accomplished by Christ. The symbology of the Lamb clearly draws that imagery to my mind, and so that is what I’m reminded of. I don’t know any Christian in lodge who would NOT be, unless they were a new Christian and did not yet know the references in Scripture to Jesus as the Lamb. HIS “purity and rectitude” were REQUIRED; if they had NOT been, it would have been cruel for the Father to put His Son through the agony of the Cross. So when I hear the lecture and see Christ in the symbology of the Lamb, I am reminded of “the purity and rectitude of conduct so essentially necessary,” because I am reminded of HIS.


The gospel is much more critical than the Ethic of Reciprocity, and since Freemasonry ignores it, Freemasonry could NEVER be compatible with Biblical Christianity.

So since when do your ideas pre-empt what Jesus says? It was Jesus, after all, who said the most important commandment was to love God with heart, soul, mind, and strength, and that the second was "like it," to love your neighbor as yourself. "On these," He said, "HANG ALL THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS."

And as you should know, it was the law and the prophets which laid the foundation concerning Christ. With one little arbitrary decision in trying to argue a point, you thus dismiss with what Jesus declared to be central in the teachings of the faith. And it's interesting the method you use to do that, by taking what everyone commonly knows as the "Golden Rule," and thus also as a central tenet of Christianity, and substituting for it "Ethic of Reciprocity," thereby ameliorating the term so you can assuage your conscience by convincing yourself it's something other than the central teaching found in the "GOLDEN RULE."

But the biggest point you ignore is, the Gospel does not fall under Masonry’s own statement concerning religion, that they only urge upon the Mason “that religion in which all men may agree.” Take that statement and the statement also that Masonry is “a system of morality,” and it becomes clear that the Gospel belongs to neither description, for not all men agree on it, nor is it merely a “system of morality.” Since Masonry, then, makes no requirement that Masons must accept the Gospel; and since Masonry is an organization that emphasizes morality and common moral teachings common to all religions; and since Masonry everywhere proclaims it is not a religion, and Masons are to find their theological foundations from their own religion:

It is DISINGENUOUS of you to criticize Masonry for NOT being the things it clearly proclaims it is NOT.

since Freemasonry ignores it, Freemasonry could NEVER be compatible with Biblical Christianity.

We've really covered this many times over in the past. Freemasonry is not Christianity, and doesn't claim to be.

What it IS, is a "system of MORALITY."

Is morality compatible with Christian faith? For your claims to be true, even morality itself would not be compatible with Christian faith. But since we know the morals Freemasonry teaches, we know your claim is not so:

"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"--where exactly do these "conflict," or where exactly are they "incompatible" with Christian faith?

Far from ignoring it, much of the content of Christian morality is built right into Masonry, as shown in response to Andrew’s question a bit earlier.

No, on the contrary, it is disingenuous of you to try and dupe the readers into thinking that James Hardie's New Freemason's Monitor, is representative of an authoritative source for ALL of Masonry.
It is even more disingenuous of you to try and dupe the readers into thinking I said any such thing. All I said was, this is what it “derives from.” The very fact that I referred to it as derivative should have been clear enough for you. I was referring to the fact that there is an earlier form which points to Jesus Christ in the quoted portion, not to the specific source I quoted it from. Hardie certainly was not the only person to see it that way, his was simply the first one that came to mind. The same version may be found in Oliver's Signs and Symbols Illustrated and Explained, and in Macoy's Dictionary of Freemasonry.
And despite your protests, you STILL offer no comment at all to the fact that the statement you criticize is MODELED DIRECTLY ON A SIMILAR STATEMENT THAT COMES FROM AN EARLY CHURCH BAPTISMAL RITUAL--a ritual which states the matter EXACTLY the same, stating that the newly-baptized person is to wear the white garment to remind them of the purity that it symbolizes, to present it at the tribunal of Jesus Christ, "THAT YOU MAY OBTAINeternal life."

Thus your accusation that Masonry is guilty of "teaching" anything about "essentiality" is FALSE: they ADOPTED the idea directly from the early Christian ritual.

Therefore, the pattern that the "purity" requirement in ALL religions is the same as it is found in Christianity is invalid.

Thank God I didn’t say anything like THAT!

All I said was, all religions have some teaching on purity that indicates its essentiality.

And of course I can provide examples:

Where is the place for the highest good? you ask. The soul. But this can never receive God unless it be pure and holy. (Epictetus)

The only worthy temple of God is the universe; he is not to be worshipped by temples, but by a pure heart. (Seneca)

Without doubt the Mazdean conception of purity, or righteousness, as the moral foundation of the universe, and the essence of God himself, did leave a permanent stamp upon the world. (Charles Loring Brace, The Unknown God, p. 190)

Purity is for man next to life the greatest good,--that purity gained by the law of the Lord, to him who cleanseth his own self with good thoughts, words, and works. (Zoroastrian, Brace, The Unknown God, p. 196)

Christianity says without it, you can’t enter heaven (Rev. 21:27); Epictetus spoke of it as “the highest good”; Seneca spoke of it as the basis of worship; Zoroastrianism speaks of purity as the “greatest good,” “the foundation of the universe,” and “the essence of God himself.”

With very little effort, I could certainly compile quite a few more, and from a wide variety of religions. But at least this sample shows you it is there. The “pattern” is:

(1) All religions teach purity;

(2) It is a central teaching in all religions, including Christianity.

Therefore, it has been shown that a second teaching found at the heart of Christianity, is also a central tenet in other religions, and thus is a part of the pattern of “religion in which all men may agree.”

You will show your disagreement as usual, I’m sure, but your objections are all focused not on the basic pattern, but on the fleshing out of the pattern in specific Christian teaching, which is irrelevant to "the religion in which all may agree."
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Status
Not open for further replies.