Freemasonry is compatible with Christianity?

Mike,

If you hold similar theology to Harold Kupp, I can understand why you are vigilant against the fraternity. Perhaps, if you like, a few of us can offer you thoughtful arguments to persuade you to change your mind and experience true freedom in Christ.

Yes, I noticed. But a different one caught my eye:

The Holy Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ are distinctly different. Most church scholars teach that they are one and the same person, however the Bible clearly teaches the following facts:

ONE The Spirit of Christ is something separate and distinct from the Holy Spirit of God!
TWO The Spirit of Christ is received after we receive the Holy Spirit of God. To avoid any confusion when referring to the two Spirits, I will
distinguish them with a symbol as follows:

(HS) Holy Spirit of God
(SOC) Spirit of Christ

In his letter to the Romans, Paul spoke of both the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ in one verse. He said:

1A “However you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the SPIRIT OF GOD (HS) dwells in you.
1B BUT if anyone does not have the SPIRIT OF CHRIST (SOC), he does not belong to Him.”
Romans 8:9

In line 1A, (above) Paul is referring to the SPIRIT OF GOD whom we receive when we are born-again as CHILDERN of God. However, in line 1B, the contrasting word “BUT” clearly introduces a different Spirit, i.e. the SPIRIT OF CHRIST whom
we receive later, when we are adopted as SONS of God.

Click to expand...

Can't say for sure about the rest of it, but in this particular case, the errors arise from over-literalism. It looks very similar to a claim that Cyrus Scofield made years ago concerning eschatological interpretations, when he separated meanings between the phrases "kingdom of heaven" and "kingdom of God." In that case, he was easily refuted by Matt. 19:23, in which the two were used side by side referring to the same thing.

In this case, Kupp cites the very verse that refutes what he claims, Romans 8:9. The "but" he mentions is irrelevant, and in fact does more to refute his claim than it does to support it, by showing the two phrases to be connected by the linking word. The first version I looked at (NIV) didn't even have "but," it had "and" instead.

The claim he makes about adoption being by the Spirit of Christ and being later is not true. From the same passage where he builds his case:

Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father."

Click to expand...

At first glance, it might appear to someone trying to make the case he attempts, that the "being led by the Spirit" spoken of here, is the "later" that he was talking about, and thus would have to refer to the Spirit of Christ. But in the same sentence where it talks about "putting to death the misdeeds of the body," it also says being led by the Spirit makes one a child of God. The "For" of the next sentence connects the thoughts together, and thus adds the thought that follows, to what has already been said about the Spirit of GOD. And that "for" clearly says "you RECEIVED the Spirit of sonship." And it says this about the SPIRIT OF GOD, making the Spirit of God ALSO the Spirit of sonship, or by logical inference, the Spirit of "adoption." The argument is therefore refuted.

Rev Wayne said:

Yeah, painting this as "Phelpsian" certainly is a broad generalization, but the seeds of a Phelps are always present in any statement like:

From that point begin the development of all the self-justifications for not loving anyone at all who does not fall within that common bond. If we ask the common "what would Jesus do," we do not get the same answer at all. Jesus praised the faith of a Gentile woman; He called the faith of a centurion "greater than anyone in all Israel"; He pointed out that the only two people to whom prophets were sent to heal them, were both Gentiles--and the crowd tried to throw Him over a cliff for it; He identified with the poor without putting any limitation upon it when He said, "If you have done it to the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me"; He defended a woman caught in adultery when a crowd following the Jewish law was about to stone her to death; He ministered to a woman who was despised by Jews for her Samaritan heritage, who was living in sin by living with a man who was not her husband; He was criticized for allowing a woman to anoint Him at Simon's house; He healed 10 lepers, who would have been outcasts in Israel; He went to the house of Zacchaeus, a despised tax-collector; I could name quite a few more, but that should be enough to get the point.

It seems to me that if you follow the accounts of who Jesus ministered to, you find quite a number of them along the way who were way beyond the pale of what Kupp insists as the boundary of whom we are to show the love of God.

Moreover, following what he has said, we must assume that Jesus was not ministering according to any precept of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" when He did any of these things. I think that is an appalling assessment (1) of the love of God as shown in Jesus, and (2) of the love we are exhorted to show to others in Jesus' name.

Kupp's idea would preclude any of the tremendous outpouring of love shown to the victims of Katrina in the days following that catastrophe--or it would at least require any Christians involved in such giving, to first make sure exactly where the money was going, so they could make sure it wasn't going to non-Christians.

Either choice would be lose-lose.

Click to expand...

Now I must say AMEN to this! That's some good preachin' bro!

G19 said:

Mike,

If you hold similar theology to Harold Kupp, I can understand why you are vigilant against the fraternity. Perhaps, if you like, a few of us can offer you thoughtful arguments to persuade you to change your mind and experience true freedom in Christ.

Click to expand...

Thanks, but that won't be necessary. I do not hold to Kupp's theology, I just posted it to stimulate the debate. I enjoyed Rev. Wayne's responses, and I appreciate that they were biblical, rather than Masonic. I agree with what he said wholeheartedly.

As it relates to dealing with people in general, my theology boils down to this: As Christians there are only two ways we can view someone; either as a brother or sister in Christ or a candidate for salvation. In either case, it only stands to reason that we should love them (1 Corinthians 13).

O.F.F. said:

Now I must say AMEN to this! That's some good preachin' bro!

Click to expand...

I enjoyed it very much as well.

As it relates to dealing with people in general, my theology boils down to this: As Christians there are only two ways we can view someone; either as a brother or sister in Christ or a candidate for salvation. In either case, it only stands to reason that we should love them (1 Corinthians 13).

Click to expand...

I used to hold to that view as well. The last few years of study have forced me to challenge some of my previously held notions. Today, I am much more interested in personal stories and learning what all goes in to making someone who they are. I no longer see the dichotomy of "christian/nonchristian" in people and I don't view them as potential converts. I do see them as dearly loved by the creator of the cosmos and it stands to reason that I should value them as such.

That's where you and I disagree and I think it's a matter of personal gifting rather than absolute theology. I'm not an evangelist by gifting, I like teaching. As such, I value the learning experience as transformative self-inquiry guided by or facilitated by answering questions as they occur naturally in the course of relationship. Since I believe Christ is the most complete and accurate expression of who God is, and Christianity contains the most complete story of God's purposes for man, I think people will naturally gravitate toward that, once we take away the man-made barriers we so often build between men and God.

I also value personal choice and so must respect a person's choice to not believe. If I base my active love for them on their potential decision for faith, I feel it is insincere. I also realize that you and others view warning of hell to be an expression of love and I don't think, given your view, that it is inconsistent with love itself. In other words, no critique from me, I think your motive is pure.

At any rate, that's the difference in our theological framework in a nutshell and causes us to see things differently.

As it relates to dealing with people in general, my theology boils down to this: As Christians there are only two ways we can view someone; either as a brother or sister in Christ or a candidate for salvation. In either case, it only stands to reason that we should love them (1 Corinthians 13).

Click to expand...

Then I have a valid question, although you may not perceive it as such:

You have gone on record here and elsewhere in the past with your views of Roman Catholic theology. Your tendency has also been, especially in relation to Masons, that if anyone is the least bit involved in any group you see as un-Christian, the ideas you express usually leave no doubt that you do not view them as having any saving relationship with God on account of that involvement.

Is Mother Teresa with Jesus now?

Quote:
As it relates to dealing with people in general, my theology boils down to this: As Christians there are only two ways we can view someone; either as a brother or sister in Christ or a candidate for salvation. In either case, it only stands to reason that we should love them (1 Corinthians 13).

Click to expand...

And I have a question as well, what do you think it means to "love them"?

George the 3rd said:

And I have a question as well, what do you think it means to "love them"?

Click to expand...

G3, I thought I answered that at the end with 1 Corinthians 13, which means I need to be patient with them, and kind to them, not envious, boastful or prideful against them. I should not be rude, self-seeking or easily angered toward them and keep no record of their wrong doing. I should protect them whenever I can, trust the Lord for them and hope for their salvation. Finally, I should persevere and never fail them.

Of course, all of this is easier said than done that's why we need the Holy Spirit, not Freemasonry, to help us love as we should.

Rev Wayne said:

Then I have a valid question, although you may not perceive it as such:

You have gone on record here and elsewhere in the past with your views of Roman Catholic theology. Your tendency has also been, especially in relation to Masons, that if anyone is the least bit involved in any group you see as un-Christian, the ideas you express usually leave no doubt that you do not view them as having any saving relationship with God on account of that involvement.

Is Mother Teresa with Jesus now?

Click to expand...

I was a raised a Catholic, and later left as I matured in the grace and saving knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. Likewise, I was once "raised" a Master Mason, but as I continued to grow in the Lord, the Holy Spirit led me to believe that I should not be in the Lodge.

Although I have theological issues against both Catholicism and Freemasonry, my resistance is stronger against the Lodge. IMO, the fundemental aspects of Christianity are more apparent in the Catholic Church, than in the Lodge.

It's interesting that you should ask though; because she is the featured cover story of this week's (Sept. 3, 2007) Time magazine. The article talks about here it is a decade after her death, and secret letters of hers reveal that she spent most of her last 50 years without sensing the presence of God in her life. In 1979, she wrote to a Rev. Michael Van Der Peet saying:

Jesus has a special love for you. But for me,--the silence and emptiness is so great,-- that I look and do not see,-- listen and do not hear.

Mother Teresa

Click to expand...

However, to answer your question, I don't know if Mother Teresa is with Jesus right now any more than I can tell you if you'll be with Him when you die. I hope she is, and I hope you will be with Him too. But only God knows the heart of those that truly love Him and put their sole trust in Him for salvation.

But only God knows the heart of those that truly love Him and put their sole trust in Him for salvation.

Click to expand...

And in that statement, of course, is my whole point. Your claim has been all along that a Christian who is also a Mason is either not a Christian and is therefore deceived; or he is not a "real" Christian; or he is a "nominal" Christian; or the opinion is simply insinuated in snide fashion by referring to them as "Christian" Masons. So even though you now say that "only God knows the heart of those that truly love Him and put their sole trust in Him for salvation," I hope you can see why it comes across as hollow words. Just because you say this in response to the question about Mother Teresa, does not negate the many times you have exhibited a diametrically opposite position in your many exchanges here with Christian Masons. That's right, it's Christian Masons, not "Christian" Masons.
As for the Time article, that's pretty standard fare these days, to pull out supposed "secrets" and make assumptions based on things that totally go against the grain of all other information--especially when it's someone who is no longer with us or is not in a position to be able to defend themselves. I think I'll stick with what I see first-hand in her writings, and with the interview I saw 20-something years ago, when the interviewer showed his skeptic's colors and kept trying to hem her into a corner. She never batted an eye and gave him the most simple, straightforward answers, that by the time the interview had gone any length at all, he was hemming and hawing and it became obvious HE was the one who felt uncomfortable. That interview showed me in an inimitable way the truth of the promise by Jesus not to think beforehand what you shall say, "for it shall be given you in that moment what you should say." And I will also be more inclined to take the first-hand testimony of my aunt, who was a missionary in India for 40+ years, and had the opportunity to work with Mother Teresa during a stay at Calcutta.

And by the way, the letters you speak of are no "secret," they've been used by critics to try to bring down the image for years. If Mother Teresa's request had been honored, all her papers would have been destroyed, because of her concern that "people will think more of me, and less of Jesus."

One of my favorite statements on the matter:
There is so much good in the worst of us,
And so much bad in the best of us,
That it hardly behooves any of us
To talk about the rest of us.--Edward Wallis Hoch

IMO, the fundemental aspects of Christianity are more apparent in the Catholic Church, than in the Lodge.

Click to expand...

That's to be expected, naturally, since one is a religion, and the other is not, nor tries to be.

But maybe you forget that something Jesus referred to as "fundamental"--which we may surmise since He said it was the most important, namely, loving God supremely and loving one's neighbor as oneself--is also fundamental to Masonry, constituting its heart. This love is at the core of that "religion in which all men agree," as has been shown.

And you have already acknowledged that this same teaching has been around even before the Christian witness to it in the words of Jesus, and that it came not by derivation, and therefore by revelation.

But what you fail to see is Jesus' words of just how central it truly is: "For on these two," He said, "hang all the Law and the prophets."

That statement is most often interpreted as, "get these two and all the rest will follow." Christianity teaches it as central, Masonry teaches it as central, Jesus says it's central. Yet you do the math and wind up denying that which you've already acknowledged?

Yeah, her admissions of doubt encourage me greatly. She lived a lifetime of perseverance in spite of her doubts. To me, that is the epitomy of 'dying to self' and taking up the cross.

Wayne said:

But what you fail to see is Jesus' words of just how central it truly is: "For on these two," He said, "hang all the Law and the prophets."

That statement is most often interpreted as, "get these two right and all the rest will follow."

Click to expand...

Yet what you fail to realize is that by this statement, Jesus also meant that , unless you get the First Commandment right, you cannot fulfill the other 9. I've shown before how Freemasonry, as an institution, violates the 1st and greatest Commandment, and as a result "Christian" Masons indirectly do the same.

Unfortunately, I do not have time to do it now, but I will return soon to demonstrate this fact even further. In doing so, it will prove to be a key reason -- if for no other reason -- why Christians do not belong in the Lodge.

I've shown before how Freemasonry, as an institution, violates the 1st and greatest Commandment, and as a result "Christian" Masons indirectly do the same.

Click to expand...

That is a matter of opinion.

Unfortunately, I do not have time to do it now, but I will return soon to demonstrate this fact even further. In doing so, it will prove to be a key reason -- if for no other reason -- why Christians do not belong in the Lodge.

Click to expand...

My heart's all a-twitter with anticipation!

O.F.F. said:

Unfortunately, I do not have time to do it now, but I will return soon to demonstrate this fact even further. In doing so, it will prove to be a key reason -- if for no other reason -- why Christians do not belong in the Lodge.

Click to expand...

I'm willing to "listen," but it seems to me that what you are doing is showing why SOME Christians--those who share your interpretations of scripture--should think twice about belonging to the Masons, but not Christians in general. If MOST churches were to agree with your interpretation, of course, we might be getting close to the OP's question about compatibility of the religion and the lodge. This clearly is not the case if one particular Christian strain of thought objects.

For example, there are well-established Christian denominations and plenty of armchair theologians who say no Christian can take an oath, serve in the military, drive a car, use electricity, drink coffee, etc. These objections in no way establish that this is how "Christians" should think or act.

I have already asked, in this long discussion spilling over several threads:

What Mason symbols are incompatible with Christianity. That was the allegation, but no one ever supplied any.

I asked who these pagan gods are the Masons worship. That was the allegation, but no one ever named any and showed that they are indeed worshipped.

I asked for any anti-Mason here to tell me that he never takes an oath, ever. Of course, no one was willing to say that in his own case, even after saying that no good Christian could take one.

And so it goes. Plenty of allegations, plenty of minority Christian viewpoints made by individuals who don't feel that Masonry is right for them, given their own religious ideas,

But nothing that shows any inherent conflict between Masonry and Christianity.

O.F.F. said:

Yet what you fail to realize is that by this statement, Jesus also meant that , unless you get the First Commandment right, you cannot fulfill the other 9.

Click to expand...

Getting the first commandment "right" is not as difficult as you think it is. You and others, would very much like it to be difficult. That way, more christians would need to turn to you for advice and direction.

I've shown before how Freemasonry, as an institution, violates the 1st and greatest Commandment, and as a result "Christian" Masons indirectly do the same.

Click to expand...

No you haven't. You've attempted to do that but you've failed every time. In essence, what you're doing, is making the case that God is so small that he can easily be obscured by freemasonry and that if you weren't there to point it out, men might be deceived.

O.F.F. said:

However, to answer your question, I don't know if Mother Teresa is with Jesus right now any more than I can tell you if you'll be with Him when you die. I hope she is, and I hope you will be with Him too. But only God knows the heart of those that truly love Him and put their sole trust in Him for salvation.

Click to expand...

This would have been compelling if you had referenced yourself, and not pointed fingers at others.

Rev Wayne said:

I agree. The whole mention of the "secret letters," in the context of what had just been said, totally undermined the whole intent. If one truly believes that they "don't know" about Mother Teresa, and that "only God knows the heart of those that truly love him," then why go to such an apparent effort to cast doubts that she trusted in Jesus for her salvation?

The result is, it sounds like someone saying "Only God could possibly know the answer to that question," while saying at the same time, "But here's the evidence that I look at to determine the answer."

Click to expand...

Like chaoschristian, you too create a false dichotomy. First of all, I mentioned the "secret letters" in the context of Time magazine saying so, NOT ME! Secondly, how could I undermine YOUR intent if I don't KNOW what YOU INTEND by your QUESTION, unless YOU ARE BEING presumptuous? Thirdly, I did not cast doubt on Mother Teresa's faith, SHE DID by HER OWN admission in the letters that SHE WROTE.

I still stand on my initial reply to YOUR question. I DON'T KNOW WHERE Mother Teresa IS, NOR DO I KNOW WHERE YOUR SOUL WILL BE IN THE END!

My, my, how could anyone strike such a nerve with a mere "sounds like?"

Like chaoschristian, you too create a false dichotomy.

Click to expand...

"Dichotomy?" Between what and what?

I DON'T KNOW WHERE Mother Teresa IS, NOR DO I KNOW WHERE YOUR SOUL WILL BE IN THE END!

Click to expand...

Sure, we got that, it's based on "only God knows." So on that same basis, you don't know where YOURS will be either, right?

Secondly, how could I undermine YOUR intent if I don't what YOU INTEND by your QUESTION, unless YOU ARE BEING presumptous?

Click to expand...

Get a handle: it was YOUR intent that was meant. And naturally you're trying to answer in a way that you can pass yourself off as non-judgmental. We were just making the point that you didn't succeed in doing so.

Thirdly, I did not cast doubt on Mother Teresa's faith, SHE DID by HER OWN admission in the letters that SHE WROTE.

Click to expand...

You missed the point. If you were not trying to cast any doubts on what was being implied--that she is with Jesus--then why bring up the article at all?

You did not have to state it for it to be obvious. You knew my understood assessment was, "here's someone whose life and witness were above reproach."

As CC put it:

This would have been compelling if you had referenced yourself, and not pointed fingers at others.

Click to expand...

And the fact is, you were pointing fingers. What does it matter who said what in the article? The article is not posted on this website, and it was not a part of the argument--or it wasn't, at least, until YOU referenced it, of course.

So since you were not being judgmental about it, maybe you can point out for us just exactly what purpose you thought it served to bring up the article, if you were not mentioning it specifically to try to counter the unstated but implied idea that her character and witness were above reproach?

chaoschristian said:

This would have been compelling if you had referenced yourself, and not pointed fingers at others.

Click to expand...

I hope you are smarter than that. The question was very direct, "whether I think Mother Teresa is with Jesus," NOT "Where do you think you'll be when you die?" The answer to that question was also rendered in my reply: "Only God knows who love and trust Him for salvation."

So your personal judgment of me, and your reference of my pointing fingers is unwarranted.