Freemasonry is compatible with Christianity?

[O.F.F.]

As you've been so deliberate about pointing out in the past, this constitutes the idea of "Masonic authority" as you have defined it, and this "Masonic authority" says the passage need not be considered historical.

Yeah, but by what you quoted, even your own Grand Lodge admits the possibility that it could still very well be a "historical" account; by the preface, "Whether considered as a truthful narrative of an event that actually transpired during the building of the Temple. . ."

They simply qualify the notion beforehand by saying it's just not, "essential to the value of the symbolism that the legend should be proved to be historical." In other words, they don't care if Masons believe it to be true, or if it can be proven historical or not, they simply confirm its origin saying it "was undoubtedly borrowed from the Ancient Mysteries" and stress it's symbolism over its origin.

So thank you for demonstrating that your very own Masonic authority supports my premise.

Freemasonry doesn't care where its adherents spend eternity. They just want to teach the lesson of the Ancient Mysteries, which is the immortality of the soul. But a far nobler lesson should not be about Immortality, but about Eternal Life; there is a vast difference between the two.

Since the Masonic Order encourages its members to follow their own religious faith, they imply that all religions are equally valid and lead to God. Technically, that would be right, but the question is what position will the Mason be in when he stands before Him? In other words, "in Christ" or "not in Christ" that is the ultimate question.

The Lodge would do a far better service to its members by pointing to the source of eternal life, rather than the origin of their lesson of immortality. For it is going to be a rude awakening for any soul that stands on Judgment Day immortal, yet remain eternally separated from God.

 

[Albion]

Yeah, but by what you quoted, even your own Grand Lodge admits the possibility that it could still very well be a "historical" account; by the preface, "Whether considered as a truthful narrative of an event that actually transpired during the building of the Temple. . ."

They simply qualify the notion beforehand by saying it's just not, "essential to the value of the symbolism that the legend should be proved to be historical."

...which is the essence of your objection to Masonry, i.e. it is not a exclusively and completely Christian association using nothing but Christian emblems and terminology. If it were, you'd require that it only admit to membership those who belong to your own denomination.

It's an organization for monotheists but doesn't take sides as to what any member believes beyond that.

I have yet to see what is wrong there and you, of course, don't or can't explain why it might be.

 

[G19]

Freemasonry doesn't care where its adherents spend eternity.

Uhhhhh, what?

I'm sure Wayne will have lots to say about that, but Mike, you just can't get there from here. That's a non sequitur any way you look at it.

 

[Rev Wayne]

So thank you for demonstrating that your very own Masonic authority supports my premise.

I honestly don't see how you arrived at that conclusion when Mackey clearly said the question of its historicity is irrelevant to its content, and then goes on to explain that the REASON it is irrelevant is that the lessons it teaches are simply ahistorical. In other words, what Mackey says totally REFUTES your claim, and what's even MORE bizarre, you apparently can't even SEE it.

And even more mystifying, after I quoted from Mackey's Symbolism of Masonry, a passage that refuted YOUR quote from the same source; after I quoted material from Mackey's History of Freemasonry; after I quoted extensively from Sickels' Ahiman Rezon; and after quoting from Jeremiah How's The Freemason's Manual;

ALL of which REFUTE your claims:

Somehow you come back with this reply, pretending that this one source you now attack, was the only one I referenced, and thus somehow you claim some kind of foundation for a premise that has been shot down from every conceivable direction.

I haven't forgotten, this was only a secondary premise anyway. You latched onto it and sidetracked the discussion into a focus on this claim to draw attention away from the refutation of your other claim about Rev. 22:18-19. It was clearly shown in that discussion that to be "in violation" of those verses, as you claimed concerning Masons, they would have to be trying to make this ritual, in sum or in part, a part of the Scrtiptural account from which it derived.

Since it has clearly been shown that Masons are not trying to insert this into any book of the canon, your "premise," whatever it was, has not been supported in any way.

And Mackey's statement also applies in refuting your secondary argument. Since the REAL issue of Rev. 22:18-19 has to do with making something out to be Scripture that is not; since Masons clearly have not been trying to do that with anything in the Hiram legend; and since your whole issue has to do with whether Masons consider it historical or not:

Mackey's point applies--the historicity of the legend is irrelevant to the ultimate claim you were making about Masons being "guilty of violating Rev. 22:18-19."

Freemasonry doesn't care where its adherents spend eternity.

Of course "Freemasonry" doesn't care about this issue or anything else. "Freemasonry" is not a sentient being capable of compassion or any other emotion.

But you have a LONG way to go to try to prove "Freemasons" don't care. A Mason at my last appointed church was one who cared deeply. He had a Buddhist doctor, and kept witnessing to him about Jesus. He would talk about it once in awhile with me, asking me to pray for his doctor, and to pray for his efforts to witness to him.

And if I were still in the upstate, I would have been driving the hour-long trip to Seneca to go witness to the brother of a member of the church which was my first appointment. The man's wife committed suicide while I was there, and I had the opportunity to plant some seeds, the first of which was to offer grace by not automatically condemning anyone who commits suicide, which used to be fairly common. Wise choice, too, because he had been devastated years earlier when a pastor preached a condemning sermon at the funeral of his best friend, who had also taken his own life.

As it was, he was in good hands, the current pastor there, and a church member (who happens to be a Mason) were both witnessing to him. I just got an email this morning that he had died, and that the funeral was at 2:00. As I read the email, it was just after 9:00 and I knew it would be a four-hour trip. At first I didn't figure on going, but the Lord has a way of changing our minds, and I became convinced I should go. One of the best decisions I made lately, because I got to talk to this church member, who was telling me the details of Sid's conversion. Neither he nor the pastor knew the other was coming and witnessing to him, which was unusual, since they both were there very frequently. Then one day they both showed up at the same time, and Sid simply asked them, "What do I need to say?" The minister talked briefly, guiding him, but before he said very much, Sid held up both hands, the minister took one hand and the church member took the other, and he began praying, and gave his heart to the Lord right there in that moment.

I had no part in all that, but I sure did enjoy hearing the testimony first-hand. I went mainly because I knew what my ministry had meant to his sister (she had been the first one to find his wife right after she shot herself, and was still living. 911 was the first number she called, I was the second.) My only part in all this was, to take off on short notice, drive four hours for a 30-minute service, spend 10-15 minutes talking with family members and others, and drive the four hours back home. Why do you think I would do that, Michael? Maybe it was because I didn't care?

I hate to rain on your parade here, but you seem to have picked the wrong timing for this particular comment. The church member I spoke of, who was, coincidentally, a Mason, seems to have cared very much. Others who were there today told me he or his wife or both of them were over there every day from the time he was in the hospital. He would often stay there with him overnight and sleep in the recliner in the room. And from what he shared with me, he was waiting for every opportunity to present itself, looking for an opening in the conversation, because he was worried about his spiritual condition. And one of the first things Sid had told him was, he pretty much believed that when you die, you get put in the ground, and that's it. So it was not an easy field to plow, but he was faithful to it and stayed with it, knowing the time was drawing short. He was asked at one point to "prove" his claim there is a God. He eventually convinced him by pointing out how many people there were who came visiting him, and showing the love of God to him, and that became a turning point.

Having planted a seed while there, I at first regretted not taking the time off to get up there while he was in the hospital. But it's like Paul said about one planting, another watering, and God giving the increase. I rejoice that someone was there to supply what was needed for the seed to come to fruition in time.

Yeah, G19, you were right, I had something to say on that one. Some pretty timely stuff going on even as the accusation was being made--or actually, before it.

Since the Masonic Order encourages its members to follow their own religious faith, they imply that all religions are equally valid and lead to God. Technically, that would be right, but the question is what position will the Mason be in when he stands before Him? In other words, "in Christ" or "not in Christ" that is the ultimate question.

Well, the thread asks about the compatibility with Christianity. So arguably, you raise issues that are beyond the scope of the thread. And in truth, it is beyond the scope of Masonry. Masonry is concerned with a person's moral development, and the morality it teaches cuts across the lines that would otherwise divide. Besides, it has already been shown that the command that Jesus said was the most important in man's relation to man, namely the Golden Rule, is taught in Masonry, it is, naturally, taught in Christianity, and it is taught in other religions.

The Lodge would do a far better service to its members by pointing to the source of eternal life, rather than the origin of their lesson of immortality. For it is going to be a rude awakening for any soul that stands on Judgment Day immortal, yet remain eternally separated from God.

Masonry makes no claim to be the proper venue for teaching the way to that eternity with God. In fact, everywhere I look I find Masonry clearly stating otherwise. But despite that not being their territory, they do have a part in other ways. After all, Ephesians 5 establishes it:

"For of this you can be sure: NO immoral, impure, or greedy person--such a man is an idolater--has any inheritance in the Kingdom of Christ and of God." (v. 5)

Masonry teaches principles of morality;
morality is a requirement for entry into the kingdom;
therefore Masonry plays their part.

I know, I know, you've got your faith construct in place and will categorically deny this:

EVEN THOUGH it's PAUL who says this, NOT me, NOT Masonry. The fact is, if morality is a requirement, and if Paul says under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that it is a requirement--which he clearly DOES in this verse--then naturally it IS a requirement.

Just ONCE I'd like to see you deal with what the Scripture SAYS on such issues, rather than simply posting the "faith alone" verses as if you thought we had never seen them, and as if you thought by posting them you had somehow explained verses like the one above, or like Hebrews 12:14, or verses like Revelation 21:27.

And before you take it in the direction of imputation, I'll give you a hint: imputation ain't what Paul is talking about here.

They just want to teach the lesson of the Ancient Mysteries, which is the immortality of the soul.

You forgot "and the resurrection of the body." You also forget, when Masonry talks about origins in the Ancient Mysteries, they pattern it after Augustine, who says that there has never been but one religion taught since the very beginning, and he also says that this religion taught between Adam and Noah, began to be called Christianity after the Incarnation.

Seems to me it would be an important thing to remember, that Masonry bases what it says about origins in the Ancient Mysteries, on what a prominent Christian teacher also taught concerning those origins.

 

[Rev Wayne]

The Lodge would do a far better service to its members by pointing to the source of eternal life, rather than the origin of their lesson of immortality.

You’re saying it doesn’t?

“Your trust being in God, your faith is well founded.”

You know where it comes from, right? Is God the source or not?


From “A Memorial Service Program,” Texas:

We have assembled in this sacred hour for the purpose of rendering the last loving tribute of reverence and esteem and to pledge anew our fidelity to the blessed memory of those, our beloved Brethren who since last we met on a similar occasion, have answered the last roll call, the final summons, marching out of the night to the glories of an undying day.
"What doth the Lord require of thee, 0 man, but 'to do justly and love mercy and walk humbly with thy God.'" "And one of the elders sayeth unto me: 'Rejoice ye and be exceedingly glad-behold the Lion of the tribe of Judah hath prevailed to open the book and to loosen the seven seals thereof," reminding us of two of the great symbolisms of Masonry - the white lamb-skin apron and the sprig of acacia.
The white apron, representative of the lamb that taketh away the sin of the world; emblematical of the sweet peace of God's divine love, which passeth all human understanding and in the portrayal of the Resurrection of the body, the immortality of the soul and the life everlasting, and symbolical of the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man, and that the good Mason is constantly reminded by the ever living sprig of Faith in the merits of the Lion of the tribe of Judah which strengthens him with confidence and composure to look forward to a blessed immortality and doubts not but that in the glorious morn of the Resurrection, his body will rise and become as incorruptible as his soul; and thus death is not a cessation of life, but only an incident in it.

Did they get “the source of eternal life” right with this?:


Faith in the merits of the Lion of the tribe of Judah which strengthens him with confidence and composure to look forward to a blessed immortality

Did they get “the source of eternal life” right with this?:

the lamb that taketh away the sin of the world;

 

[O.F.F.]

You’re saying it doesn’t?

“Your trust being in God, your faith is well founded.”

You know where it comes from, right? Is God the source or not?

From “A Memorial Service Program,” Texas . . .

NO the Third Degree in Masonry, which we were discussing, makes no mention of the source of Eternal Life.
“Your trust being in God, your faith is well founded.”

Trust in, and faith founded on, what God? Since Freemasonry accepts men of all faith backgrounds, unless it is implied that all gods of these faiths are one in the same, which specific god are they referring to in this statement? Is it Allah, Buddha, Baal, Vishnu "higher power" or which other deity fabricated by Masons of various religions?

“A Memorial Service Program, Texas . . ."

Again, we are talking about the Third Degree of Masonry, not the words of a funeral service found in Texas.

 

[O.F.F.]

Masonry teaches principles of morality;
morality is a requirement for entry into the kingdom;
therefore Masonry plays their part.

Can Masonic Morality Make One Right with God? (Part 1)

And, just in case that wasn't enough to convince you:

Can Masonic Morality Make One Right with God? (Part 2)

 

[Rev Wayne]

NO the Third Degree in Masonry, which we were discussing, makes no mention of the source of Eternal Life.
“Your trust being in God, your faith is well founded.”

Well, you’re O.F.F. and running. One down, two to go:

Did they get “the source of eternal life” right with this?:


Faith in the merits of the Lion of the tribe of Judah which strengthens him with confidence and composure to look forward to a blessed immortality

Did they get “the source of eternal life” right with this?:

the lamb that taketh away the sin of the world;

Strange, how did you see the first one and miss these two? Or did you simply have no answer?

You really need to stop pretending that the only thing you need to respond to are the questions for which you have ready answers. You're fooling no one here, I'm sure they all read ALL that gets posted, and they can see how much you gloss over in pretense.

 

[Albion]

Can Masonic Masonry make one right with God?

Hard to say when put that way, but I do know Masons whose Christian faith was undoubtedly strengthened and reinvigorated by their Masonic experience.

As always, your only point is that Masonry was not right for YOU. It is not wrong for other Christians.

 

[Rev Wayne]

And, just in case that wasn't enough to convince you:

Convince me? Why do you feel the need to “convince” me of this or anything close to it? Where on earth did you get any notion that I was claiming "Masonic morality can make one right with God?"

Did I not clearly spell it out for you, that the means of salvation is not within the province of the Lodge? Yes, actually I did, it’s right there:

Masonry makes no claim to be the proper venue for teaching the way to that eternity with God. In fact, everywhere I look I find Masonry clearly stating otherwise.

Even so, there are still expressions within Masonry where any Christian can clearly see reference to Jesus, and is certainly reminded of the way, even though Masonry does not attempt to teach the way. That was the sole purpose of posting the Christian references, to show that the neutral ground on which Masonry teaches, presents no conflict or incompatibility when viewed from the Christian standpoint.

Strange--I address issues of compatibility, you address issues that are so far beyond "compatibility" that you aren't even in the same discussion. Just because I reference places in Masonry where the Christian may see references to Christ, does not mean I am suggesting that "Masonry teaches Christianity," or whatever false notion you are making of what I post.

Perhaps if I put it in brief terms of your post/my response, it will be helpful for you.

Your post: "Since the Masonic Order encourages its members to follow their own religious faith, they imply that all religions are equally valid and lead to God."
My Response: "you raise issues that are beyond the scope of the thread. And in truth, it is beyond the scope of Masonry."

Your suggestion that Masonry teaches anything about where "all roads lead" is in error. Masonry neither prescribes nor proscribes any specific path, and leaves issues of seeking personal salvation up to the individual.

My Post: Masonry teaches principles of morality;
morality is a requirement for entry into the kingdom;
therefore Masonry plays their part.
Your Reply: Can Masonic Morality Make One Right with God?

Your reply is asinine, and proves your misapprehension of what I said. Morality is a requirement as a part of all that is included in one’s salvation. If it were not, the clear statements of Ephesians 5:5, Hebrews 12:14, and Revelation 21:27, concerning morality, would be meaningless.

Since it clearly IS a requirement in the process of salvation, and since it clearly IS the main thrust of Masonry, then as I said, Masonry plays its part, because Masonry teaches one component of the total package.

But you are being disingenuous with your reply, because I clearly said nothing about “Masonic morality making one right with God.” I clearly stated that morality is ONLY A PART, and that Masonry teaches only that PART.

You are deliberately misrepresenting what I post, it’s happened more than once in just the last couple of exchanges, and I DO NOT APPRECIATE IT.

 

[O.F.F.]

But you are being disingenuous with your reply, because I clearly said nothing about “Masonic morality making one right with God.” I clearly stated that morality is ONLY A PART, and that Masonry teaches only that PART.

You are deliberately misrepresenting what I post, it’s happened more than once in just the last couple of exchanges, and I DO NOT APPRECIATE IT.

As one who is supposed to be a pastor, you got a lot of nerve yelling at me and making false accusations of being disingenuous. You know darn well, unless you attended an unorthodox seminary, you were trained that biblically; it takes sinless perfection to enter the kingdom of God. And, since no one can meet such a holy standard but God, He chose His sinless Son as a suitable, substitute-sacrifice. Jesus became the perfect Lamb slain on behalf of all who will believe in His finished work at Calvary.

God made the provision to meet His requirement of absolute holiness to enter heaven. It is the imputed righteousness of He who exercised perfect morality that gets one into heaven. Not one ounce of morality from me, you or any other Mason will ever qualify as "a requirement for salvation." Therefore, Freemasonry is wrong, and you too stand guilty of heresy by posting false teaching that the morality of man is a requirement for salvation.

You even contradict your own denomination's position as to what is required to be saved:

By grace through faith

Salvation cannot be earned. There's no behavior, no matter how holy or righteous, by which we can achieve salvation. Rather, it's the gift of a gracious God.

By grace we mean God's extraordinary love for us. In most of life we're accustomed to earning approval from others. This is true at school, at work, in society, even at home—to a degree. We may feel that we have to act "just so" to be liked or loved. But God's love, or grace, is given without any regard for our goodness. It's unmerited, unconditional, and unending love.

As we come to accept this love, to entrust ourselves to it, and to ground our lives in it, we discover the wholeness that God has promised. This trust, as we've seen, is called faith. God takes the initiative in grace; but only as we respond through faith is the change wrought in us.

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.

How are We Saved?

The UMC position on the matter is even more formalized in their Confession of Faith:

Article IX—Justification and Regeneration

We believe we are never accounted righteous before God through our works or merit, but that penitent sinners are justified or accounted righteous before God only by faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

Article X—Good Works

We believe good works are the necessary fruits of faith and follow regeneration but they do not have the virtue to remove our sins or to avert divine judgment. We believe good works, pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, spring from a true and living faith, for through and by them faith is made evident. (emphasis added)

Article IX and X of the UMC Confession of Faith

As the UMC points out, and the Bible confirms, "good works" are the necessary fruits, or evidence, of faith -- NOT a requirement for salvation. If the fruit isn't evident in ones life, then that is a sign that one is either not saved, or they're a believer in a backsliding state; which hopefully is a temporary condition. For the lack of such evidence in ones life, is what Ephesians 5:5, Hebrews 12:14, and Revelation 21:27 mean, when they say such will not enter the kingdom of God.

You can come back here and attempt to twist this to fit your heretical Masonic Gospel all you want, but you know perfectly well that the morality Freemasonry speaks of for Men of the Apron, is not the morality of Jesus Christ, which is required for salvation.

 

[G19]

It's tough when one's 'ministry' is based on bad scholarship, rumor, and superstition. Even when faced with gross error, you have to maintain the facade of righteousness.

That's pretty sad.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Not one ounce of morality from me, you or any other Mason will ever qualify as "a requirement for salvation."

Like I said already, Mike, I have nothing to say to you, and will accept no comment from you until you have replied to my question. I accept the same basis of faith as you do. But unlike you, I read the Scriptures not for what I WANT to see in them, but for exactly what they say. So, I simply ask you again to respond to the verses for which so far you have had little or no comment:

Ephesians 5:5
Hebrews 12:14
Revelation 21:27

And before you go the route of imputation once again, I will add one more passage:

Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him.
Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God. In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother. (1 John 3:4-10)

John is not talking about imPUTation, he is talking about imPARTation.

As the UMC points out, and the Bible confirms, "good works" are the necessary fruits, or evidence, of faith -- NOT a requirement for salvation. If the fruit isn't evident in ones life, then that is a sign that one is either not saved, or they're a believer in a backsliding state; which hopefully is a temporary condition. For the lack of such evidence in ones life, is what Ephesians 5:5, Hebrews 12:14, and Revelation 21:27 mean, when they say such will not enter the kingdom of God.

First you say they are the "necessary" fruits, then you turn around and say they are not "required"--did you miss something here, or how do you not get it that if something is necessary that means it is required?

And how do you not get it that WITHOUT it--as specifically stated in the passages cited--there is no entrance?

And will you now look at what John says and spin that one away too? Or will you open your eyes and look at it and see that John states it and means it just as he says it--that THIS is how we tell between one who is righteous and one who is not--he who is righteous "practices righteousness." One who is not, does not practice righteousness.

As one who is supposed to be a pastor, you got a lot of nerve yelling at me and making false accusations of being disingenuous.

As one who is supposed to be a Christian, you have a lot of nerve criticizing me for doing the same things you do. After all, from you I've seen capitals, exclamation points, bold print, underlining, large fonts, colored fonts, and every other kind of emphatic marking you can name; and I have been called disingenous and worse more times than I can count. I've taken it for quite some time, can't you endure it even once?

And really, you are saying no different than I have already said, you are just re-framing it as if you think doing so will remove the actuality of what is said.

And it's no different from what you quoted of Methodist theology. For instance:

We believe good works, pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, spring from a true and living faith, for through and by them faith is made evident.

"Through them and by them faith is made evident." And if they are NOT there? Then the absence of them is the evidence that there is no "true and living faith."

Which is exactly what I've been saying when I speak of these things being required. If they are not there, then the faith is not genuine, hence the salvation is not genuine. Therefore, it is REQUIRED that there be the evidence showing it is genuine.

Your insistence of the faith coming beforehand is irrelevant and meaningless to anything I have said, because as Christians who both profess the Nicene Creed, I took it for granted it was not necessary for me to remind you of what I already knew.

It is completely facetious, inane, and disingenuous of you to pursue this in the manner in which you have, because you already know my position, and thus you already know that I too hold to faith first.

But that does not change the fact that I also believe in the evidence that follows. Just because I insist that the evidence must follow does not mean that I am putting it before faith. At that point, your accusations miss the mark.

But on further examination, I must ask you: do you TRULY believe that the evidence of faith must follow? You don't really seem to believe it at all, because every time I point out that these things must follow, and that the Bible insists that sanctification and purity are requirements for entry, you totally reject it. So does that mean that you don't believe anything is required in that regard? Does that mean you can just go out here and live your life any way you choose after coming to Christ, and it doesn't matter? After all, that's exactly what you're saying if you reject the idea that it is required. If purity is NOT required, then logically impurity would have to be okay.

We don't live out the Christian walk, after all, in a vacuum. These things don't just take place automatically, otherwise Paul would not be admonishing us to "walk circumspectly," because walking circumspectly, according to the paradigm you seem to be laying out for us, would be so automatic you would be so far above temptation you wouldn't have to worry about it.

In other words, with what you suggest, the only thing possible as a description of our walk would be one of two extremes: either we are so far sinless as to be living in an ivory tower where no earthly desire or pleasure would ever tempt us; or the antinomian route, being so carefree and heedless in the things we do as to give no credible witness we were ever changed at all.

I was saved from 14 years of a drugged hell, and I have not gone back to it, because I am kept by the power of God. There have been temptations, and in the early days there was one incidence of slipping back, but it was accompanied by such condemnation and self-reprehension that it has remained an isolated incident. But the choices are still out there every day, and we are all vulnerable, I still pray for grace because I know I am in need of it. And I consider it a part of that purity to which I am called. But unlike you, I do not call it "works," I call it surrender.

You can come back here and attempt to twist this to fit your heretical Masonic Gospel all you want, but you know perfectly well that the morality Freemasonry speaks of for Men of the Apron, is not the morality of Jesus Christ, which is required for salvation.

Morality is morality, Mike, twist my words around every direction you wish, post all the pretend-quotes of Methodism you wish, as if I don't know the theology at least as well as you do.

As I've pointed out to you before, this is in essence a Christian point of debate and not Masonic. You come fully on the side of a Luther who would cast the epistle of James aside as "strawy," while I come fully on the side of James, whose ideas on salvation by faith are more in line with what the rest of Scripture has to say about the finer points of morality still being applicable.

And yes, you ARE being disingenous, because you still keep characterizing my points in your accusations in terms of "good works," while I never make any points in which "good works" plays a part. Check back all through the thread if you wish, you will find that I consistently speak of the requirements of sanctification and purity, not of "good works," and certainly not of good works coming before faith.

That has been a consistent spin of yours in trying to say I insist on "good works," when I never mention them at all. And since you will no doubt post some vehement denial of this, I simply point you once again to the same three verses to which I have referred most often.

Ephesians 5:5, which speaks of impurity;
Hebrews 12:14, which speaks of purity as a requirement for seeing the Lord;
Revelation 21:27, which says impurity will prevent one's entrance into heaven.

And when elaborating on any of these, I have consistently pointed out that it is very much in accord scripturally with what Jesus said about "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks."

Since I have consistently presented this in the manner in which I have, I still maintain what I have stated, you are most definitely being disingenous in presenting your criticisms of my postion as somehow insisting on "good works" before faith.

And now that I have pointed out what you already knew anyhow, or should have from the abundance with which I have had to present it, can I count on you from this point forward to drop the disingenous accusations about "good works before faith," since you and I both know and have known for some time, that is NOT my position?

 

[heart of peace]

There are so many pages to this thread that I will need some time to read through it all. Did anyone mention what happens when one gets to the 33rd degree? At that level, there are many anti-Christian activities. I think that initially freemasonry does not appear anti-Christian but in every sense of the word it is truly a wolf in sheep's clothing.

 

[Albion]

There are so many pages to this thread that I will need some time to read through it all. Did anyone mention what happens when one gets to the 33rd degree? At that level, there are many anti-Christian activities. I think that initially freemasonry does not appear anti-Christian but in every sense of the word it is truly a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Then, because you have said that these things are so, please explain--

1. What happens when one gets to the 33rd degree,

2. What those anti-Christian activities are,

3. What makes you say that freemasonry is "truly a wolf in sheep's clothing?" and

4. How you know that all this is true? You have never been a Mason, so it can't be from first-hand knowledge, so what then?

Thank you in advance for your follow-up. It is necessary to ask for it, you see, because no one yet has offered any specific reason for believing the frequently-heard charge that Freemasonry and Christianity are incompatible. Also, when asked for substantiation, other posters who have warned against Freemasonry have then refused to say what evidence they can point to in support of their claims.

 

[Rev Wayne]

There are so many pages to this thread that I will need some time to read through it all. Did anyone mention what happens when one gets to the 33rd degree? At that level, there are many anti-Christian activities. I think that initially freemasonry does not appear anti-Christian but in every sense of the word it is truly a wolf in sheep's clothing.

The 33rd? Oh, you mean that one degree that no one petitions for, but only enters by invitation. I'll have to look into that one, so if there's anything to the claim, I can turn it down if ever asked.

I have never seen any "anti-Christian" activities in Masonry. I'm with Albion on this one, what specifically do you mean by that?

 

[heart of peace]

Albion:

You do not know me or my knowledge. You just assumed. I was a part of OES (no longer do I have anything to do with it) and I have several members who are/were masons. I would prefer to respect confidences but a family member who is a mason revealed certain aspects to their experience as a mason and some of the papers this person has to write for membership. Some of the things that were revealed to me include engaging in astral projection, which clearly has its roots in the occult movement.

So, did anyone mention in this thread anything about the 33rd degree?

Anyway, I said that initially it appears compatible. That is why some Christians will defend it. I disagree with it, but that is my opinion in the matter. And isn't that the point to online discussions? Or are you saying that I don't have a right to express my dissenting opinion from yours?

 

[Rev Wayne]

The very spirit of all of our lectures proves conclusively that when they were formulated they were designed to teach pure trinitarian Christianity, and while the Jewish scriptures did forecast the intermediary of a Christos, as all the ancient heathen mysteries did also, yet Jesus Christ as shown and demonstrated in the writings of the New Testament, was not understood by the Jewish writers of the Old Testament, nor by but very few of that faith since. The first three degrees taken in connection with the Holy Royal Arch, as they have always been with our Brethren of England, certainly show pure Christianity, as taught throughout the writings of the New Testament scriptures. (Mackey, History of Freemasonry, p. 1769)

To this statement a reply was half-attempted, actually more retort than reply:

Masonic ritual issued by Grand Lodge authority is the only official documentation that applies here. Your view, and the opinion of Masonic scholars, is irrelevant if what you, or they say, cannot be substantiated by Masonic ritual.

Well, Mike, you were either being facetious with that remark, or you simply did not think it through. Since the point Mackey made was that the lectures “when they were formulated” were designed to teach “Trinitarian Christianity,” and since no one agrees on exactly when they were formulated, it would be pure guesswork to try to determine exactly which Grand Lodge documentation of it would be the correct one. But even if we can’t determine whether they truly did teach Trinitarian Christianity “when they were formulated,” one thing we can do is try to determine whether Trinitarian Christianity was still being taught at the time Mackey made this statement. The quote from Mackey is from his history written in the late 1800’s, so the “official documentation that applies” then, would logically be a Masonic manual from the period that substantiates what Mackey says. There are several which do, actually, and among them is The Masonic Manual, by Jonathan Ashe:

The nations had given themselves up to the grossest idolatry; Solomon had fallen, and the service of the true God was effaced from the memory of those who had yielded themselves to the bondage of sin. In order that mankind might be preserved from this deplorable state of darkness and destruction and as the old law was dead and become rottenness, a new doctrine and new precepts were wanting to give the key of salvation, by means of which men might find the ways of the Deity. In this woeful dilemma the great Father of all, commiserating the miseries of the world, sent His only Son, who was innocence itself, to teach the doctrines of eternal life. By Him man was raised from the death of sin unto the life of righteousness, being lifted from the valley of death to the region of hope; not only working for us this redemption, but granting us the covenant of regeneration;— whence we are capable to become the children of the Divinity, and inheritors of Heaven. Masons, describing the deplorable state of religion under the Jewish law, speak in figures:—"Her tomb was in the rubbish and filth cast out from the temple, and the Acacia spread its branches over her monument." The Greek name for innocence being similar, implies that the corruptions which crept into the old law had hid Religion from those who sought her, and she was only to be found with innocence, under the banner of Messiah, "the tree of life;" and in regard to Masons themselves, it signified that they ought to be distinguished as true Acacians, or innocent people. The acquisition of the doctrine of redemption is expressed in the typical character of Huramen, the Greek for "I have found,"' and by the applications of that name with Masons it is implied that we have discovered the knowledge of God and His salvation, and have been redeemed from the sin of death, and the sepulchre of pollution and unrighteousness. Thus the Master Mason represents a man under the Christian doctrine, saved from the grave of iniquity, and raised to the life and grace of salvation. As the great testimonial that we are risen from the state of corruption, we bear the emblem of the Holy Trinity, as the insignia of our vows, and of the origin of the Master's order. (p. 145-46)

Others with very similar content, and from a similar time-frame, would be:

Samuel Coles, The Freemasons’ Library and General Ahiman Rezon, p. 182.
Jeremiah How, The Freemason’s Manual, or Illustrations of Masonry, p. 139.
Hutchinson, Lecture IX, “The Master Mason’s Order,” The Spirit of Masonry.

But of course, since your restriction to “official documentation” is a false one anyway, and since you frequently quote from other Masonic sources both here and on your website, it will give us a better idea of just how much this has seen use in Masonry, to look at other sources where it can be found as well:

John A. Heraud, The Monthly Magazine, Vol. III (Jan.-June 1840), p. 54 (cites Ashe’s Manual).
Mackey, Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, p. 402 (under “Hutchinson”).
Oliver, Star in the East: Showing the Analogy Which Exists Between the Lectures of Freemason, the Mechanism of Initiation Into its Mysteries, and the Christian Religion, p. 56.
C. James Todd, “Uniformity of Ritual,” The New England Freemason, p. 209 (cites Hutchinson).
Roscoe Pound, Lectures on the Philosophy of Freemasonry, p. 52 (cites Hutchinson).
Llewelyn Wood Longstaff, The Kingston Masonic Annual, p. 26 (reprint of the C. James Todd article).
Mackey, Symbolism of Freemasonry, p. 39 (cites Hutchinson).

 

[G19]

Albion:

You do not know me or my knowledge.

Well, after reading your post I know that you have absolutely no knowledge of freemasonry.

I was a part of OES (no longer do I have anything to do with it) and I have several members who are/were masons.

So what? Typical conspiracy BS. From the rest of your post I can tell that you were NOT an OES and probably don't even know a real live mason.

I would prefer to respect confidences but a family member who is a mason revealed certain aspects to their experience as a mason and some of the papers this person has to write for membership. Some of the things that were revealed to me include engaging in astral projection, which clearly has its roots in the occult movement.

That would be funny if it weren't completely delusional.

There is nothing in the above paragraph that even remotely resembles the truth. You're way out there along with David Iche's reptilian overlords and alien abductions.

Anyway, I said that initially it appears compatible. That is why some Christians will defend it. I disagree with it, but that is my opinion in the matter. And isn't that the point to online discussions? Or are you saying that I don't have a right to express my dissenting opinion from yours?

I'm saying you don't have a right to spread lies. If you are serious about what you posted then I can tell you that you have been deceived. The masons on this forum are very informed and would be more than happy to teach you the truth about freemasonry in order to help you use reason and rationality rather than gossip and rumor.

Anti masonic ministries prey upon ignorance. Their tools are manipulation, fear, and superstition. They don't like you to think for yourself or use your God-given intellect to subject their arguments to careful scrutiny. However, if they make you feel comfortable and sleep better at night, then by all means, snuggle up to em and check your brain at the door.

 

[Rev Wayne]

There is nothing in the above paragraph that even remotely resembles the truth. You're way out there along with David Iche's reptilian overlords and alien abductions.

Actually, it's not so terribly far out as that; but it is something other than Freemasonry. There is no astral projection that I've ever seen or heard of in Eastern Star. It sounds a lot more like Golden Dawn, which a lot of people mistakenly take for a concordant body of Freemasonry. I can assure you it is not.

As for writing papers, that would not be a part of the Blue Degrees, but this is something that is a part of some Masonic bodies. The Allied Masonic Degrees, for example, is an invitational research body for members of both Scottish and York Rite Masonry, who have presentation of papers as one of their requirements. But the papers are not anything way out, nor is anything that would take place in their meetings.

The big difference in such groups and Freemasonry is, in general they are highly esoteric. While there are certainly Masons who have an interest in some esoteric aspects of the Craft, that interest does not go to the extremes of these pseudo-Masonic groups. And in fact, esoteric topics really seem to have a limit even among those who show interest in such things.

I just joined the research arm of our Grand Lodge, and attended my first meeting yesterday morning. There was a brief time toward the end of the meeting in which the floor was opened for anyone who had any particular item or article or book of interest to bring to our attention. The President of the group brought up one book about legislator Mendel Rivers, written by his wife. Afterward, a gentleman stood to be recognized and announced that if anyone would be interested in the esoteric, he would recommend a recent book written about Albert Pike. A couple of smiles were flashed from one member to another around the room, and a couple of comments made along the nature of "If you can understand him." He had his few words to say, and then the President spoke up and just said flat out, "I don't like Albert Pike," shared a few more words beyond that, and the discussion was over. That was the point at which I thought, "Man, this will be a better group than I thought it would be!"

I get the idea, too, from the fact that Pike's far-out esoteric finds a general rejection in Masonry, given the number of Masons who have no interest in Pike and who have not read his writing at all. The same general rejection exists when it comes to Masonry in general in relation to such pseudo-Masonic groups who would be inclined to engage in "astral projection" and the like. The response to suggestions about these groups is usually, "they are not recognized by regular Freemasonry." I guess what I'm saying beyond that is, there is good reason why they are NOT recognized bodies and went out on their own in the first place. The reason is, true Freemasonry does not place the same emphasis on the very thing they make their focal point of interest, nor do Masons generally take that same degree of interest in esoterica.